Choice of modern Bible translations

[Purple Chris]

Greetings salt and light!

God said that He would preserve His Word, and I feel that He is capable of doing just that, so one of the versions is IT, and if it isn't the KJV, then the NIV certainly isn't the remedy, and neither is the NASB, or the RSV etc. Some people say that the word of God is only contained in the original autographs, which are long gone, and all these versions of the bible are just good rendering of what God said. Well since God said that He would preserve His Word, I believe it is preserved in the KJV. The KJV has been proven trustworthy for nearly 400 years. Here is a question, do we or do we not have the word of God today, and if we do, where is it?

I believe the word of God tells us three ways He preserves His word...

1 - He said in Jeremiah 31:33/Romans 2:13/Hebrews 8:10, 16 that He would write it on the hearts and minds of His people.

2 - The Word in flesh (Christ) is eternally preserved after being resurrected and is sitting at the right hand of the Father.

3 - The written word has been preserved with great accuracy by a multitude of Hebrew and Greek manuscripts for us today.

I do believe that all of our translations have flaws (even the KJ as I pointed out in my prior post). I do think there are some that are very bad and certainly could be called perversions. But most of the standard translations (KJ, NKJ, NASB, RSV, NIV, ESV, etc...) are worthy of being trusted. With all of them we must go back to original languages to learn meanings and usages of words for us to understand them perfectly. The OT and NT were not written in "Elizabethan English" (nod to leonard) and so by it's very nature, the KJ is a translation. I've not heard of any of the translators of the KJ that claimed it was what you and many today claim it is. If they did not, why should we today?

Blessings,

Purp

[salt and light]

Purple Chris,

You said,

"But most of the standard translations (KJ, NKJ, NASB, RSV, NIV, ESV, etc...) are worthy of being trusted. "

The NIV and the NASB certainly is NOT to be trusted, and here are some examples, Phil. 3:3 in the NIV, and the NASB says "worship", while the KJV says " worship God", the word "God" is left out of that verse in the NIV and the NASB. The NIV and the NASB leaves no distinction on who to worship, I guess we can worship anybody or anything, but the KJV says to worship God. Here is another example, the name Jesus is left out of Luke 24:36, Matt. 4:18, Mark 2:15, Mark 10:52 in the NIV and the NASB, and just has the word "he", the KJV says "Jesus" Here is another one, Jesus Christ is the "morning star", and Isaiah 14:12,15 is refering to the fall of Lucifer, but the NIV and the NASB replaces Lucifer with the morning star Jesus Christ, the NIV says, 'How you have fallen from heaven O MORNING STAR, son of the dawn..... but you are brought down to the grave". The NASB says, "How you have fallen from heaven O STAR OF THE MORNING, son of the dawn...you will be thrust down to sheol". Now, the word of God {KJV} says, "How art thou fallen from heaven, O LUCIFER, son of the morning!...Yet thou shalt be brought down to HELL" Now we all should know that it was Lucifer, not Jesus that had fallen, and the NIV and the NASB messed that up. Can you imagin sitting in a church and the preacher is reading that verse from the KJV, while someone is following along in the NIV, and someone else is following along in the RSV, which leaves out "Lucifer" and "Morning star", and has "O Day star, son of dawn"? Can you imagin the confusion? That is what Satan wants, and God is not the Author of confusion. The NIV, NASB,and the RSV blasphems Jesus Christ. Here is another one, Luke 4:8 in the KJV says, "Get thee behind me, Satan", while the NIV, NASB, RSV omit those words. Part of the Lord's prayer is left out of the NIV, NASB, RSV in Luke 11:2-4. In Matt. 6:13 in the NIV, and the RSV, "For thine is the kingdom, and the power and the glory, forever, Amen" is omitted. Here is another one, prayer is very important, but it is left out of the NIV, and the NASB in Mark 13:33, it says, "keep on the alert", while the KJV says, "watch and "PRAY". Here is one more example, there are holy AND UN HOLY men, and there are holy AND UNHOLY angels, and there are holy prophets AND UNHOLY prophets, but the NIV, and the NASB, and the RSV makes no distinction between them in these verses, 2 Pet. 1:21, Matt. 25:31, Rev. 22:6, Rev. 18:20, those verses leave out the word "holy" in front of "men", "angels", "prophets", but the KJV has "holy men", "holy angels", "holy prophets" in those verses. We know that there is a Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost, AND a UNHOLY Spirit, but the NIV, NASB, and the RSV again makes no distinction in John 7:39, 1 Cor. 2:13, Matt. 12:31, Acts 6:3, Acts 8:18, the word "holy" is left out. There are many, many more, so the NIV, NASB, RSV etc., are NOT trustworthy.

[soulwinner]

I am a KJV man and here are some links to web sites on this issue hope it is a help to someone!

http://www.biblebelievers.com/jmelton/knowkjv.html

http://www.biblebelievers.com/Floyd_Jones/...pped_index.html

http://www.biblebelievers.com/KJV_Defended_Hills.html

http://www.biblebelievers.com/DNorris_oneword1.html

http://www.biblebelievers.com/NIV_Challenge.html

http://www.biblebelievers.com/Reagan_TALE3cities.html

http://www.biblebelievers.com/Branson_KJV1.html good one

http://www.biblebelievers.com/Holland1.html another good one

http://www.biblebelievers.com/Vance3.html

http://www.biblebelievers.com/KJV1.htm

http://www.biblebelievers.com/Norriscor1.html

http://www.biblebelievers.com/Hyles1.html

http://www.biblebelievers.com/Jecob2.html

http://www.thebelieversorganization.org/

http://www.av1611.org/kjv/reagan.html see what Ronald Reagan says

http://www.av1611.org/othpubl.html

http://av1611.com/kjbp/index.html

[Purple Chris]

salt and light & soulwinner,

I hope you understand that I'm not condemning the KJ...just saying that it is not without error as you claim. As I previously posted...

It is not without error. Matthew 23:24 reads "Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel." The Greek word used there is "diulizo" and is means "to strain or filter out" not "at." The KJ is in error in it's translation.

...which neither of you said anything about, but rather held to condemning other translations for their errors. Can you see how that sounds pretty hypocritical? There are thousands of potential translation difficulties in the KJ, but it's a trustworthy translation. Did any of the translators of the KJ ever make the same claims that you do about it? I'm not aware of any. If inerrancy is your standard for a translation being perverted or not, than the KJ falls into that category as "strain at" is a mistake, it is improperly translated.

Blessings,

PC

[Leonard]

I had thought this reasonable conversation might degenerate into this old donnybrook again!

As a "King James Bestist" I will point out the one spot where I feel the KJV really does have bad error. I think it is in Matthew's account of the crucifixion. KJV reads: "Likewise the thieves also who were crucified with him cast the same in his teeth." The entire phrase '...cast the same in his teeth" does not occur in any Greek text. It was a phrase in common usage in the KJV era to mean simply, 'also abused him,' however the phrase is ideosynchratic rather than idiomatic.

To have used such an ideosynchratic phrase here is the only place where I can find the KJV authors did a less than exemplary job. I can point to hundreds of places in almost all translations since, where their treatment of the text is dubious scholarship at best, and in some places the text is clearly abused to bring out a doctrinal/denominational bias.

[salt and light]

Purple Chris,

" It is not without error. Matthew 23:24 reads "Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel." The Greek word used there is "diulizo" and is means "to strain or filter out" not "at." The KJ is in error in it's translation"

Sorry, I didn't mean to ignore that question about the above verse. That word "diulizo", what greek manuscripts was that word found in? Remember, there were the manuscripts that the KJV translators used, and there were the corrupt manuscripts that were used to translate the NIV and so on, and even if the KJV is in error with that word, that hardly makes the KJV in any great error, just because "at' was used instead of "out". If that is an error in the KJV, it is not enough to make it corrupt. The errors and corruption I'm talking about that makes the other versions untrustworthy, is omittions, different words used that change the whole meaning etc. That so called error in the KJV in Matthew 23:24 doesn't really change the meaning of what was said, not really. The KJV is infallible in the sense that it dosen't leave anything out, and what God meant to be in His preserved word is in there, and the KJV is indeed infallible in that respect. God didn't think that human error in regards to a simple little word like "at" instead of "out" in Matt. 23:24 was enough to make a big deal about it. I guess you misunderstood me when I said the KJV was infallible, I meant that it is not in error as far as what the other versions are.

[apothanein kerdos]

The entire KJV-only arguement is circular.

"Why are other translations bad"

Because they don't compare to the KJV

"Why should they compare to the KJV?"

Because it is superior

"Why is it superior"

Because of the manuscripts it used

"Why are the manuscripts superior?"

Because they were used for the KJV

Guys, there is no getting around it, the KJV, just like every other version, holds grammatical and translations errors. The most obviously one is found in Revelation when speaking of the Mark of the Beast. It says the mark will be found "in", yet the Greek preposition is epi and if I remember right it's used in the genetive case thus can only mean "on".

KJV is not perfectly written but merely depicts a translation into the tongues of the people of that time so they could understand the Bible. I mean really, if we want to get legalistic about it, what is stopping you from learning Greek seeing as how it's superior to the KJV?

[salt and light]

Super Jew,

I have before me now, copys of the NIV, NASB, RSV, and the NKJV, and I could post all the corrupt verses from these versions, but it would be the longest post in Worthy Boards history probably. There are way too many omittions and chopped up verses from these so called bibles. I know what I'm talking about. Would you like me to post all the verses from the NIV alone that are either chopped up, or omitted all together? There are thousands of them. The KJV is infallible in the sense that it has everything God intended to be in there with NOTHING added to or taken away, and the KJV translators had the help of the Holy Spirit to lead them to choose the correct rendering of each verse. The Authorized King James Bible is God inspired, and the rest aren't, the rest only contain half truths, they are watered down versions of what God said, things are left out, reworded etc. I gave some examples on an earlier post. Satan has been attacking God's word ever since Genesis chapter 3, and he is still doing it today with all these corrupt versions.

[apothanein kerdos]

Super Jew,

      I have before me now, copys of the NIV, NASB, RSV, and the NKJV, and I could post all the corrupt verses from these versions, but it would be the longest post in Worthy Boards history probably. There are way too many omittions and chopped up verses from these so called bibles. I know what I'm talking about. Would you like me to post all the verses from the NIV alone that are either chopped up, or omitted all together?  There are thousands of them. The KJV is infallible in the sense that it has everything God intended to be in there with NOTHING added to or taken away, and the KJV translators had the help of the Holy Spirit to lead them to choose the correct rendering of each verse. The Authorized King James Bible is God inspired, and the rest aren't, the rest only contain half  truths, they are watered down versions of what God said, things are left out, reworded etc. I gave some examples on an earlier post. Satan has been attacking God's word ever since Genesis chapter 3, and he is still doing it today with all these corrupt versions.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

LOL

See what I mean? The say these versions are corrupt and back it up by saying they don't compare to the KJV. Guess what...the KJV has errors. So do the others. Posting the scriptures won't do you a bit of good. I'm asking you to prove to me why the KJV is infallible. Don't post it and compare it to others, tell me why, without using circular reasoning, the KJV is infallible.

[Purple Chris]

Thank you salt and light for you response...

Sorry, I didn't mean to ignore that question about the above verse. That word "diulizo", what greek manuscripts was that word found in?

I have not seen copies of all Greek manuscripts, but of the ones I have, all have the same word. I doubt you will find one where there is a different word as I'm not aware of any Greek word that means "strain at"...I'm not even sure what that would mean in English..."I was in the field and I saw my friend strain at a gnat that was flying towards him."

even if the KJV is in error with that word, that hardly makes the KJV in any great error

How many errors like this does it take for a version to become untrustworthy or perverted? There have been three solid ones posted here on this page. Others could be. In the OT if a prophet was mistaken once he was stoned...that's how seriously God took someone speaking for Him then. Why would it be different now to a point where, if He was going to inspire a particular version of the Bible, that it would not be perfect at every point? Doesn't make sense. What if the "one error" had to do with a major doctrine? Would it be a big deal to God then? Isn't any error opposed to the truth and something that God cares about?

I meant that it is not in error as far as what the other versions are.

But I think you will find that in context and taught correctly, the same truths are found in each version.

And again I'll ask...Did any of the translators of the KJ ever make the same claims that you do about it? I'm not aware of any.

(Note...sorry if this is rehash, I'm new to this site.)

Grace,

Purp