King James Version only?

[kat8585]

Most of the texts that I memorized were from the KJV, but more modern translations are easier to understand. I'd always heard that the NIV was a direct translation, and was therefore more reliable than other modern translations. I've found it helpful to read 2 or 3 translations at the same time. What about the Revised Standard Version?

[Guest Butero]

This brings up another problem with modern English translations. The KJV has no copywrite, so anyone can copy and sell it. In order to get a copywrite, the author of new translations have to show a significant difference from other translations out there, and one way they do that is intentionally choosing words that are part of the definition, but perhaps the third, fourth, or even fifth best choice. That is why this kind of confusion takes place.

but in the example I gave it does not seem that the KJV picked the best word to be used. when I read the word dog, I do not think of a male prostitute.

The actual definition of the Hebrew word keleh is a dog (by euphemism) a male prostitute. The KJV translators used the most accurate word, whether that makes you think of a male prostitute or not. I am looking for word for word accuracy in the translation. If I have any questions about something, I can take a few seconds and look it up.

[Guest Butero]

Most of the texts that I memorized were from the KJV, but more modern translations are easier to understand. I'd always heard that the NIV was a direct translation, and was therefore more reliable than other modern translations. I've found it helpful to read 2 or 3 translations at the same time. What about the Revised Standard Version?

Nearly all of the modern translations began with a less reliable original text than what was used by the KJV translators. The only possible exception might be the NKJV. If someone was insistant on using a new translation, I suppose that would be the most reliable, but I would recommend staying with the Authorized Version, or if you really desire accuracy, the 1611 Version.

[glorywatch]

Ouch, brain drain after reading all the comments. If God can use a donkey to speak to a man, I do believe HE is able to speak to a person, no matter the translation. I think we put limits on God's ability to reach us, no matter the translation. People think if someone isn't using thier favorite translation then there is no way God is able to reach them. WRONG. God is able to do more than we can imagine or ask and that includes touching peoples hearts, throught whatever translation they are reading.

Having said that, I use KJV when do study with a Lexicon. I use several other translations for daily reading because I like the notes that some of these people put in them. I don't necessary agree with all the notes but it is interesting to read. Since I am grounded enough I don't fear being mislead by something that is incaccurate, and I trust God will guide me along.

There are some translations that leave a lot to be desired and some "scholars" whose notes are not so great.

Murse I am not sure what Dake you have seen, but I have a KJV that is as KJV as the rest. NO deviations. I don't agree with all of Dake's notes, but there are somethings he has that are intersting as with most Bible scholars.

Reading the Word is what is important. God sent his Holy Spirit to give us wisdom and understanding and I believe we can trust that HE will not lead us astray.

My husband was raised Catholic and thought the only Bible was the Douay-Rheems (sp) until a non-catholic friend told him he could get saved in the Catholic Bible just like he could reading a Protestant Bible. My husband had to get the Protestant Bible and lay it beside his Catholic Bible and "Shock" they said the same thing...word for word. The only difference was the Apocrypha.

We just need to stop limiting God to the version we like best. God is in the all if we are truly seeking HIM. "In the day that you seek me, I will be found of you." It doesn't say "but only if you are reading "this" version."

P. S. I am not talking about these bibles that come out of false teachings and things like the "homosexual bible" I am strictly referring to those who have not manipulated the Word for some "agenda". I am only referring to those who teach Christ and Him Cruicified, dead, rose on the third day and is Resurrected, seated at the right hand of the Father.

[Born Crucified]

Ouch, brain drain after reading all the comments. If God can use a donkey to speak to a man, I do believe HE is able to speak to a person, no matter the translation. I think we put limits on God's ability to reach us, no matter the translation. People think if someone isn't using thier favorite translation then there is no way God is able to reach them. WRONG. God is able to do more than we can imagine or ask and that includes touching peoples hearts, throught whatever translation they are reading.

Having said that, I use KJV when do study with a Lexicon. I use several other translations for daily reading because I like the notes that some of these people put in them. I don't necessary agree with all the notes but it is interesting to read. Since I am grounded enough I don't fear being mislead by something that is incaccurate, and I trust God will guide me along.

There are some translations that leave a lot to be desired and some "scholars" whose notes are not so great.

Murse I am not sure what Dake you have seen, but I have a KJV that is as KJV as the rest. NO deviations. I don't agree with all of Dake's notes, but there are somethings he has that are intersting as with most Bible scholars.

Reading the Word is what is important. God sent his Holy Spirit to give us wisdom and understanding and I believe we can trust that HE will not lead us astray.

My husband was raised Catholic and thought the only Bible was the Douay-Rheems (sp) until a non-catholic friend told him he could get saved in the Catholic Bible just like he could reading a Protestant Bible. My husband had to get the Protestant Bible and lay it beside his Catholic Bible and "Shock" they said the same thing...word for word. The only difference was the Apocrypha.

We just need to stop limiting God to the version we like best. God is in the all if we are truly seeking HIM. "In the day that you seek me, I will be found of you." It doesn't say "but only if you are reading "this" version."

P. S. I am not talking about these bibles that come out of false teachings and things like the "homosexual bible" I am strictly referring to those who have not manipulated the Word for some "agenda". I am only referring to those who teach Christ and Him Cruicified, dead, rose on the third day and is Resurrected, seated at the right hand of the Father.

Is God double-minded?

Why would He tell some people "There are three that bear record in heaven; the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost," and tell others "There are three that bear record in Heaven; the Spirit, the water and the blood"?

[Gauntlet]

Ouch, brain drain after reading all the comments. If God can use a donkey to speak to a man, I do believe HE is able to speak to a person, no matter the translation. I think we put limits on God's ability to reach us, no matter the translation. People think if someone isn't using thier favorite translation then there is no way God is able to reach them. WRONG. God is able to do more than we can imagine or ask and that includes touching peoples hearts, throught whatever translation they are reading.

Having said that, I use KJV when do study with a Lexicon. I use several other translations for daily reading because I like the notes that some of these people put in them. I don't necessary agree with all the notes but it is interesting to read. Since I am grounded enough I don't fear being mislead by something that is incaccurate, and I trust God will guide me along.

There are some translations that leave a lot to be desired and some "scholars" whose notes are not so great.

Murse I am not sure what Dake you have seen, but I have a KJV that is as KJV as the rest. NO deviations. I don't agree with all of Dake's notes, but there are somethings he has that are intersting as with most Bible scholars.

Reading the Word is what is important. God sent his Holy Spirit to give us wisdom and understanding and I believe we can trust that HE will not lead us astray.

My husband was raised Catholic and thought the only Bible was the Douay-Rheems (sp) until a non-catholic friend told him he could get saved in the Catholic Bible just like he could reading a Protestant Bible. My husband had to get the Protestant Bible and lay it beside his Catholic Bible and "Shock" they said the same thing...word for word. The only difference was the Apocrypha.

We just need to stop limiting God to the version we like best. God is in the all if we are truly seeking HIM. "In the day that you seek me, I will be found of you." It doesn't say "but only if you are reading "this" version."

P. S. I am not talking about these bibles that come out of false teachings and things like the "homosexual bible" I am strictly referring to those who have not manipulated the Word for some "agenda". I am only referring to those who teach Christ and Him Cruicified, dead, rose on the third day and is Resurrected, seated at the right hand of the Father.

Is God double-minded?

Why would He tell some people "There are three that bear record in heaven; the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost," and tell others "There are three that bear record in Heaven; the Spirit, the water and the blood"?

We see through a glass darkly ...

[glorywatch]

Ouch, brain drain after reading all the comments. If God can use a donkey to speak to a man, I do believe HE is able to speak to a person, no matter the translation. I think we put limits on God's ability to reach us, no matter the translation. People think if someone isn't using thier favorite translation then there is no way God is able to reach them. WRONG. God is able to do more than we can imagine or ask and that includes touching peoples hearts, throught whatever translation they are reading.

Having said that, I use KJV when do study with a Lexicon. I use several other translations for daily reading because I like the notes that some of these people put in them. I don't necessary agree with all the notes but it is interesting to read. Since I am grounded enough I don't fear being mislead by something that is incaccurate, and I trust God will guide me along.

There are some translations that leave a lot to be desired and some "scholars" whose notes are not so great.

Murse I am not sure what Dake you have seen, but I have a KJV that is as KJV as the rest. NO deviations. I don't agree with all of Dake's notes, but there are somethings he has that are intersting as with most Bible scholars.

Reading the Word is what is important. God sent his Holy Spirit to give us wisdom and understanding and I believe we can trust that HE will not lead us astray.

My husband was raised Catholic and thought the only Bible was the Douay-Rheems (sp) until a non-catholic friend told him he could get saved in the Catholic Bible just like he could reading a Protestant Bible. My husband had to get the Protestant Bible and lay it beside his Catholic Bible and "Shock" they said the same thing...word for word. The only difference was the Apocrypha.

We just need to stop limiting God to the version we like best. God is in the all if we are truly seeking HIM. "In the day that you seek me, I will be found of you." It doesn't say "but only if you are reading "this" version."

P. S. I am not talking about these bibles that come out of false teachings and things like the "homosexual bible" I am strictly referring to those who have not manipulated the Word for some "agenda". I am only referring to those who teach Christ and Him Cruicified, dead, rose on the third day and is Resurrected, seated at the right hand of the Father.

Is God double-minded?

Why would He tell some people "There are three that bear record in heaven; the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost," and tell others "There are three that bear record in Heaven; the Spirit, the water and the blood"?

Born, I am not sure I get your question since, you are quoting two different verses of Scripture. The first one about three that bear record in heave is 1 John 5:7 (KJV) and the second one in my KJV about three that bear record in "earth" the spirit, the water and the blood is 1 John 5:8. I haven't seen a translation that takes two verses and changes them into one as you did. If there is such a translation, please share it so I can avoid it.

[Born Crucified]

Born, I am not sure I get your question since, you are quoting two different verses of Scripture. The first one about three that bear record in heave is 1 John 5:7 (KJV) and the second one in my KJV about three that bear record in "earth" the spirit, the water and the blood is 1 John 5:8. I haven't seen a translation that takes two verses and changes them into one as you did. If there is such a translation, please share it so I can avoid it.

glorywatch,

There are several different versions that remove "The Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost" from verse 7 and remove "There are three that bear record in Heaven" from verse 8.

When read from these versions, you get the false the deception is obvious

Take for instance, the ESV:

1 John 5:7-8 7 For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree.

Here is the ASV:

1 John 5:7-8 7 And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is the truth. 8 For there are three who bear witness, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and the three agree in one. (Notice, the Father and the Word do not bear witness in this version, thereby not a good translation either)

Edited April 22, 2009 by Born Crucified

[glorywatch]

Born, thank you! We could even take exception to the KJV since the Greek manuscripts ended at the word "record" and their was no verse 8 until later in the 16th century when those words were found penned in the margins of the Latin manuscripts and have crept their way into the translation we have today. The Complete Jewish Bible says "There are three witnesses - the Spirit, the water and the blood and these three are in agreement." The water refers to the beginning of Christs earthly ministry, the blood refers to the close of his earthly life and we know who the Spirit is.

The best explaination I found about the different translations is the following from David Stern:

"It is a common belief that there is no such thing as a "best" translation of a text from one lanuage to another. I question that.

Languages have different words, different syntaxes, different sentence structures, different semantics, different cultures out of which they arise and evolve, and many other differences; so that translation cannot be a simple, automated process. Moreover, readers differ. Some prefer a simple style text with a modest vocabulary, while others respond to a more elagant or complex style with a larger vocabulary. Even the concept of accuracy is reader-dependant ---what scholars might consider and accurate translation might fail to accurately communicate to a less informed reader. If translators fail to consider who their readers are, aren't the translators responisible for the lack of communication? Clearly some translations are, by all reasonable standards, worse, while others are better. But because readers are different, no one version can be best for all."

He goes on to say that the beauty of God's Word is that it can be translated in various ways without obscuring the Bible's own purpose which is to show people the truth about God and themselves.

If the message of the Gospel is not obscured then what is the problem?

[Born Crucified]

Born, thank you! We could even take exception to the KJV since the Greek manuscripts ended at the word "record" and their was no verse 8 until later in the 16th century when those words were found penned in the margins of the Latin manuscripts and have crept their way into the translation we have today.

The claim that verse 8 was not there until the 16th Century is a false claim by someone trying to push a false doctrine. In the fourteenth Century, Wycliffe translated from the Greek and Hebrew and his version had verse 8:

1 John 5:7-8 For thre ben, that yyuen witnessing in heuene, the Fadir, the Sone, and the Hooli Goost; and these thre ben oon `And thre ben, that yyuen witnessing in erthe, the spirit, water, and blood; and these thre ben oon.

It is false claims such as the one purporting that there was no verse 8 until the 1500's that cause most Bible believers to go on the defensive when it comes to other versions. and paraphrases.