The KJV of the Bible

[One With Him]

It pretty much comes down to what you put your faith in?  A lot of people like to claim there are errors in all translations, and I don't find this useful because it causes people to doubt how trustworthy the Bible is?  I don't trust historians when they make claims about how the Bible was put together, because many of them have an agenda.  You made a statement that historians have shown the KJV was created in a certain way, but gave no sources.  How do I know this is true, and that your sources are legitimate?  How about telling us where you got your information? 

 

I use only the KJV Bible.  I have already given reasons why I don't trust the NIV.  The NIV writers had an agenda, and it wasn't just to get it right.  They were working towards a gender neutral translation.  The finished product was the TNIV, but it was so distrusted, they took it from the shelves, and gave us another NIV.  There was even a lesbian among the translators.   I just don't trust it.  The NIV relegates verses to footnotes, and discredits others. 

 

Whether or not the word fornication was used in English before a certain year is irrelevant.  They translated the Greek word porneo (this is from memory, so if I spelled it wrong, I apologize) to the best English word, fornication.  Even you are admitting fornication was used after 1611, so who cares?  BTW, what is your source for that piece of information? 

At the Local State University we have one of the Professors who is a Christian and he has a Phd in the history of the English Language. He gave a free class and I took it. Studying the Bible and it's history is kind of one of his hobbies. Besides all that, That wasn't really my point. I don't expect you to see my side of things. I have been on worthy before and some people will never see someone else's point of view. And what you said about the NIV. I saw an interview with one of the guys involved in the making of the NIV. He said it was an attempt to translate directly from the sources. I didn't write the thing so if the guy who did translate it says that he did it for what ever reason. I believe him till I see proof other wise. My point is that if everyone is an expert as so many think they are, who is right? Some say the KJV is God Breathed. Some say the NIV is. Some say none of them are. Just asking a question.

[One With Him]

I don't know any Greek but do know some Hebrew. When I look at various translations, I compare the translation with the OT Hebrew to verify that the translation is reasonable.

 

When translating from one language to another, there is not always a word for word equivalent from one language to another. So a single word might be translated into multiple words to express the same idea.

 

Add to the idea that one requires a knowledge of the original language to truly understand what is being said, that is not true. Although it doesn't hurt, it also doesn't always help. From a general view, of those who speak Hebrew natively, the number of born again believers among fluent Hebrew speakers is relatively small. Of those who speak Greek fluently as their native language, sadly, the Greek people have relatively few born again believers. If knowing and understanding the original languages helps in understanding what God wants to convey, statistically, that just doesn't hold to be necessarily true. 

 

Scripture says that the understanding of scripture, which is spiritual, must be understood spiritually. The Holy Spirit reveals the truth and points to Jesus. So a native fluency does not add to the understanding of spiritual truths. And a lack of understanding of the native languages, does not result in a lack of understanding of spiritual truths, as long as the Holy Spirit is providing the revelation.

 

Versions which become questionable are those translated with an agenda. The second red flag is a translation done by a single translator (although I know of 2 exceptions to this rule). Most major translations which have receive acceptability are done by teams of translators, who are motivated to have as accurate as possible translation of God given scripture. These translators hold a high view of God, and an understanding of the extreme importance of accuracy. The team approach allows for discussion to make sure personal preferences or theology does not influence the out come. The team approach of diverse believers works to eliminate agenda's. Not just that, but after the initial translation, another group checks the original groups work, and if there are disagreements, they come together to work out the differences. It is a very careful work to ensure the accuracy of the translation.

 

I personally use the New King James and the NASB regularly. I think we can rest in the knowledge that God wants us to know Him, so works to reveal His words to us. And we can relax knowing that the generally accepted translations are done by sincere believers who hold a high view of scripture and would not want to mess with Gods words to us.     

Thank you. That really does help me. So learning at least the basics of Greek would be a bad thing but depend of the Spirit not the education?

[One With Him]

I find the NIV to be OK, but its lacking some stuff and they made some minor changes to keep different denominations happy. When compared to the Greek and Hebrew, regardless of what text your using, its not the best out there when it comes to accuracy. Its far from the worse though and it does keep the meaning pretty well.

In my mind the best, most accurate ate the literal translations such as the NASB and the KJV. Yes the Latin vulgate was a major source but they also used various Greek and Hebrew text, and not much was last in the latin-greek translates better into Latin then English, and the translators of the vulgate were extremely good, so I would say the vulgate is as good a source as any other. Add into that the KJV doesn't have anything in it that other solid translations dont. The nasb and the KJV, meaning wise are nearly identical.

Fact is God preserves His word. In its entirety. The KJV was one of the ways He did it. It is a hard read, and if you prefer to read easier reading translations such as the esv (my favorite easy reader) or the NIV that's fine, but keep in mind there is no real reason to bash the kjv-its a very good, literal translation. Obviously, some translations such as the message should just be flat out burned-but the KJV, and the NIV, do not belong in that list.

Thank you. The NASB keeps coming up in things I am reading I think I might have to check it out. Thanks.

[The_Patriot21]

The NIV was translated from different sources-that guy was telling the truth. They also had several translators from different denominations and some things were unnecessarily watered down so as not to offend anyone. In the originally left out small portions of scripture (last part of mark 16 and parts of acts 2 were the big ones) which I took issue with. They've since fixed that, but I still don't like that they did it in the first place. Their hearts were in the right place I have no doubt about it-i just feel they did a sub par job.

[Guest man]

So when people sit and talk about the original Greek, how am I suppose to know who is right and who is wrong? The original text is God breathed. The King James as best I can tell is a translation of a translation of God breathed. I use the NIV and it has minor difference in its translation for example. KJV says Fornication NIV does not.

Fornication didn’t even appear in the English language till around 1301 well after the books of the bible were written. So there was some leeway taken in the translation. So when does it become semantics and do we know if either side is wrong?

 

 

It's all semantics. The complete bible has been translated into 500 different languages, the New Testament alone into over 1200. When discussing correct/incorrect translations, these translations need to be addressed also.

[Guest Butero]

 

It pretty much comes down to what you put your faith in?  A lot of people like to claim there are errors in all translations, and I don't find this useful because it causes people to doubt how trustworthy the Bible is?  I don't trust historians when they make claims about how the Bible was put together, because many of them have an agenda.  You made a statement that historians have shown the KJV was created in a certain way, but gave no sources.  How do I know this is true, and that your sources are legitimate?  How about telling us where you got your information? 

 

I use only the KJV Bible.  I have already given reasons why I don't trust the NIV.  The NIV writers had an agenda, and it wasn't just to get it right.  They were working towards a gender neutral translation.  The finished product was the TNIV, but it was so distrusted, they took it from the shelves, and gave us another NIV.  There was even a lesbian among the translators.   I just don't trust it.  The NIV relegates verses to footnotes, and discredits others. 

 

Whether or not the word fornication was used in English before a certain year is irrelevant.  They translated the Greek word porneo (this is from memory, so if I spelled it wrong, I apologize) to the best English word, fornication.  Even you are admitting fornication was used after 1611, so who cares?  BTW, what is your source for that piece of information? 

At the Local State University we have one of the Professors who is a Christian and he has a Phd in the history of the English Language. He gave a free class and I took it. Studying the Bible and it's history is kind of one of his hobbies. Besides all that, That wasn't really my point. I don't expect you to see my side of things. I have been on worthy before and some people will never see someone else's point of view. And what you said about the NIV. I saw an interview with one of the guys involved in the making of the NIV. He said it was an attempt to translate directly from the sources. I didn't write the thing so if the guy who did translate it says that he did it for what ever reason. I believe him till I see proof other wise. My point is that if everyone is an expert as so many think they are, who is right? Some say the KJV is God Breathed. Some say the NIV is. Some say none of them are. Just asking a question.

 

Their spin was that they were just trying to make it more understandable for today's reader, but even people like James Dobson, who is hardly KJV only, came out against the TNIV because it was going away from the original meaning to create a gender neutral Bible.  The NIV writers had an agenda, and if you really want to know more about it, you can find information on it on-line.  I saw the interview too when they were peddling the TNIV.  What do you expect he would say?  "We are trying to make the Bible more appealing to radical feminists?"  Of course not.  He will come up with a defense for why they went away from the original meaning.  The NIV is by far one of the worst translations out there.  I will stick with the KJV Bible, but if I was dealing with someone that just couldn't handle the old English, I would suggest the New King James Bible as the next best translation. 

 

As for the TNIV, there was so much criticism about it, they dropped the TNIV and just call it the NIV, but it appears they kept some of the changes in tact?  You can't trust it. 

[JTC]

I was lucky enough to get 1 of the very first NIV Bibles published, before Zondervan got a hold of it. It's the Bible I read cover to cover, and I checked it against the KJV and NKJV enough times to trust it. But I also agree that if a person has the Holy Spirit within oneself, it's the Spirit giving us the exact meanings.

[Guest Butero]

I was lucky enough to get 1 of the very first NIV Bibles published, before Zondervan got a hold of it. It's the Bible I read cover to cover, and I checked it against the KJV and NKJV enough times to trust it. But I also agree that if a person has the Holy Spirit within oneself, it's the Spirit giving us the exact meanings.

Are you saying that the original NIV doesn't have scriptures place in footnotes, and other passages discredited as not being found in the most reliable manuscripts?  I have a Parallel Bible put out in the early 80s, with the NIV on one side and the KJV Bible on the other, and I see a lot of problems, but this may have been a Zonderavan Publication?  I am not sure? 

[pg4Him]

NASB is my personal book of choice.

 

I think it benefits a person to understand the basics of language and how translation happens. Depend on the Spirit to open your eyes as to spiritual truth, first and foremost, but the more you know about what you are reading, the faster and deeper you can catch a revelation. And yes, we must trust that God has preserved His truth through the years. Legalism comes in when you look through a translation to search for mistakes or to get a "special" revelation no one has had before. 

 

God will never tell you that 2 + 2 suddenly = 5 to explain away a supposed contradiction, and if you think you hear a revelation telling you 2 + 2 = 5 then that is the time to use a little logic/education and test what you heard. He doesn't expect much from us but He expects common sense. As you do your due diligence to understand the basics, and you reach out to those talented in that area of study for follow up, you will stay on the right track.

[Qnts2]

 

I don't know any Greek but do know some Hebrew. When I look at various translations, I compare the translation with the OT Hebrew to verify that the translation is reasonable.

 

When translating from one language to another, there is not always a word for word equivalent from one language to another. So a single word might be translated into multiple words to express the same idea.

 

Add to the idea that one requires a knowledge of the original language to truly understand what is being said, that is not true. Although it doesn't hurt, it also doesn't always help. From a general view, of those who speak Hebrew natively, the number of born again believers among fluent Hebrew speakers is relatively small. Of those who speak Greek fluently as their native language, sadly, the Greek people have relatively few born again believers. If knowing and understanding the original languages helps in understanding what God wants to convey, statistically, that just doesn't hold to be necessarily true. 

 

Scripture says that the understanding of scripture, which is spiritual, must be understood spiritually. The Holy Spirit reveals the truth and points to Jesus. So a native fluency does not add to the understanding of spiritual truths. And a lack of understanding of the native languages, does not result in a lack of understanding of spiritual truths, as long as the Holy Spirit is providing the revelation.

 

Versions which become questionable are those translated with an agenda. The second red flag is a translation done by a single translator (although I know of 2 exceptions to this rule). Most major translations which have receive acceptability are done by teams of translators, who are motivated to have as accurate as possible translation of God given scripture. These translators hold a high view of God, and an understanding of the extreme importance of accuracy. The team approach allows for discussion to make sure personal preferences or theology does not influence the out come. The team approach of diverse believers works to eliminate agenda's. Not just that, but after the initial translation, another group checks the original groups work, and if there are disagreements, they come together to work out the differences. It is a very careful work to ensure the accuracy of the translation.

 

I personally use the New King James and the NASB regularly. I think we can rest in the knowledge that God wants us to know Him, so works to reveal His words to us. And we can relax knowing that the generally accepted translations are done by sincere believers who hold a high view of scripture and would not want to mess with Gods words to us.     

Thank you. That really does help me. So learning at least the basics of Greek would be a bad thing but depend of the Spirit not the education?

 

 

I think learning the basics of Greek would be a good thing.  

 

Since I don't know Greek but I do know some Hebrew, I will answer for Hebrew.

 

But first.... When I first read the NT, I would read a section, and if I did not really understand, or I had questions, I would ask God for an explanation. My assumption was that if these were the words of God written to people, God would want me to understand and would help me. With the Holy Spirit as our teacher, who is to lead us into all truth, and bring scripture to mind when we need it, I do think God wants us to know and understand what He wrote to us for our benefit. I found that sometimes right away, I would re-read, and I would understand. And sometimes a little later, certain circumstances would occur and then I would think of that verse, and I would understand. Depending on the Spirit for education works.  

 

Sometimes, I have been in discussions with people who know Hebrew (Rabbis). These people did not believe in Jesus and argue that to really understand scripture, you have to know the original languages. Sometimes it is a form of one-ups-manship to gain a level of authority. The problem for them is that I do know some Hebrew, so I would go to the source and check what they are saying. From that, I can give a counter argument.  

 

And sometimes, I have been in discussions with people with a differing theological view who base their theology on Hebrew. These people argue against the standard translations to offer a different theology. I have gone to the original Hebrew and found their translation to be in error, so have argued against their strange theology. For example, in Jeremiah 31:31, it talks about the future New Covenant.

 

Jeremiah 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

 

Their argument is that the translation is off because the Hebrew word actually means re-newed. They believe that the New Covenant is actually a renewed covenant. Renewing the Mosaic covenant with a few differences. To them, that means that Christians should be keeping the Mosaic law.

 

The Hebrew word translated as 'new' is Chadash, or in this verse chadashah (feminine). It is an adjective. Chadash as an adjective means 'new'. In Hebrew, a word which is similar can be a noun, an adjective, or a verb. The form is different so you can tell by context and form whether it is a noun, adjective or verb. The similar word has differing meanings when it is a noun, adjective or verb. Chadash, as a verb can mean 're-newed'. Chadash the adjective means 'new', never renewed. So, to arrive at a theology that says Christians have to follow the Mosaic law, the meaning of Chadash is mis-interpreted. Unless a person knows Hebrew grammar, it is difficult to argue against. If you go to the Hebrew English dictionary, you will see both New and Renew listed, but if you read Hebrew, you know which one is correct. The verse says "New Covenant". The translators are correct.

 

Both of these examples are times when I have used my knowledge of Hebrew to correctly understand and explain why the bad doctrine or theology is wrong. I use that knowledge most of the time to find or correct an error. For Spiritual growth and understanding, I rely on the Holy Spirit.

 

So, I do believe learning the original languages is definitely beneficial. I also think, a Christian can go their entire lives and grow as a believer without ever learning the original languages.

 

That has been my own experience. I would really like to hear other peoples experiences who have learned some of the original languages, and how they have used that knowledge and how that knowledge has benefitted them. So I hope others chime in.