Which translation do you use and why?

[TSIBHOD]

I do not believe the same applies to the modern versions today - hence the debates and disagreements on this issue.

Why do you think that no "modern" version is inspired, while you believe that the KJV is?

 

[PaladinValer]

NRSV with the full Deuterocanon.

 

[dhiannian]

Which Bible translation do you use? (NIV, NASB, NLT, NKJV, KJV, etc.) Is one more accurate (or better) than another? I also understand that Catholic Bibles include books that other Bibles don't (like Wisdom or something).

And, on that note, the Book of Enoch is quoted (apparently) in Jude 1:14, yet is not a book in the usual 66. Does any translation carry it? Do you think it is it inspired by God?

Yeah I know, It's a "narrow, old fashioned view" and not very big anymore.
I believe that God has the power to preserve his word, like he said he would.
The supposed errors in the KJV are either not actually errors, or in the first copies, typing errors/etc.
As anything we print out, we do a few drafts to make sure everything is in order.
The fact that God is all powerful, and said he would preserve his word is not the only reason I use the KJV.
I have found numerous dangerous errors in many of the newer english translations.
http://www.biblebelievers.com/jmelton/knowkjv.html

The original crown copyright of 1611 does not forbid anyone today from reprinting the Authorized Version. It was only copyrighted then for the purpose of allowing the printer to finance the publication. For nearly four hundred years now we have been printing millions of copies of KJV's without requesting permission from anyone. Over eight-hundred million copies of the Authorized Version have been printed without anyone paying royalties. This cannot be said of any of the new translations.

The new "bibles" are the work of MEN, but the KJV is a divine work of the Holy Spirit. The term "Authorized" has traditionally been applied to the King James Version alone, for this is the one Book which the Holy Spirit has blessed and used for so long. The fact that it bears no copyright allows printing ministries throughout the world to print millions of copies each year for the mission field. I know the King James Bible is the word of God because it has no copyright.

There are many good works that one can read on the authority of the King James Bible, and this particular effort offers nothing really new. However, it does attempt to explain the issue in a simple and brief manner for all to understand. Over the years I have learned a great deal about this issue, and I believe that a truth worth learning is a truth worth telling.


Many preachers and teachers across our land talk about "preferring" and "using" the KJV, but I haven't heard them speak much about BELIEVING it. Many prefer it and use it, because that's what their congregations prefer and use, but they do not BELIEVE it to be the infallible words of God. They are taught in college to USE, PREFER, and RECOMMEND the KJV, but they are NOT taught to BELIEVE it. Most "Christian colleges" teach that the King James Bible is only a translation, and that NO translation is infallible. Consequently, the average minister today uses a Book which he doesn't even believe.

Now, I thank God that I don't have that problem. I don't have to play make-believe with anyone about the word of God. I believe it. I believe the King James Bible is the preserved and infallible words of God. It doesn't merely "contain" the word of God: it IS the word of God. I'm absolutely sure of it, and I'd like to give a few reasons why. Here are twelve reasons how I know that the KJV is the word of God:

God Promised to Preserve His Words

Psalm 12:6-7 says, "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." Then we read in Psalm 100:5 that ". . . . his truth endureth to all generations," and Jesus said in John 17:17 that God's WORD is truth.

These words state very clearly that God's preserved word MUST be available to us today, because God PROMISED to preserve it for us. There MUST be an infallible Book somewhere.

You say, "But ALL translations are God's word, not just one." That's impossible, because the various translations contain different readings, and God is not the author of confusion (I Cor. 14:33). Besides, if all of the versions are the word of God, then where are the "corrupt" and "perverted" versions that we are warned about in II Corinthians 2:17 and Jeremiah 23:36? If everyone is innocent, then where are those who are said to be GUILTY of subtracting from and adding to the word of God (Rev. 22:18-19)? God wouldn't have warned us about Bible perversion if it wasn't going to be a reality. According to the scriptures, there must be a single Book that is the word of God, and there must be MANY which are involved in CORRUPTING the word of God.

Now, if the Authorized Version isn't the infallible word of God, then WHAT IS? There has to be a Book somewhere in "all generations" which is God's word; so what book is it? Those who "use" the new versions believe that these are good and reliable translations, but they do NOT believe these to be INFALLIBLE translations. However, I know MANY people who believe the King James Bible to be an infallible Book. Why? Because they know that the One True God has ONE TRUE BOOK. He promised to preserve His words, and we believe that He has done just that. Jesus said, "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away" (Matthew 24:35). If His words didn't pass away, then where are they? I want to read them. There has to be a perfect volume somewhere. I know the King James Bible is the word of God because God promised to preserve His words.

The Authorized Version Was Translated Under A God-Ordained English King

The main subject of the Bible is the kingdom which God intends to give to His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, Who will be crowned "KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS," according to Revelation 19:16. Ecclesiastes 8:4 says, "Where the word of a king is, there is power: and who may say unto him, What doest thou?" Unlike the modern versions, the KJV was translated under a king. In fact, the king's name was "James," which is the English word for "Jacob," whom God renamed "Israel," because he had power with God and with men (Gen. 32:28).

The new versions have been translated in America, which is not a monarchy. God's form of government is a theocratic monarchy, not a democracy. Therefore, it makes perfect sense that His word would be translated for the English speaking people under a monarchy with an English king. I know the King James Bible is the word of God because it was translated under a king.

Because It Has No Copyright

The original crown copyright of 1611 does not forbid anyone today from reprinting the Authorized Version. It was only copyrighted then for the purpose of allowing the printer to finance the publication. For nearly four hundred years now we have been printing millions of copies of KJV's without requesting permission from anyone. Over eight-hundred million copies of the Authorized Version have been printed without anyone paying royalties. This cannot be said of any of the new translations.

The new "bibles" are the work of MEN, but the KJV is a divine work of the Holy Spirit. The term "Authorized" has traditionally been applied to the King James Version alone, for this is the one Book which the Holy Spirit has blessed and used for so long. The fact that it bears no copyright allows printing ministries throughout the world to print millions of copies each year for the mission field. I know the King James Bible is the word of God because it has no copyright.

Because God Always Translates Perfectly

The words "translate" and "translated" occur three times in the Bible, and GOD is the Translator each time. The scholars insist that the KJV cannot be infallible, because it is "only a translation." Do you suppose that such scholars have checked II Samuel 3:10, Colossians 1:13, and Hebrews 11:5 to see what GOD has to say about translating?

In II Samuel 3:10 we are told that it was God Who translated Saul's kingdom to David. We are told in Colossians 1:13 that Christians have been translated into the kingdom of Jesus Christ, and Hebrews 11:5 tells us that God translated Enoch that he should not see death. God was the One doing the translating each time. What's the point? The point is that a translation CAN be perfect, if God is involved in the translating.

When the New Testament writers would quote the Old Testament (Mt. 1:23; Mk. 1:2; Lk. 4:4; Jn. 15:25; Acts 1:20; 7:42; I Cor. 2:9; Gal. 3:13, etc.), they had to TRANSLATE from Hebrew to Greek, because the Old Testament was written in Hebrew, but THEY wrote in Greek. So, if a translation cannot be infallible, then EVEN THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE "ORIGINAL GREEK" ISN'T INFALLIBLE, because it contains translations from the Hebrew text!

Obviously God assisted them in their translating by the leadership of the Holy Spirit, and He assisted the King James translators as well. The scholars will never understand this, for most of them have QUENCHED the Holy Spirit in their own lives by looking to higher education for truth, rather than seeking the Lord's leadership (Jn. 16:13).

The italic words in the KJV actually PROVE that the translators were honest in their work. When translating from one language to another, the idioms change, thus making it necessary to add certain words to help the reader grasp the full meaning of the text. When the KJV translators added such words they set them in italics so that we'd know these words were added, UNLIKE we find it in so many new versions today, which do NOT use the italics.

Only a very deceived individual could believe that the new versions are equal to the King James Bible. Ninety-five percent of all evidence SUPPORTS the text of the King James Authorized Version. The new versions are supported by the remaining five percent evidence.

The new "bibles" are supported by two very corrupt fourth century manuscripts, known as the "Vaticanus" and the "Siniaticus." These manuscripts are filled with many text alterations to meet the demands of Roman Catholic tradition. They also include the Apocrypha, which the Lord Jesus Christ EXCLUDED from the Old Testament in Luke 24:44. All new versions contain readings from these corrupt manuscripts, and all new versions use their tiny five percent evidence to attack the ninety-five percent majority text of the King James Bible.

The Textus Receptus (received text) from which the King James Bible came can be traced clear back to Antioch, Syria, where the disciples were first called Christians and where Paul and Barnabas taught the word of God for a whole year (Acts 11:26). The other "bibles" do not come from Antioch. They come from Alexandria, Egypt, and from Rome. We don't need an Egyptian version, for Egypt is a type of the WORLD in the Bible. God called His people OUT of Egypt (Exod. 3-14), and God called His Son out of Egypt (Hos. 11:1 with Matt. 2:13-15). Why, the Bible says that "every shepherd is an abomination unto the Egyptians" in Gen. 46:34, and the Lord Jesus Christ is called a SHEPHERD in John chapter ten. Alexandria, Egypt, is associated with SUPERSTITION in Acts 28:11, and Aquilla and Pricilla had to set an Egyptian straight on his doctrine in Acts chapter 18. Alexandrians are also found DISPUTING WITH STEPHEN in Acts 6:9. So we don't need a "bible" from Alexandria, Egypt."
There's a whole lot more at the link I provided, Or do a search yourself, there's no shortage of believers defending the bible.

 

[PaladinValer]

False history.

1. The Septuagint translation was what the NT writers quoted from
2. The KJV originally included the Western "Apocrypha"
3. The Early Church canon included the Deuterocanon as Scripture in the councils and synods, which was historically the only universal way to establish dogma and doctrine in the Early Church. That still remains the same in the apostolic/traditional churches like the Vatican Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Church, Anglican Church, etc.

 

[Philip]

If I quoted you the sources would you check it out or just write it off?

Legitimate, primary sources? Post them, if they exist.

 

[Philip]

I believe that God has the power to preserve his word, like he said he would.

Nobody doubts this. However, we disagree as to how He accomplished it.

The original crown copyright of 1611 does not forbid anyone today from reprinting the Authorized Version. It was only copyrighted then for the purpose of allowing the printer to finance the publication. For nearly four hundred years now we have been printing millions of copies of KJV's without requesting permission from anyone.

Fast forward a couple hundred years, to when the RSV, NIV and other current translations have passed into the public domain. Will they then be the equal of the KJV?

The new "bibles" are the work of MEN, but the KJV is a divine work of the Holy Spirit. The term "Authorized" has traditionally been applied to the King James Version alone, for this is the one Book which the Holy Spirit has blessed and used for so long.

Um, it is called 'Authorized' because King James authorized it. This has nothing to do with the Holy Spirit.

So we don't need a "bible" from Alexandria, Egypt."

I guess we don't need St Athanasius either. All he did was defeat Arianism. But, since he was from Alexandria, he must have been wrong.

 

[JohnJones]

Why do you think that no "modern" version is inspired, while you believe that the KJV is?

The manuscripts used by modern versions were created during the Arian occupation of Alexandria when Athanasius was exiled due to their connections with the state. Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, those two Arian Alexandrian manuscripts disagree with each other in over 2000 places in the synoptic gospels alone because they were written by two different Arian schools during this time. After Athanasius returned, the Arian Alexandrian text-type disappeared for 1500 years! Sinaiticus and Vaticanus were relegated to the obscure bookshelves of corrupt monks, and no one made copies of them! Alexandria went back to the Antiochan text, the Received Text, and everyone who read Greek stayed with that text till the 1840s.

The KJV is the wonder of the world, as the translators prayed in their preface. All translations will always compare themselves to it. And it will always be printed. So let it be.

The KJV originally included the Western "Apocrypha"

You can still get KJVs that still do if you really want one, so that's not an argument against it.

 

[PaladinValer]

Oh the "Apocrypha" has everything to do with it.

It was under the auspecies of MY CHURCH, the Anglican one, that the KJV was even translated. MY CHURCH accepts the Deuterocanon as Scripture or as (at the very least) "quasi-Scripture." We NEVER dropped those books from liturgical use and initially and, increasingly, use them to form doctrine and dogma.

And the ONLY REASON why it was called the "Authorized Version" was because it was the only translation to be used in official liturgy. THAT'S THE ONLY REASON, PERIOD.

If folks want to disregard the history of my church and its terms and take them completely out of context, go right ahead. I find it absolutely insulting that folks so disrespect my church in doing so.

 

[TSIBHOD]

The manuscripts used by modern versions were created during the Arian occupation of Alexandria when Athanasius was exiled due to their connections with the state. Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, those two Arian Alexandrian manuscripts disagree with each other in over 2000 places in the synoptic gospels alone because they were written by two different Arian schools during this time. After Athanasius returned, the Arian Alexandrian text-type disappeared for 1500 years! Sinaiticus and Vaticanus were relegated to the obscure bookshelves of corrupt monks, and no one made copies of them! Alexandria went back to the Antiochan text, the Received Text, and everyone who read Greek stayed with that text till the 1840s.

Mmm, not really the kind of argument I'm interested in. I really don't care about any of that. Show me the results. How can you see, by examining the evidence about the Bibles, that the KJV is better and the other "modern" ones worse? What are the bad effects that these other Bibles, these Bibles that you claim are influenced by Satan instead of inspired by God--what effects do they have on people?

 

[AVBunyan]

Legitimate, primary sources? Post them, if they exist.

Please define legitimate and primary.

I've played this game before - what it appears to me is that what you consider to be "legitimate and prmary" are the "status quo" or the Alexandrian Cult or the sme old false sources of Bible rejecting professors that has sold you this bill of goods for years and you folks have accepted their "findings' because your safe in running with the crowd. I have a page of sources and links but since you added the prhase "if they exist" then forget it - you've already revealed your attitude on the subject. What you are telling me by using the phrase "If they exist" means several things to me - may not to you I'm sure:

1. You are closed minded and have accepted the party line and will not change.

2. You fell safe "running with the crowd" and it appears you are not ready yet to break from your comfort zone.

3. If I presented my "primary and legitimate" sources then you will most likely just use your already "prepared excuse" by saying my sources are not "primary or legitimate" in your eyes while yours "are".

4. If you are convinced they do not exist this shows you have not studied the other side objectively. Just to show the info is out there for anybody to get I spent less than 10 minutes and searched google using some key words and found enough to show a hoax. My sources are in books at my house. I did the search to prove that the info is there if someone was truly interested.

Bottom line - no, I will not bother here and you can say what you want - won't keep me awake enough to yawn. Was ready to discuss but your "if they exist" ended this with me.

If you are really interested you can search it out - myself and others did - no spoon feeding here - you will not accept it anyway.

Again, if I thought you were realy interested then we could chat but you haven't convinced me - if I'm wrong then it won't be the frist time and most certainly won't be the last. But I think I read you accurately on this one here. No, stay where you are at. Remember what Barnum and Bailey said?

Have a nice day.

 

[AVBunyan]

Why do you think that no "modern" version is inspired, while you believe that the KJV is?

Fair question Tsibhod but one that requires much more time than I can give or most here would be interested in reading anyway. But I will give a few reasons why I believe the AV to be so:

First of all I take the above position by faith first and foremost for that is how God told me to live today and I do not use faith as a cop out. I have an article on this called "The KJV Issue - Faith vs. Facts."
http://av1611bible.com/articles/kjvfactsvsfaith.htm

1. The preeminence the AV consistently gives to the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ while the modern versions are not consistent. There is much documentation on this - tons on the internet proving this very important point. This point alone should be enough fro any saint to toss out the modern versions - all of them.

2. The affect the AV has had on history and the lives of sinners and saints. Yes, I kno wmany caliim the same for the modern versions but what is the standard of judgment - this modern, worldly, carnal, fleshly christianity toady?

3. The fact that every version that comes out wants to compare itself with the KJV.

4. The fact that the majority of the "christian" world has rejected the AV.

5. The inconsistencies of the modern versions regarding the main doctrines of the faith - again much is documented on this. I have one page of links myself that cover much of this:
http://av1611bible.com/links/av1611.htm
And each of those sites are full of links also. The info is there if one wants to search objectively.

6. Finally - the internal evidence of how the scriptures describes itself and in the AV. These descriptions are more exact, more devine, and more holy and eternal than the modern versions - just compare how the AV describes the word of God vs. how the modern verses describes themselves - a very great and revelaing study.

I believe I have in my hands scripture and according to II Tim. 3:16 it is inspired. If one claims to have the scriptures in his hands then he must claim vs.1 6 for what he has in his hands or he cannot call it scripture according to vs. 16.

Now, I know I did not persuade you one bit but with all due respect I will not lose sleep over it. I admit the idea of the AV being inspired is difficult to defend these days.

1. Do you believe all the modern versions are inspired?
2. Which ones, if any, do you believe are inspired?
3. Do all modern versions agree with one another?
4. Why would one read a version that says Jesus' origin was from the ancient of days thus making Christ have origins?
5. When will the modern translators get it right?
6. What should be the emphasis here - the words of God or just the message?
7. Because the modern versions contain the fundementals of the faith and uphold the fundemental doctrines in many places does it make it right to attack them in other places?

Nice chatting - I know I just did a poor job of defending. Been defending this for over 22 years and haven't budged yet - I guess I'm just really stuck in the mud

God bless

 

[Oblio]

The fact that every version that comes out wants to compare itself with the KJV

You mean of course modern English versions. The Greek and Slavonic Bibles make no such comparison and predate the KJV by hundreds and thousands of years.

 

[Edial]

I guess we don't need St Athanasius either. All he did was defeat Arianism. But, since he was from Alexandria, he must have been wrong.

HA!
Good point.
Ed

 

[AVBunyan]

You mean of course modern English versions. The Greek and Slavonic Bibles make no such comparison and predate the KJV by hundreds and thousands of years.

You are right - I thought the issue was the KJV vs. modern versions so I was referring to modern versions comparing themselves to teh AV>

In case some out there are thinking this - I never said there was no word of God prior to AV1611 foro I know God his word all over the place prior to 1611.

What I do believe is that the AV1611 was the final translation for us to today and English was used by God then as the standard by which all others are judged by. And we are in a world where if you had to learn one language to get around with it would be English - not Greek or Hebrew.

God quite speaking 400 years prior to Christ's first coming and God quite speaking again around 400 years prior to Christ's second coming. God put down what he wanted in 1611 and I have it now. And yes, I am familiar all the spelling updates, spelling corrections, typos, and printing errors, etc.

God bless

 

[Theophorus]

KJV/ Why settle for less?

Also, Brenton's LXX and Williams Tyndale's noble effort.

 

[Oblio]

... and English was used by God then as the standard by which all others are judged by. And we are in a world where if you had to learn one language to get around with it would be English - not Greek or Hebrew.

A very Anglocentric Western view.

 

[AVBunyan]

A very Anglocentric Western view.

What view would you suggest?

God bless

 

[Oblio]

What view would you suggest?

Eastern Orthodox of course

Mir

 

[NewToLife]

What I do believe is that the AV1611 was the final translation for us to today and English was used by God then as the standard by which all others are judged by. And we are in a world where if you had to learn one language to get around with it would be English - not Greek or Hebrew.

God quite speaking 400 years prior to Christ's first coming and God quite speaking again around 400 years prior to Christ's second coming. God put down what he wanted in 1611 and I have it now. And yes, I am familiar all the spelling updates, spelling corrections, typos, and printing errors, etc.

/Boggle

So God, says to the non English speakers, sorry guys you all have to learn English if you want to know what the scriptures have to say?

 

[AVBunyan]

/Boggle
So God, says to the non English speakers, sorry guys you all have to learn English if you want to know what the scriptures have to say?

Some of you folks weary me - but I'm getting used to it. I've heard this for years. Where did you get the idea that I said only the English could be used?

Now, a lesson in forum etiquet and history - You could have asked: "Interesting, but how does the above statement apply to other folks in other non-English speaking nations?"

I would have responded respectfully with: "Thank you for you question." and then answered.

I never said the word of God could not be found in other languages. I said I believed the "standard" would be in English. If your foreign translation was based upon the English AV or the Greek/Hebrew texts that are the foundation of the AV then God blesses these and many a foreign translation has come by this method.

If one were to study church history then they would find foreign versions all over the world priior to the AV1611 but they were from the texts that the AV1611 eventually came from - not the manuscripts that came out of Egpyt where all the modern versions came from.

Real simple - when a missionary went to the foreign field during the last centuries they took with them a King James Biblle and used that or the Greek/Hebrew texts it came from to make their Chinese, Tahitian, etc. translation from and it worked fine. Sometimes the missioinary would just preach from the English AV while one interpreted and God blessed that.

I trust that explains my position somewhat.

God bless