Which version of the Bible do you prefer?

[Qnts2]

That is all well and good, but if you can gut the contents of the books, you have no canon.  That is like saying a committee decided that Romans was part of the canon, but another group comes along and decides chapters 3 through 9 don't belong.  Yes, you still have a book called romans, but it has been gutted.  These people today are doing that with portions of the canon.  They certainly have done it with Mark chapter 16.

 

In Judaism, going back to the times of the Temple, a master copy of scripture (OT) was kept in the Temple. Once the Jewish people were scattered, after Jesus time, and the Temple was destroyed, that master copy was lost. So, it was hundreds of years later, that the copying was showing inconsistencies which greatly concerned the Jewish people, as there was no longer a master copy to compare to.  

 

The scholars got together to scrutinize the available copies, and try to identify any errors hopefully finding the source of the errors, to come up with the most accurate scripture.  

 

So, in Judaism, the canon scripture is in Hebrew (with a little Aramaic). Not just the canonized books, but the language, down to each letter. If there is just one letter missing, or written in error, that copy is not canon scripture.

 

Matthew 5:18 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.

 

A jot, is the smallest letter of the Hebrew alphabet. It is the 'yod' which looks a little like a comma but above the line. A tittle refers to a minute part of a Hebrew letter which protrudes. If it weren't for these tiny protrusions, one could not tell the difference between one letter and another one which is similar, except for the tittles.

 

So, according to Judaism, the only canonized bible, must contain the right books written in the right language, with the exact number of letters, with no variations. If a set of scripture is written in any other language, it is not canon scripture. So, a translation is not canon scripture. The KJV OT is not canon scripture.

 

Now, when it comes to the NT, we do not have a master copy of the NT in Greek, so canon scripture is not at the language level. If it is not canonized at the language level, it also can not be canon at the word level. Or the letter level. Or even the phrase level, as differing languages have unique words and expressions which are not directly translatable to another language. When dealing with translations, literal is good, but not so literal that it loses the meaning of the original language. So meaning does matter. A translation can not ever be canon, except, if it contains at least the books which are canonized. 

[Guest Butero]

I am not saying a translation is canon.  I am saying a canon was created with 66 books and all of their contents.  Any translation must contain all 66 books along with all of their contents, or they are removing part of the canon.  When you remove the entire last portion of Mark chapter 16, you are removing part of the canon.  I don't care if we have the original copies in existence that were once in the temple or not.  There came a time when the Biblical canon was established, and we were told this is the Word of God.  If you can remove part of that canon, the canon loses all meaning as being the Word of God, and there is no reason we can't consider adding to the canon. 

[Qnts2]

I am not saying a translation is canon.  I am saying a canon was created with 66 books and all of their contents.  Any translation must contain all 66 books along with all of their contents, or they are removing part of the canon.  When you remove the entire last portion of Mark chapter 16, you are removing part of the canon.  I don't care if we have the original copies in existence that were once in the temple or not.  There came a time when the Biblical canon was established, and we were told this is the Word of God.  If you can remove part of that canon, the canon loses all meaning as being the Word of God, and there is no reason we can't consider adding to the canon. 

 

I believe you are adding to the definition of canon, for the NT, in Christianity.

[Guest Butero]

I don't believe I am at all.  If I can't believe that every verse called the canon is legitimate, I can't trust any of it.  If people can continue to come along and delete part of the canon, we have no canon.  Those who claim "that which is perfect" is the complete canon are certainly in for a disappointment.  Those of us who reject that, but who have been standing on the Bible as the Word of God are in for a disappointment, as we no longer have that assurance.  If you can gut portions of the books in the canon, you can remove entire chapters and books.  They already have  removed most of Mark chapter 16.  What is to stop someone from claiming Titus doesn't belong? 

[Qnts2]

I don't believe I am at all.  If I can't believe that every verse called the canon is legitimate, I can't trust any of it.  If people can continue to come along and delete part of the canon, we have no canon.  Those who claim "that which is perfect" is the complete canon are certainly in for a disappointment.  Those of us who reject that, but who have been standing on the Bible as the Word of God are in for a disappointment, as we no longer have that assurance.  If you can gut portions of the books in the canon, you can remove entire chapters and books.  They already have  removed most of Mark chapter 16.  What is to stop someone from claiming Titus doesn't belong? 

 

I have looked at the various definitions of canon, and what I find is that in the various flavors of Christianity, canon refers to the books, at book level.

 

In order for it to be a word  level canon, it must be in the original language, since translations, even literal translations, can not be at the literal word for word level and still make sense. So, what you are saying is that your canon, must be word for word, and therefore must be in the original language. Since you subscribe to KJV, your canon would be defined as the Textus Receptus. The Textus Receptus is canon, and any variation of that would not be canon.  

 

Few Protestants define canon as being the Textus Receptus, Greek word by word, with no additions or deletions.  I do not know for sure, but I suspect that to be a variation of the KJV only belief.

[Guest Butero]

If that is the case, then I can in theory create a Bible and remove all but the first verse in the gospel of John, and I am ok, because I have used something to represent that book.  The idea you can remove part of the books and still consider that holding to the canon because the books are represented is absurd.  And yes, I am a variation of the KJV only belief.  I have been saying that all along.  Shiloh had been arguing that the KJV Bible is not the plum line, so I started reasoning out what the plum line is.  If there is none, there is no valid canon.  Well obviously the plum line has to be the accepted Biblical canon, which includes 66 books and all of their contents.  If you are allowed to remove portions of the contents, then you have no valid canon.  You can argue that the canon is only the actual books all you want, but that means I am free to completely gut them.  Don't forget that when the original canon was created, they left out portions of Esther, and that became known as "The Rest Of Esther" and an Apocryphal book.  They fully accepted the entire 16th chapter of Mark's gospel as well as the now controversial 1 John 5:7.  They determined this was all part of the Biblical canon. 

 

When I first got in church, I didn't hold to a KJV only position.  I had a Parallel Bible with the KJV on one side and the NIV on the other.  I started noticing the NIV was leaving portions of the text out, and this started me investigating new translations, which led me to be KJV only.  I had someone tell me that the NKJV is based on the TR, and I had also noticed that many of the things left out of the NIV are in the NKJV Bible, so I am undecided on that translation or any others that include the entire text of the originally accepted canon.  As a matter of fact, I bought a NKJV Bible to start comparing it with the KJV Bible.  There are many arguments people that are KJV only have for being KJV only, but my biggest issue is the removal of portions of the original text.  I will never accept any translation that does that as valid. 

[mevosper]

I often listen to a modern translation in my car, and when I am reading. But when it comes to scripture memorization, I prefer the KJV. I would read the KJV regularly, but the old language slows me down a bit.

I listen and read KJV also. And sometimes I find it good to slow down I tend to pick up little details. Much like walking through a garden. 

[Qnts2]

If that is the case, then I can in theory create a Bible and remove all but the first verse in the gospel of John, and I am ok, because I have used something to represent that book.  The idea you can remove part of the books and still consider that holding to the canon because the books are represented is absurd.  And yes, I am a variation of the KJV only belief.  I have been saying that all along.  Shiloh had been arguing that the KJV Bible is not the plum line, so I started reasoning out what the plum line is.  If there is none, there is no valid canon.  Well obviously the plum line has to be the accepted Biblical canon, which includes 66 books and all of their contents.  If you are allowed to remove portions of the contents, then you have no valid canon.  You can argue that the canon is only the actual books all you want, but that means I am free to completely gut them.  Don't forget that when the original canon was created, they left out portions of Esther, and that became known as "The Rest Of Esther" and an Apocryphal book.  They fully accepted the entire 16th chapter of Mark's gospel as well as the now controversial 1 John 5:7.  They determined this was all part of the Biblical canon. 

 

When I first got in church, I didn't hold to a KJV only position.  I had a Parallel Bible with the KJV on one side and the NIV on the other.  I started noticing the NIV was leaving portions of the text out, and this started me investigating new translations, which led me to be KJV only.  I had someone tell me that the NKJV is based on the TR, and I had also noticed that many of the things left out of the NIV are in the NKJV Bible, so I am undecided on that translation or any others that include the entire text of the originally accepted canon.  As a matter of fact, I bought a NKJV Bible to start comparing it with the KJV Bible.  There are many arguments people that are KJV only have for being KJV only, but my biggest issue is the removal of portions of the original text.  I will never accept any translation that does that as valid. 

 

Well, now we double around. A translation can not be 'canon', except for at the book level. Therefore King James Version is not 'canon' as it is a translation.

 

No matter how much you can argue otherwise, as soon as you translate, you have changed the words. The original NT is in Greek. Translate a Greek word to English, it is no longer the original word, and therefore, no longer canon scripture at the word or letter level. A translation can only be considered canon at the book level. For a word level, you would have to select a particular Greek manuscript and decide it is canon. No word maybe added and no word taken away. However, in the sphere of Christianity, no particular Greek manuscript is said to be the canonized, word for word, letter for letter, same as the original as revealed to the apostles.   

 

In the Protestant world, most include a statement similar to this concerning scripture 'We believe that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are divinely inspired, verbally and completely inerrant in the original writings and of supreme and final authority in all matters of faith and life.'

 

Notice, the statement says 'completely inerrant in the original writings'. The original writing for the NT would be that Greek manuscript which has the letters originally written by the apostles. Without any things added or taken away. That statement also recognizes that today, we have Greek manuscripts with some variations without assigning one particular Greek manuscript as the official canon, word for word, letter by letter.

 

Now in the KJV Only world, there are some who claim that the translators of the KJV were divinely inspired, and therefore the KJV is equivalent to finding the original letters, which were divinely inspired. So, do you believe that the KJV was divinely inspired? Do you believe that the KJV actually corrects Greek manuscripts?

[Guest Butero]

I am not saying the KJV is canon.  I am saying there is an established canon that includes 66 books and all of their contents.  I went back and looked up 1 John 5:7 in the Geneva Bible, and it was there.  It was considered canon.  If you can come along now and remove that verse, the canon is meaningless. I don't even care what definition you want to use for canon.  If the canon can be changed by today's translators, the canon has no meaning.  I am not talking about changing the words to modern English.  I mean if you can remove part of the established text. 

 

It seems you are trying to move away from what I am saying about the canon and move to a discussion on the KJV Bible.  No, I don't believe the KJV Bible corrects the Greek text.  I am open to any translation being valid so long as they don't remove part of the established text.  That can be the Geneva Bible and perhaps the NKJV Bible.  I haven't had a chance to scrutinize it yet.  I am coming against translations that remove part of the established canon.  I do believe God inspired the KJV Bible to be written, but I am not automatically saying all attempts to put the Bible in modern English have to be bad.  At the same time, if you are going to remove the entire last portion of Mark chapter 16, you have destroyed the canon.  It no longer exists. 

 

BTW, I want to again address the fact we aren't talking about just single word changes.  I am talking about an entire passage from Mark 16 being removed.  This passage IS CANON.  It was established as canon.  Now, translators are taking it out.  That means they are removing part of the original Greek text that was already established as canon.

[Qnts2]

I am not saying the KJV is canon.  I am saying there is an established canon that includes 66 books and all of their contents.  I went back and looked up 1 John 5:7 in the Geneva Bible, and it was there.  It was considered canon.  If you can come along now and remove that verse, the canon is meaningless. I don't even care what definition you want to use for canon.  If the canon can be changed by today's translators, the canon has no meaning.  I am not talking about changing the words to modern English.  I mean if you can remove part of the established text. 

 

It seems you are trying to move away from what I am saying about the canon and move to a discussion on the KJV Bible.  No, I don't believe the KJV Bible corrects the Greek text.  I am open to any translation being valid so long as they don't remove part of the established text.  That can be the Geneva Bible and perhaps the NKJV Bible.  I haven't had a chance to scrutinize it yet.  I am coming against translations that remove part of the established canon.  I do believe God inspired the KJV Bible to be written, but I am not automatically saying all attempts to put the Bible in modern English have to be bad.  At the same time, if you are going to remove the entire last portion of Mark chapter 16, you have destroyed the canon.  It no longer exists. 

 

BTW, I want to again address the fact we aren't talking about just single word changes.  I am talking about an entire passage from Mark 16 being removed.  This passage IS CANON.  It was established as canon.  Now, translators are taking it out.  That means they are removing part of the original Greek text that was already established as canon.

 

Ok, as far as the KJV view that it corrects the Greek or Hebrew text, I am glad to know you don't hold that view.

 

Now, back to the Greek manuscripts. The question is then, which Greek manuscript is closest to the original letters? If you believe that others have eliminated text, if that were true, and those words were in the original letters, written by the inspiritation of God, then somewhere along the line, someone deleted Gods words. On the otherside, if somewhere along the way, someone added to the words in the original letters and therefore added words to what God said by revelation, that is also wrong. So, it becomes a question as to which Greek manuscript is actually closest to the original letters. Most Protestants favor one, but most Protestants recognize the determining the origen of scribal errors or changes can be difficult if you do not have the 'smoking gun', the actual trail which led to the change.  Generally, the older would be better, unless the scribes of the older were known to insert an agenda, or be highly error prone.