Bible version

[Ezra]

I agree Ezra, but have a question;

Can a person learn enough from the NIV to come to salvation?

Possibly. But that is not really the issue. 

Ezra, I apologize for cutting a lot of your post ( which I did read and do not really argue with what you are saying, but isn't salvation " the point " ?

As I said "Possibly". The issue is that if you had half a banana that was totally spoiled and another banana that was fresh and whole, which one would you offer to your guest?  A tainted Bible is a tainted Bible.

[Ezra]

It is interesting that because of the KJV, every one seems to be under the impression that King James was a saint.  However, King James was a man who inherited a somewhat large kingdom when Queen Elizabeth died and he loved being king.  His writings exude his love and belief in his divine appointment as king, and he was a Scottish man inheriting the kingdom of England when protestants were opposing the Catholic church.  They favored the Geneva bible and King James was not a English man.  So, to make everyone happy, the King James Bible was commissioned.  Therefore, it was created more for political reasons than for providing a accurate translation to the public. ...

 This is just one example.  King James was also a writer himself and there is still writing of his in publication titled Daemonologie, which I own and have read.  King James knows way too much about the subject for my taste, and there are other aspects about the way that the King James is structured that make me question his integrity in commissioning it's publication.  I find it interesting that a book intended for the public was written in a poetic structure rather than the prose style of the time that is easier to read.  

Esther,

I don't know where you obtained this information, but it is evident that you do not really know enough about this translation to comment on it. You have tried to make King James into a blackguard rather than address the merits of the translation itself, and that does not edify anyone.  The next time you comment on this subject, please do your research thoroughly.

There is a HUGE DIFFERENCE between a king COMMISSIONING a translation and a king TRANSLATING. If you knew anything about this translation you would would have known that there were 54 outstanding CHRISTIAN SCHOLARS who translated the Authorized Version, and not King James himself. And the reason this translation came into existence is because the MOST CONSERVATIVE Christians in the Church of England -- the Puritans -- desired a translation which was faithful, reliable, accurate, and free from ecclesiastical biases -- indeed the best out of many good English translations.  That God blessed this translation mightily and used it for over 400 years throughout the English-speaking world speaks for itself.  Today, the reason knowledgeable Christians use the KJV is because it is solidly based on the true Traditional Hebrew and Greek texts of the Bible.  It is also a WORD-FOR-WORD translation and it was the standard English Bible for hundreds of years.

[Deborah_]

I agree Ezra, but have a question;

Can a person learn enough from the NIV to come to salvation?

Possibly. But that is not really the issue.  The issue is an attack on the fundamental Bible doctrines such as the preservation of the Word of God and the Gospel itself.  Let's take just one example (and I am quoting from my own book on the subject):

Mt 18:11 – For the Son of Man is come to save that which was lost; [WHOLE VERSE OMITTED, 13 ENGLISH WORDS & 9 GREEK WORDS] [Putting verses in footnotes = omission]

 Again, Dean Burgon’s labours are invaluable in establishing the authenticity of this verse, as he demonstrates on page 92: “The blessed declaration, ‘The Son of Man is come to save that which was lost’ has in like manner been expunged by our Revisionists from S. Matth. xviii.11, although it is attested by every known uncial except B Aleph L, and every known cursive except three; by the Old Latin and the Vulgate; by the Peschito, Cureton’s, and the Philoxenian Syriac; by the Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Georgian and Slavonic versions; by Origen, Theodorus Heracl., Chrysostom, and Jovius the monk; by Tertullian, Ambrose, Hilary, Jerome, pope Damasus, and Augustine; above all by the Universal Eastern Church, for it has been read in all the assemblies of the faithful on the morrow of Pentecost, from the beginning... Will the English Church suffer herself to be in this way defrauded of her priceless inheritance through the irreverent bungling of well intentioned but utterly misguided men?” (In retrospect, these men – Westcott & Hort – were by no means well-intentioned).

This precious verse of the Holy Scriptures is “a faithful saying” -- one of the clearest and most outstanding statements concerning the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ to this earth – and corresponds to and reinforces Luke 19:10 and 1 Timothy 1:15: “For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost... This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.”

Therefore the removal of this verse is an attack on the Gospel itself, which reveals that there is none righteous, no not one (Rom. 3:10), and therefore God sent His only-begotten Son into the world to “taste death for every man” (Heb. 2:9), and thereby draw all men to Himself (Jn. 12:32). To omit the heart of the Gospel – “these precious words” -- from the Gospel reveals the Satanic influence that has caused these corrupt texts to come into existence.

However, the fact that so-called “Christian” scholars promoted them and so-called evangelicals accepted these translations demonstrates that the mystery of iniquity does already work. That even sound fundamentalist preachers and teachers were caused to slavishly follow the critical texts and the Revised Version (RV) and its successors is an amazing example of how Satan blinds the minds of those who fail to maintain a consistently conservative position.

You may hold this opinion, but I fail to see how the absence of this verse from Matthew's gospel can be interpreted as "an attack on the Gospel itself". It is, after all, also absent from the gospels of Mark and John, and nobody seems to think this at all noteworthy, or claims that these two gospels have therefore been corrupted. If anyone really had wanted to expunge "these precious words" from the Bible, surely they would have removed them from Luke's gospel as well? Then there are many other things that Jesus said that have been recorded only once, and we do not feel the need to have them 'reinforced'.

In brief, it baffles me that people see this as a problem at all, let alone "an attack on fundamental Bible doctrines". No fundamental Bible doctrine, to my knowledge, has been shaken purely by the use of a modern Bible. The Gospel message itself is unchanged: "Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners." (I Timothy 1:15)

"There is no-one righteous, not even one." (Romans 3:10)

But "the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost." (Luke 19:10)

"Jesus... suffered death, so that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone." (Hebrews 2:9) As He said, "I will draw all people to myself." (John 12:32)

[enoob57]

It is interesting that because of the KJV, every one seems to be under the impression that King James was a saint.  However, King James was a man who inherited a somewhat large kingdom when Queen Elizabeth died and he loved being king.  His writings exude his love and belief in his divine appointment as king, and he was a Scottish man inheriting the kingdom of England when protestants were opposing the Catholic church.  They favored the Geneva bible and King James was not a English man.  So, to make everyone happy, the King James Bible was commissioned.  Therefore, it was created more for political reasons than for providing a accurate translation to the public. ...

 This is just one example.  King James was also a writer himself and there is still writing of his in publication titled Daemonologie, which I own and have read.  King James knows way too much about the subject for my taste, and there are other aspects about the way that the King James is structured that make me question his integrity in commissioning it's publication.  I find it interesting that a book intended for the public was written in a poetic structure rather than the prose style of the time that is easier to read.  

Esther,

I don't know where you obtained this information, but it is evident that you do not really know enough about this translation to comment on it. You have tried to make King James into a blackguard rather than address the merits of the translation itself, and that does not edify anyone.  The next time you comment on this subject, please do your research thoroughly.

There is a HUGE DIFFERENCE between a king COMMISSIONING a translation and a king TRANSLATING. If you knew anything about this translation you would would have known that there were 54 outstanding CHRISTIAN SCHOLARS who translated the Authorized Version, and not King James himself. And the reason this translation came into existence is because the MOST CONSERVATIVE Christians in the Church of England -- the Puritans -- desired a translation which was faithful, reliable, accurate, and free from ecclesiastical biases -- indeed the best out of many good English translations.  That God blessed this translation mightily and used it for over 400 years throughout the English-speaking world speaks for itself.  Today, the reason knowledgeable Christians use the KJV is because it is solidly based on the true Traditional Hebrew and Greek texts of the Bible.  It is also a WORD-FOR-WORD translation and it was the standard English Bible for hundreds of years.

There are several issues to look at:
1. The existing manuscripts existed when the King James folks chose out us four and no more!
2. The increase in knowledge granted in the last days is it of God or satan?
3. The Holy Spirit remains still our guide today as in 1611.
4. The first draft of the kings english is not used today by it own need of improvement thus 1617 version is used.
5. The weight of eternity shall exist in faith alone and that only which is directly upon God Himself through the examination of His Word.
6. Copies are exactly as that copies and a studied examination is more in line with 2Tim 2:15 than placing it upon an instant in time on man in a beginning...
Your religious desires to keep that which first began and how long it lasted  does not even hold up in The Bible itself-> is not God going to completely destroy the
first earth and heaven and make completely new? So if the overall of God revelation to us is this... how do you feel comfortable in foundationing yourself in such?
Love, Steven

[Esther4:14]

It is interesting that because of the KJV, every one seems to be under the impression that King James was a saint.  However, King James was a man who inherited a somewhat large kingdom when Queen Elizabeth died and he loved being king.  His writings exude his love and belief in his divine appointment as king, and he was a Scottish man inheriting the kingdom of England when protestants were opposing the Catholic church.  They favored the Geneva bible and King James was not a English man.  So, to make everyone happy, the King James Bible was commissioned.  Therefore, it was created more for political reasons than for providing a accurate translation to the public. ...

 This is just one example.  King James was also a writer himself and there is still writing of his in publication titled Daemonologie, which I own and have read.  King James knows way too much about the subject for my taste, and there are other aspects about the way that the King James is structured that make me question his integrity in commissioning it's publication.  I find it interesting that a book intended for the public was written in a poetic structure rather than the prose style of the time that is easier to read.  

Esther,

I don't know where you obtained this information, but it is evident that you do not really know enough about this translation to comment on it. You have tried to make King James into a blackguard rather than address the merits of the translation itself, and that does not edify anyone.  The next time you comment on this subject, please do your research thoroughly.

There is a HUGE DIFFERENCE between a king COMMISSIONING a translation and a king TRANSLATING. If you knew anything about this translation you would would have known that there were 54 outstanding CHRISTIAN SCHOLARS who translated the Authorized Version, and not King James himself. And the reason this translation came into existence is because the MOST CONSERVATIVE Christians in the Church of England -- the Puritans -- desired a translation which was faithful, reliable, accurate, and free from ecclesiastical biases -- indeed the best out of many good English translations.  That God blessed this translation mightily and used it for over 400 years throughout the English-speaking world speaks for itself.  Today, the reason knowledgeable Christians use the KJV is because it is solidly based on the true Traditional Hebrew and Greek texts of the Bible.  It is also a WORD-FOR-WORD translation and it was the standard English Bible for hundreds of years.

Ezra, 

I obtained my information from my own personal study into the subject.  There is more information I could offer, but in my experience, people who are KJV only are the most resistant to hearing these things because they believe the KJV is superior; therefore, they are superior in their understanding about everything.  I have yet to realize how the version seems to mold people in this way, but most of them are usually somewhat the same.  They get very easily offended in regard to this subject, they are very vocal about it, and they are rather rude in the delivery of their argument; which all indicates to me, that they are not really getting the message of love that they need from scripture because they show very little fruit when it comes to discussing the subject.  The passage I cited when the KJV translates love as charity the same way the Douay-Rheims bible does might be a start in understanding why this is 

It also was the standard English Bible because King James made it the new standard of the English language, which they created to a certain extent in translating the King James.  So, yes, I don't think it is corrupt because they changed the language, not the scripture, to pacify the people in the translation.  Like for example, using the letter J.  This letter was not used in the English language, but originates in the 16th century.  But, the decision to use the letter J seems to have changed the way we pronounce the name Yeshua to Jesus, which is interesting and originates in the King James Version.   

Overall, somehow or another, King James made a compromise in his Bible intended to pacify the protestants to satisfy the Catholics; as well as, try to make more people like him because there was a plot to kill him when he became King of England.  King James has no identifying features that would cause one to otherwise describe him as a Christian to alleviate suspicion of this.  I believe this Bible pacifies people today which is evident in the way people who believe KJV is the only accurate translation all resemble the same cut out.  It is like you can spot them a mile away.  Like, they have all been oppressed.  Therefore, maybe instead of complaining, you could do something different like buy a copy of the book Daemonologie by King James and read for yourself what he has to say on the subject.  Then, maybe your argument would sound less presumptuous. 

Therefore, I really think you ignored my whole argument because you are not really educated enough in the history of King James to comment with anything other the same information that you were already familiar with that commonly used to sell the KJV the way a car salesman sprays new car scent to entice people to buy cars.  Like I said, I own the book.  I referenced it and did my own study because I am intelligent, creative, and familiar enough with scripture to discern material outside of the Bible and form my own opinion.  I do not need someone to teach me elementary things and when I became a Christian I did not join a club.  I saw tragic things happening in the world and I believed that Jesus is our salvation from our suffering.  Unfortunately, letting Jesus teach you something and making friends because they believe the same things you want to believe about Christianity are two different things.  I may not make as many friends addressing the KJV only argument in this way, but I want to move a mountain so that people will be saved.  If this means that I experience loneliness along the way because people want to hold on what they want to believe rather than follow Jesus, that is fine with me.  I just don't see many KJV people doing anything but complaining and being rather rude to people in most cases in their endeavor to win votes for the KJV only, and I do not believe that this is what Jesus would do.  So, the choice seems to be; do you follow the KJV only crowd?  or, do you follow Jesus?

"For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it," (Matthew 16:25).  

 

Edited September 19, 2015 by Esther4:14

[AllTheGoodNamesAreTaken]

What a magnificent honor it is to be able to read the words of our LORD. Amen ? 

I have lots of Bibles. Some pre-date the KJV and some post-date it. Knowledge of God, His Kingdom, His mercy are available. Why ?

"For the word of God is quick, and powerful [ living NIV ], and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart."

( I quoted KJV [ with one addition ] so as not to offend, as nobody should be offended by these words ).

His Word either lives IN you, ( and you by it ) or it doesn't, and you don't. It is much more than text on a page, or a web site. 

[Esther4:14]

What a magnificent honor it is to be able to read the words of our LORD. Amen ? 

I have lots of Bibles. Some pre-date the KJV and some post-date it. Knowledge of God, His Kingdom, His mercy are available. Why ?

"For the word of God is quick, and powerful [ living NIV ], and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart."

( I quoted KJV [ with one addition ] so as not to offend, as nobody should be offended by these words ).

His Word either lives IN you, ( and you by it ) or it doesn't, and you don't. It is much more than text on a page, or a web site. 

That is beautiful and very true.  

[FreeinChrist]

I tend to read the NIV and also the message versions.  In church the older people use the KJV but the pastor uses the NKJV.

Anyway, a friend of mine sent me a message to say that the following passages have been removed from the NIV!! I haven't checked them all but this is worrying!

Matthew 17:21
Matthew 18:11
Matthew 23:14
Mark 7:16
Mark 9:44
Mark 9:46
Luke 17:36
Luke 23:17
John 5:4
Acts 8:37

 

Is the NIV a reliable source?  I always thought that it was a modernish translation of the original text.  I don't like the KJV as it's just too old school for me but is it more accurate?

Do not forget Mark 16:9-20; John 7:53-8:11 and I John 5:7 modern version leave thee out or question if they are inspired.  Remember the devil ask Eve:  Yea, hath God said?   Genesis 3:1  

Yes one can come to Çhrist with the NIV, but IMO it makes it rather difficult to taste and see that the Lord is gracious, see.           I Peter 2:2-3.

 

 

 

 

 

    

 

 

 

 

Edited September 20, 2015 by 19Duggarfan

[TSDBB]

I tend to read the NIV and also the message versions.  In church the older people use the KJV but the pastor uses the NKJV.

Anyway, a friend of mine sent me a message to say that the following passages have been removed from the NIV!! I haven't checked them all but this is worrying!

Matthew 17:21
Matthew 18:11
Matthew 23:14
Mark 7:16
Mark 9:44
Mark 9:46
Luke 17:36
Luke 23:17
John 5:4
Acts 8:37

 

Is the NIV a reliable source?  I always thought that it was a modernish translation of the original text.  I don't like the KJV as it's just too old school for me but is it more accurate?

Do not forget Mark 16:9-20; John 7:53-8:11 and I John 5:7 modern version leave thee out or question if they are inspired.  Remember the devil ask Eve:  Yea, hath God said?   Genesis 3:1  

Yes one can come to Çhrist with the NIV, but IMO it makes it rather difficult to taste and see that the Lord is gracious, see.           I Peter 2:2-3.

 

 

 

 

 

    

 

 

 

 

I didn't expect so many comments on this one! I suppose nothing is simple in life and we will all have different opinions.

I still find it difficult to read a translation when most of the words or structure seem alien to me - Yea, hath God said?

I would prefer to read the bible in a translation that I can read easily, not because I'm not intelligent enough but if I'm going to read the Bible then I want to understand what I'm reading without having to look up what old fashion words mean.

[Guest Teditis]

Try the English Standard Version (ESV).

It's trusted by many people and is a faithful translation.