Which translation do you use and why?

[PaladinValer]

That translation was never sanctioned by your Vatican Catholic Church. It doesn't have the Deuterocanonical books in their proper places; it separates them as if they are not a part of the OT (they are).

 

[Borealis]

Borealis, Henry VIII was no anti-Vatican Catholic. He demanded a celibate clergy (Archbishop Cranmer literally had to hide his wife), believed that the Deuterocanon was Scripture, and said that Latin had to be the language in all Masses. Hardly anti-Vatican Catholic.

James was.

In addition, the NAB is the authorized translation for Vatican Catholics in the US.

Authorized by the Vatican? No.

 

[UseMeLord]

I use the NIV, just bacause I understand the language better, but I also refer back to the KJV and my HarperCollins Study Bible.

 

[Lynn73]

I use the KJV. I don't feel comfortable with anything else.

http://www.av1611.org/kjv/knowkjv.html
http://www.av1611.org/kjv/knowkjv.html

 

[PaladinValer]

James was.

1. The KJV is far more high church/Anglo-Catholic than you think. James I snubbed the puritans, not gave them what they wanted (or actually, he did, but they thought the final product was blasphemous).
2. It didn't help that four Vatican Catholics tried to assassinate him now, did it? And you'll have to show how the king gave a nod to the masses to start a new wave of anti-VC protest. Not excusing what the masses did in return, but let's not simply assume he and he alone is to blame.

Authorized by the Vatican? No.

Perhaps not, but it is sanctioned by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, who had to get permission by the pope.

 

[Knowledge3]

I thought I made a post in here about 1611 KJV but I guess I can't find it. I am going to use the 1611 KJV from now on. I am progressing in the NIV and will start working on the study of the original 1611 KJV.

 

[nephilimiyr]

I mainly use the KJV but I also have a New English/Good news Bible.

Does anyone have any major objections to the Good news Bible?

Also, does anyone know of a good, non-biased website where they discuss this the various translations?

 

[TSIBHOD]

I mainly use the KJV but I also have a New English/Good news Bible.

Does anyone have any major objections to the Good news Bible?

Also, does anyone know of a good, non-biased website where they discuss this the various translations?

http://www.bible-researcher.com/versions.html

It discusses at some length most of the major translations. It may be what you're looking for. Some disagree that the site is unbiased, although I'm not sure why. It does have some opinions, but it's not overly biased, and I suppose if you think about it, everyone has some sort of bias.

 

[greeker57married]

I like the ASV and the NASV. Most conservative scholars a few years ago believed the ASV was the most accurate version of the Bible. But of course this is according to those who accept the critical text. If you do not accep t the critical text then you will probably be KJV only.

God Bless
Greeker

 

[brandplucked]

They are accepted, not authorized. Again, not authorized. Only the Vulgate, the Latin translation done by St. Jerome that includes the deuterocanonicals because the Church stated they were sacred scripture, the Bible that was used by virtually all Christians in the West for centuries until the Church started making translations in regional languages (starting with German), the Bible that was translated using sources that weren't available in the late 16th century, the Bible that the KJV translators cribbed from to check their own work, was authorized.

Hi Borealis, there is no "The" Vulgate. There are several of them and they all disagree with each other as do ALL Catholic bible versions. The Clementine Vulgate includes 1 John 5:7. Here is the site:http://vulsearch.sourceforge.net/html/index.html


7*Quoniam tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in cælo*: Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus*: et hi tres unum sunt.

As for the 'missing verses' in the Psalm...perhaps you should read them again, assuming you've actually read them. There's nothing in the (not authorized) Douay-Rheims Psalms that isn't in the (not authorized) NAB.

Huh, sorry Bor, but Jerome did NOT include the extra 6 verses all placed into verse 3 of Psalm 14. It is Psalm 13 in your Latin copies. Jerome's Vulgate is different from other Vulgates. The Douay version includes these 6 extra verses and places them in Psalm 13:3, but other Vulgate versions do not.

You, as a Catholic, should know your own history a bit better. Here are some facts about your "The" Vulgate.

The Council of Trent met from 1545 to 1563 in an effort to rally the forces of the Catholic church to combat what they considered the heresies of the Reformation and their Bibles.

The Catholic church decided that the Latin Vulgate should be their official bible and none other allowed. Problem was, even when they made this decree, there was no settled text or single Latin Vulgate considered authoritative. Their own language reveals this. Here is a quote taken from the Council of Trent's own decree issued in 1556 "Moreover, the same sacred and holy Synod,--considering that no small utility may accrue to the Church of God, IF IT BE MADE KNOWN WHICH OUT OF ALL THE LATIN EDITIONS, NOW IN CIRCULATION, of the sacred books, IS TO BE HELD AS AUTHENTIC,--ordains and declares, that the said old and vulgate edition, which, by the lengthened usage of so many years, has been approved of in the Church, be, in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions, held as authentic; and that no one is to dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever. Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,--in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, --wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,--whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,--hath held and doth hold." (end of quote)

A papal commission worked for many years after the Council of Trent, but was not able to produce an authentic edition. Pope Sixtus took matters into his own hands and produced his own revision, which appeared in May 1590. The Sixtus Latin Vulgate was full of errors, "some two thousand of them introduced by the Pope himself" (Janus, The Pope and the Council, Boston: Roberts Brothers, 1870). In September 1590 the College of Cardinals stopped all sales and bought up and destroyed as many copies as possible. Another edition finally appeared in 1592, which became the official Bible of the Roman Catholic Church (H. Wheeler Robinson, Ancient and English Versions of the Bible, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1940, p. 120).


Now, Borealis, I just pointed out two examples (Ps. 13:3 and 1 John 5:7) of where your "approved" Catholic bibles differ from each other, but I have many more examples of where the TEXT of Douay differs radically from that of the NAB. It is interesting to note how most evangelicals today are so similar to Catholics. Neither group believes the Bible is the infallible, complete, inerrant words of God, and most modern evangelicals use bible versions that are strikingly similar to the varied Catholic versions out there.

When I say "The Bible IS infallible" I am referring to something that really exists on paper and ink; not to some mystical, non existent fantasy that differs from every other person's imaginary version.

In His sovereign grace,

Will

 

[christianmomof3]

We have lots of different versions of the Bible and several study Bibles. My favorites include the American Standard Version 1901 and the Recovery Version. The Recovery Version is an excellent footnoted study Bible. You can get a free Recovery Version New Testament at www.biblesforamerica.org and it is online at http://online.recoveryversion.org/ .

I think it is good to have different versions and the greek concordance to look at and the expanded version is really neat too.

 

[brandplucked]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgate
Vulgate Different versions

Jerome was responsible for at least three slightly different versions of the Vulgate. The Romana Vulgate was the first, but it was soon replaced by later versions except in Britain, where it continued to be used until the Norman Conquest in 1066. Next was the Gallicana Vulgate, which Jerome produced a few years later. It had some minor improvements, especially in the Old Testament. This became the standard Bible of the Roman Catholic Church a few decades after it was produced. The Hispana Vulgate is largely identical to the Romana except for the Book of Psalms, which Jerome re-translated from the Hebrew for this version.

At first, Jerome did not want to include the Deuterocanonical books. However, Augustine of Hippo argued for their inclusion, and Pope Damasus insisted on it, so these books were included and the Old Testament canon of the Vulgate.

After Jerome passed away however, these less than polished Old Latin renderings of the deuterocanonical books crept back into the officially sanctioned Vulgate, where their style can still be markedly distinguished from Jerome's.



Jerome's Vulgate of 405 A.D. - http://speedbible.com/vulgate/index.htm

The Romana Vulgate

The Gallicana Vulgate

The Hispana Vulgate

The Clementine Vulgate - http://vulsearch.sourceforge.net/html/index.html

The Sistine Vulgate

The Nova Vulgata - http://www.vatican.va/archive/bible/nova_vulgata/documents/nova-vulgata_index_lt.html

The Stuttgart Vulgate - http://www.LatinVulgate.com/



The Clementine Vulgate

This edition of the Vulgate is the one most familiar to Catholics who have lived prior to the reforms of Vatican II (which greatly reduced the role of Latin in liturgy). Over the course of the Middle Ages, the original Vulgate of Jerome had succumbed to the inevitable changes wrought by human error in the countless copying of the text in monasteries across Europe. No one copy was the same as the other as scribes added, removed, misspelled, or erroneously "corrected" verses in the Latin Bible. There were efforts to purify the corrupted text, notably by Alcuin of York in the early 9th century during the reign of Charlemagne. This correction was the basis for the Paris edition that was widely disseminated among the clergy in northwestern Europe. Though the advent of printing greatly reduced the potential of human error and increased the consistency and uniformity of the text, even the Vulgate as produced by Gutenberg was not entirely without mistakes as the several editions of the first printed work varied one from the other. After the Reformation, when the Church of Rome strove to counter the attacks and refute the doctrines of Protestantism, the Vulgate was reaffirmed in the Council of Trent as the sole, authorized text of the Bible. To reinforce this declaration, attempt was made to standardize the spelling and overall text of the Vulgate out of the countless editions, written and printed, produced during the Middle Ages. The actual first manifestation of this authorized text was sponsored by Pope Sixtus V (1585-90), known as the Sistine Vulgate, but was soon repudiated with the advent of the next pope, Clement VIII (1592-1605) who immediately ordered a new edition. This "Clementine" Vulgate of 1592 became the standard Bible text of the Catholic Church until the 1960's, when worship in vernacular languages was permitted.
[edit]


Nova Vulgata

This is another version of the Vulgate, called the Nova Vulgata which is currently the official Latin version published and approved by the Roman Catholic Church. It was commissioned in 1907 by Pope Pius X of the Benedictine Monastery in Rome, though many decades would pass before it would be completed. The main difference between the Nova Vulgata and the Vulgata Clementina is that it takes account of the modern textual criticism of recent years and in places reflects the changes in such texts as the United Bible Society's critical text. There are also a number of changes where the modern scholars felt that Jerome had failed to grasp the meaning of the original languages. The Nova Vulgata does not contain those books, found in some editions of the Vulgate, that are considered apocryphal by the Roman Catholic Church -- for example the 3rd and 4th Book of Ezra. Its spelling also reflects a more Classical leaning than the Renaissance spelling of the Clementine edition. The Nova Vulgata has not been widely embraced by conservative Catholics, as it sounds unfamiliar comapared to the Clementine, a fact common in the history of the Bible as new translations attempt to supplant older, more familiar ones.
[edit]


The Stuttgart Vulgate--http://www.LatinVulgate.com/

A final mention must also be made of an edition of the Vulgate published by the German Bible Society (Deutche Bibelgesellschaft), based in Stuttgart. This edition, Biblia Sacra Vulgata ( ISBN 3438053039 ), seeks to reproduce the original, pure Vulgate text that Jerome himself would have produced 1,600 years ago. The Stuttgart Vulgate is mainly a scholarly work, as it provides variant readings from the diverse manuscripts and printed editions of the Vulgate and comparison of different wordings in its footnotes.It attempts, through critical comparison of important, historical editions of the Vulgate, to achieve the original text, cleansed of the errors of a millennium and a half's time. The main critical source for the Stuttgart Vulgate is Codex Amiatinus, the highly-esteemed 8th century, one-volume manuscript of the whole Latin Bible produced in England, regarded as the best medieval witness to Jerome's original text. An important feature in the Stuttgart edition for those studying the Vulgate is the inclusion of all of Jerome's prologues to the Bible, the Testaments, and the major books and sections (Pentateuch, Gospels, Minor Prophets, etc.) of the Bible. This again mimics the style of medieval editions of the Vulgate, which were never without Jerome's prologues (revered as much a part of the Bible as the sacred text itself). In its spelling, the Stuttgart also retains a more medieval Latin orthography than the Clementine, using oe rather than ae, and having more proper nouns beginning with H (i.e., Helimelech instead of Elimelech). Though closer than the New Vulgate to the Clementine edition, the Stuttgart Vulgate still has enough divergence from the Clementine text to render it unfamiliar to accustomed Catholics. In addition, its sparse, unpunctuated text can be difficult to read, especially in verses with multiple clauses. Still, this edition's importance rests in the fact that it is the one most disseminated on the Internet, usually presented with Jerome's third version of the Psalms translated from the Hebrew, and often containing only the first three chapters of Daniel (stopping at the point where the deuterocanonical Song of the Three Holy Children would begin.)

 

[brandplucked]

We have lots of different versions of the Bible and several study Bibles. My favorites include the American Standard Version 1901 and the Recovery Version.

I think it is good to have different versions and the greek concordance to look at and the expanded version is really neat too.

Hi Christianmom, I am not picking on you specifically. Most who have posted here share the same views you express about having a multitude of different versions (none of which agree with any other in both texts and meaning in scores if not hundreds of verses), and most here do not believe the Bible IS (now, today, at this time) the infallible, inerrant and complete word of God. It is just a sign of the times we live in, and the Bible itself tells us this state of unbelief would come before the Second Advent of our Lord Jesus Christ in glory and judgment.

"There is No Infallible Bible"

Most Christians today do NOT believe The Bible IS the inerrant and infallible word of God.

This statement may seem shocking at first, and many pastors and Christians will give the knee-jerk reaction saying that they do believe the Bible IS the infallible word of God. However, upon further examimation, it will soon be discovered that when they speak of an inerrant Bible, they are not referring to something that actually exists anywhere on this earth. They are talking about a mystical Bible that exists only in their imaginations; and each person's particular version differs from all the others.

God said: "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD." Amos 8:11

The Lord Jesus Christ also stated in Luke 18:8 "Nevertheless, when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?"

The apostle Paul wrote concerning the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together unto Him: "Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, EXCEPT THERE COME A FALLING AWAY FIRST..." 2 Thessalonians 2:3

The number of professing Christians who do not believe in a "hold it in your hands and read" type of inspired Bible has steadily increased over the years since the flood of multiple-choice, conflicting and contradictory modern bible versions began to appear about 100 years ago.

The following testimonies about the character of Evangelicalism today were made by key Evangelical leaders. The irony is that these same men are part of the problem they lament. Each of these men has been guilty of endorsing modern bible versions.

"MORE AND MORE ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS HISTORICALLY COMMITTED TO AN INFALLIBLE SCRIPTURE HAVE BEEN EMBRACING AND PROPAGATING THE VIEW THAT THE BIBLE HAS ERRORS IN IT. This movement away from the historic standpoint has been most noticeable among those often labeled neo-evangelicals. This change of position with respect to the infallibility of the Bible is widespread and has occurred in evangelical denominations, Christian colleges, theological seminaries, publishing houses, and learned societies" (Harold Lindsell, former vice-president and professor Fuller Theological Seminary and Editor Emeritus of Christianity Today, The Battle for the Bible, 1976, p. 20).

"WITHIN EVANGELICALISM THERE ARE A GROWING NUMBER WHO ARE MODIFYING THEIR VIEWS ON THE INERRANCY OF THE BIBLE SO THAT THE FULL AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE IS COMPLETELY UNDERCUT. But is happening in very subtle ways. Like the snow lying side-by-side on the ridge, the new views on biblical authority often seem at first glance not to be very far from what evangelicals, until just recently, have always believed. But also, like the snow lying side-by-side on the ridge, the new views when followed consistently end up a thousand miles apart. What may seem like a minor difference at first, in the end makes all the difference in the world ... compromising the full authority of Scripture eventually affects what it means to be a Christian theologically and how we live in the full spectrum of human life" (Francis Schaeffer, The Great Evangelical Disaster, 1983, p. 44).

George Barna, president of Barna Research Group, reported that a study exploring the religious beliefs of the 12 largest denominations in America highlights the downward theological drift that has taken place in Christian churches in recent years. The study found that an alarmingly high number of church members have beliefs that fall far short of orthodox Christianity. ONLY 41 PERCENT OF ALL ADULTS SURVEYED BELIEVED IN THE TOTAL ACCURACY OF THE BIBLE. Only 40 percent believed Christ was sinless, and only 27 percent believed Satan to be real.

Of the Baptists surveyed 57 percent said they believed that works are necessary in order to be saved, 45 percent believed Jesus was not sinless, 44 percent did not believe that the Bible is totally accurate, and 66 percent did not believe Satan to be a real being. Barna said, "The Christian body in America is immersed in a crisis of biblical illiteracy."

What Christians really believe

A book by George A. Marsden, "Reforming Fundamentalism" quotes a survey of student belief at one of the largest Evangelical seminaries in the US. The poll indicated that 85% of the students "do not believe in the inerrancy of Scripture."

This book also lists the results of a poll conducted by Jeffery Hadden in 1987 of 10,000 American clergy. They were asked whether they believed that the Scriptures are the inspired and inerrant Word of God in faith, history, and secular matters: 95% of Episcopalians, 87% of Methodists, 82% of Presbyterians, 77% of American Lutherans, and 67% of American Baptists said "No."

The Barna Research Group reported in 1996 that among American adults generally: 58% believe that the Bible is "totally accurate in all its teachings"; 45% believe that the Bible is "absolutely accurate and everything in it can be taken literally."

"Support dropped between that poll and another taken in 2001. Barna reported in 2001 that: 41% of adults strongly agrees that the Bible is totally accurate in all that it teaches."

"Seminary students, future pastors and leaders in the church, show very little support for the inerrancy of the Bible position. What does that foretell about the future of the church? Undoubtedly, just as the poll results show in the 1996 - 2001 time frame, THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE BELIEVING THE BIBLE IS INERRANT WILL DROP."

http://www.worldviewweekend.com/articles/christianstudents.shtml

According to pollster George Barna:

* Less than 10 percent of American Christians actually posses a biblical worldview.

* Two out of three born-again believers assert there is no such thing as absolute moral truth.

Indeed, ideas do have consequences and today, we are reaping the consequences of a humanist worldview that is based on moral relativism that says there is no right or wrong, situational ethics; the end justifies the means, pluralism; all religions and ideas are equal, and tolerance; no one is to speak from a worldview based on moral absolutes. Unfortunately, the desire to be non-judgmental and tolerant is now a growing problem among Christian students, thus causing them to reject biblical truth.

The 1994 Churched Youth Survey conducted by the Barna Research Group for the Josh McDowell Ministry revealed the following facts through a scientifically designed process that randomly selected youth groups from thousands of churches throughout the U.S. and Canada. Over 3,700 youth were extensively and confidentially surveyed. The participants were youth involved in church activities and who overwhelmingly identified their parents as loving and their family experience as positive. This survey reveals the same troubling data as does the national PEERS test results.

The Churched Youth Survey revealed the following:

* Only 44% asserted that humans are capable of grasping the meaning of truth

* 57% could not even say that an objective standard of truth exists.

* 85% are likely to reason "just because it's wrong for you doesn't mean its wrong for me."

* Only 29% disagreed with the statement: "When it comes to matters of ethics, truth means different things to different people; no one can be absolutely positive they have the truth."

* Only 38% disagreed with the statement: "Nothing can be known for certain except the things that you experience in your life."

No absolute truth

The explosion of modern versions has encouraged the student to pick and choose his own preferred readings and has created a tendency to treat every Bible lightly and to look upon none as the final words of God.

Sam Kobia, Secretary, World Council of Churches, ENI 1-23-04:"Having a variety of translations available encourages the Bible to be read in a plural and ecumenical way. HAVING A VARIETY OF TRANSLATIONS AVAILABLE IS A PRECIOUS TOOL IN THE STRUGLE AGAINST RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALISM." (Caps are mine)

Here are some excerpts from a Wall Street Journal, editorial page, that appeared on the internet in July of 2004. It is an article written by Dale Buss, titled "Christian Teens? Not Very"

Mr. Buss writes: "It turns out that, while they may profess the faith and indeed love Jesus, the vast majority of Christian teenagers in this country actually hold beliefs fundamentally antithetical... Some leaders believe that mushy doctrine among the younger generation ranks as the No. 1 crisis facing American Christendom today."

"About one-third of American teenagers claim they're "born again" believers, according to data gathered over the past few years by Barna Research Group, the gold standard in data about the U.S. Protestant church, and 88% of teens say they are Christians. About 60% believe that "the Bible is totally accurate in all of its teachings." And 56% feel that their religious faith is very important in their life."

"Yet, Barna says, slightly more than half of all U.S. teens also believe that Jesus committed sins while he was on earth. About 60% agree that enough good works will earn them a place in heaven, in part reflecting a Catholic view, but also flouting Protestantism's central theme of salvation only by grace. About two-thirds say that Satan is just a symbol of evil, not really a living being. Only 6% of all teens believe that there are moral absolutes--and, most troubling to evangelical leaders, only 9% of self-described born-again teens believe that moral truth is absolute."

"When you ask even Christian kids, 'How can you say A is true as well as B, which is the antithesis of A?,' their typical response is, 'I'm not sure how it works, but it works for me,'" says George Barna, president of the Ventura, Calif.-based research company. "It's personal, pragmatic and fairly superficial."

Mr. Buss continues in his article: "Some commentators produce even more startling statistics on the doctrinal drift of America's youth. NINETY ONE PERCENT OF BORN AGAIN TEENAGERS surveyed a few years ago proclaimed that THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS ABSOLUTE TRUTH, says the Rev. Josh McDowell, a Dallas-based evangelist and author. More alarmingly, that number had risen quickly and steadily from just 52% of committed Christian kids in 1992 who denied the existence of absolute truth. A slight majority of professing Christian kids, Mr. McDowell says, also now say that the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ never occurred."

"There's a greater disconnect now than ever in the history of the church in America between what a Christian young person says they are and what they actually believe," says Mr. McDowell, who has ministered mainly to youth for more than 30 years. "Christianity is based on truth; Jesus said, 'I am the truth.' But you have an overwhelming majority even of Christian kids saying there is no absolute truth."

(To be continued)

Will K

 

[brandplucked]

A popular New Age religious site that endorses all religions of the world is called Religious Tolerance. Org. (http://www.religioustolerance.org)

This site has some interesting comments regarding the doctrine of the inerrancy of the Bible. They ask: Does inerrancy really matter?

"From one standpoint, this doctrine is of great importance, because it determines, at a very fundamental level, how Christians approach Scripture."

"To most conservative theologians Biblical inerrancy and inspiration are fundamental doctrines. Unless the entire Bible is considered to be the authoritative word of God, then the whole foundation of their religious belief crumbles. If the Bible contains some errors, then conservative Christians feel that they would have no firm basis on which to base their doctrines, beliefs, morality and practices. The books of the Bible must be either inerrant, or be devoid of authority."

They continue: "To most liberal theologians, the Bible is not inerrant. They believe that its books were obviously written and edited by human authors: with limited scientific knowledge, who promoted their own specific belief systems, who attributed statements to God that are immoral by today's standards, who freely incorporated material from neighboring Pagan cultures, who freely disagreed with other Biblical authors." (Religious Tolerance.org)

What I personally found of great interest is the following comment in the same article. The people at Religious Tolerance noted: "Some Fundamentalist and other Evangelical Christians CONSIDER A PARTICULAR ENGLISH TRANSLATION TO BE INERRANT. THIS IS PARTICULARLY TRUE AMONG LAY MEMBERS IN THEIR BELIEFS ABOUT THE KING JAMES VERSION. But most conservatives believe that inerrancy only applies to the original, autograph copies of the various books of the Bible. None of the latter have survived to the present day. We only have access to a variety of manuscripts which are copies of copies of copies...An unknown number of errors are induced due to Accidental copying errors by ancient scribes or intentional changes and insertions into the text, made in order to match developing theology." (Religious Tolerance.org)

Most Christians who do not believe the King James Bible or any other version are now the inerrant, infallible, complete and pure words of God, define Inerrancy in the following manner: “When all the facts become known, they will demonstrate that the Bible IN ITS ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHS and correctly interpreted is entirely true and never false in all it affirms, whether relative to doctrine or ethics or the social, physical or life sciences.” (P. D. Feinberg, s.v. “inerrancy, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology Inerrancy & the autographa.)

The usual tap dance performed by those who deny any Bible or any text in any language is now the inerrant, complete and infallible words of God is typified by the following quote: "Inerrancy applies to the autographa, not to copies or translations of Scripture. This qualification is made because we realize that errors have crept into the text during the transmission process. It is not an appeal to a “Bible which no one has ever seen or can see.” Such a charge fails to take into account the nature of textual criticism and the very high degree of certainty we possess concerning the original text of Scripture."

Well, this may sound very pious and good, but the undeniable fact is that this Christian scholar is talking about "a Bible no one has seen or can see".

As for this gentleman's "nature of textual criticism" is concerned, this so called "science" is a giant fraud and a pathetic joke played on the unsuspecting saints who might think these men actually know what they are doing. I have posted a series on the "science of textual criticism" that reveals the true nature of this hocus-pocus methodology of determining what God really said. You can see all parts of this study, starting with: http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/science.html

Here are some facts taken directly from the Holy Bible. You do not need to be a scholar or seminary student to get a grasp of what the Bible says about itself. You either believe God or you don't.

The Bible believer first looks to God and His word to determine what the Book says about itself. The Bible cannot be clearer concerning it's preservation:

Isaiah 40:8: "The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever."

Psalm 12:6-7: "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."

Psalm 138:2: "I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name."

Psalm 100:5: "For the LORD is good; his mercy is everlasting; and his truth endureth to all generations."

Psalm 33:11: "The counsel of the LORD standeth for ever, the thoughts of his heart to all generations."

Psalm 119:152, 160: "Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old that Thou hast founded them for ever. ... thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever."

Isaiah 59:21: "... My Spirit that is upon thee [Isaiah], and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever."

Matthew 5:17-18: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

Matthew 24:35: "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away."

John 10:35: "... the Scripture cannot be broken."

God has promised to preserve His wordS IN A BOOK here on this earth till heaven and earth pass away. He either did this and we can know where they are found today, or He lied and He lost some of them, and we can never be sure if what we are reading are the true words of God or not.

God's words are in a BOOK. Consider the following verses: "Now go, write it before them in a table, and NOTE IT IN A BOOK, that it may be for the time to come FOR EVER AND EVER." Isaiah 30:8

"Seek ye out of THE BOOK of the LORD, and READ: no one of these shall fail...for my mouth it hath commanded..." Isaiah 34:16

"Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of THE BOOK it is written of me, I delight to do thy will, O my God: yea, thy law is within my heart." Psalm 40:7-8

"And if any man shall take away from THE WORDS OF THE BOOK of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are WRITTEN IN THIS BOOK." Revelation 22:19

I believe the King James Bible is the inspired, inerrant and complete words of God for the following reasons:

#1 The Old Testament is based solely on the Hebrew Masoretic texts, in contrast to the NASB, NIV, ESV, Holman CSB and other modern versions that frequently reject the Hebrew readings. The Old Testament oracles of God were committed to the Jews and not to the Syrians, the Greeks or the Latins. "What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God." (Romans 3:1-2) The Lord Jesus Christ said not one jot or one tittle would pass from the law till all be fulfilled. - Matthew 5:18

See my two articles on how the modern versions all reject the Hebrew texts.

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/NIVapos.html http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/NIVapos2.html

#2 The King James Bible alone is without proven error, and this in spite of intense opposition and criticism from the Bible correctors and modern scholarship.

"Seek ye out of THE BOOK of the LORD, and read: no one of these shall fail..." Isaiah 34:16.

#3 I believe in the Sovereignty and Providence of Almighty God. God knew beforehand how He would mightily use the King James Bible to become THE Bible of the English speaking people who would carry the gospel to the ends of the earth during the great modern missionary outreach from the late 1700's to the 1950's. The King James Bible was used as the basis for hundreds of foreign language translations, and English has become the first truly global language in history.

See article Can a Translation Be Inspired? http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/transinsp.html

#4 The King James Bible is always a true witness and never lies or perverts sound doctrine. This is in contrast to all modern English versions that do pervert sound doctrine in numerous verses and prove themselves to be false witnesses to the truth of God.

"Thy word is true from the beginning, and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever." Psalm 119:160

"A faithful witness will not lie: but a false witness will utter lies." Proverbs 14:5

In contrast, all the modern versions like the NASB, NIV, NKJV, ESV contain proveable and serious doctrinal errors. See my article on No Doctrines Are Changed?:

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/nodoctrine.html

#5 At every opportunity the King James Bible exalts the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ to His rightful place as the sinless, eternally only begotten Son of God who is to be worshipped as being equal with God the Father. All modern versions debase and lower the Person of Christ in various ways.

"GOD was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory." 1 Timothy 3:16. (compare this verse in the NIV, NASB, ESV, and Holman) See also John 3:13; Luke 23:42, and 1 Corinthians 15:47.

See article on The Only Begotten Son

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/begotnSon.html

#6 The explosion of modern versions has encouraged the student to pick and choose his own preferred readings and has created a tendency to treat every Bible lightly and to look upon none as the final words of God.

The Bible itself prophesies that in the last days many shall turn away their ears from hearing the truth and the falling away from the faith will occur. The Lord Jesus asks: "Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?" Luke 18:8

"Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD." Amos 8:11

"Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein." Jeremiah 6:16

The new versions like the NIV, NASB, ESV, and Holman Standard all reject the Traditional Greek Text, and instead rely primarily on two very corrupt Greek manuscripts called Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. These so called "oldest and best" manuscripts also form the basis of all Catholic versions as well as the Jehovah Witness version.

See my article that shows what these two false witnesses actually say:

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/oldbest.html

If you mistakenly think that all bibles are basically the same, I recommend you take a look at this site. It is in two parts, but very easy to read. It shows what is missing in most modern New Testaments.

http://av1611.com/kjbp/charts/themagicmarker.html

For an article showing that the true Historic Confessional position about the inerrancy of the Bible supports the King James Bible view, rather than the recent position of "the originals only". See:

http://www.geocities.com/avdefense1611/historicposition.html

In and by His grace alone,

Will Kinney