The_Patriot21 Posted January 13, 2017 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 28 Topic Count: 338 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 15,710 Content Per Day: 2.46 Reputation: 8,526 Days Won: 39 Joined: 10/25/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/27/1985 Share Posted January 13, 2017 2 hours ago, other one said: OK with me as long as you understand that is not what the original Greek says. You know I hear that a lot, but the funny thing is you don't know what the original Greek says either. None of us do, the original texts no longer exist, or at least have not been found. So you can't say "that's what the original texts say" all you can say is "that's not what the texts I trust" say, and quite frankly I trust the texts the NASB uses, and the message found in John 3:16 saying "shall not" lines up with Gods promises elsewhere in scripture a lot better then "should not" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fran C Posted January 13, 2017 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 337 Content Per Day: 0.13 Reputation: 214 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/11/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted January 13, 2017 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Ezra said: I am in full agreement that an updated KJV would be more helpful today (if not a fresh faithful translation). The NKJV could have become a very good substitute, but the translators chose to tamper with the text instead of simply updating the language. However, it is now too late to fix th problem since textual critics and scholars did not honestly admit that they were on the wrong track since 1881. Tampering with the text... Yes. But I didn't want to get into this. Isaiah 14:12 The KJV says Lucifer fell from the heavens, son of the morning. The NASB says O Star of the Morning, Son of the dawn. Which is correct? The YLT says that the NASB is correct. This is a whole different conversation... Fran Edited January 13, 2017 by Fran C Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fran C Posted January 13, 2017 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 337 Content Per Day: 0.13 Reputation: 214 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/11/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted January 13, 2017 10 minutes ago, The_Patriot2017 said: You know I hear that a lot, but the funny thing is you don't know what the original Greek says either. None of us do, the original texts no longer exist, or at least have not been found. So you can't say "that's what the original texts say" all you can say is "that's not what the texts I trust" say, and quite frankly I trust the texts the NASB uses, and the message found in John 3:16 saying "shall not" lines up with Gods promises elsewhere in scripture a lot better then "should not" NASB Should Not Perish KJV Should Not Perish YLT May not perish Do you have a different NASB than I do? Yours says SHALL NOT? Fran Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Patriot21 Posted January 13, 2017 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 28 Topic Count: 338 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 15,710 Content Per Day: 2.46 Reputation: 8,526 Days Won: 39 Joined: 10/25/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/27/1985 Share Posted January 13, 2017 Mine says shall not, which is what I hold it should say. I don't think should not us a bad translation, but shall not is more accurate in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kindle Posted January 13, 2017 Group: Royal Member Followers: 53 Topic Count: 88 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 4,064 Content Per Day: 1.36 Reputation: 3,748 Days Won: 8 Joined: 02/23/2016 Status: Offline Author Share Posted January 13, 2017 9 hours ago, missmuffet said: KJV is a good Bible but I do not prefer it. I like the NKJV better. the NKJV takes out scripture and adds it as a footnote 3 hours ago, White Rabbitt said: Okay, my turn. If someone were to hand me a Bible written in Greek, I would look at it and say, "that's all Greek to me". That's how I feel about the KJV. It's all greek to me. It is not the same English I speak. So why should I try to read something I don't know how to read? Especially when I have a perfectly good Thompson Chain Reference Bible NIV Large Print 1984 edition available at my fingertips that I am well versed in using. I speak English, American English. I'm an American. well I would want the niv it has taken out scripture. The bible says ye shall not add nor take away 1 hour ago, Fran C said: Tampering with the text... Yes. But I didn't want to get into this. Isaiah 14:12 The KJV says Lucifer fell from the heavens, son of the morning. The NASB says O Star of the Morning, Son of the dawn. Which is correct? The YLT says that the NASB is correct. This is a whole different conversation... Fran well the kjv actually lets you know it is Lucifer while the NASB doesn't Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jayne Posted January 13, 2017 Group: Royal Member Followers: 16 Topic Count: 107 Topics Per Day: 0.04 Content Count: 3,820 Content Per Day: 1.30 Reputation: 4,806 Days Won: 2 Joined: 03/31/2016 Status: Offline Share Posted January 13, 2017 7 minutes ago, worthy said: the NKJV takes out scripture and adds it as a footnote well I would want the niv it has taken out scripture. The bible says ye shall not add nor take away I'm probably going to regret jumping in here as I have seen these conversations for 15 years on the internet and no one ever strays from their opinions and beliefs and no one persuades anyone else.....but.... I take issue when people claim that modern translations "take out scriptures" as if they are purposefully stripping God's word of it's message. Translators of modern versions have studied very hard and reviewed many documents to determine that some of these verses were not in God's word to begin with as evidenced by older manuscripts. So they put them as footnotes. Also, the Bible does not exactly say "ye shall not add nor take away" - as in referencing literal King James or any other translation's words. The book of Revelation says in 22:18-19 - "For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." This is speaking of altering the message of the book of Revelation. But speaking along the lines of what you are saying .......... I'm going to go so far as to say that preachers and Bible teachers and those that opine on message boards dangerously tread close to your warning when "adding" and "taking away" from the truth of God's word with their faulty interpretations and purposefully bending of the message to suit their opinions and beliefs. It happens everyday in churches and message boards and books across the world. As I said to begin with - you won't convince me and I won't convince you. Even if we did, there would still be two points of view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Patriot21 Posted January 13, 2017 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 28 Topic Count: 338 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 15,710 Content Per Day: 2.46 Reputation: 8,526 Days Won: 39 Joined: 10/25/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/27/1985 Share Posted January 13, 2017 Probably the biggest argument against the KJV, and take this with a grain of salt because I love the KJV and hold it as extremely accurate is a large portion of the NT was translated from the Latin Vulgate, not from the Greek. Food for thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
missmuffet Posted January 13, 2017 Group: Royal Member Followers: 34 Topic Count: 1,991 Topics Per Day: 0.48 Content Count: 48,689 Content Per Day: 11.81 Reputation: 30,343 Days Won: 226 Joined: 01/11/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted January 13, 2017 48 minutes ago, worthy said: the NKJV takes out scripture and adds it as a footnote well I would want the niv it has taken out scripture. The bible says ye shall not add nor take away well the kjv actually lets you know it is Lucifer while the NASB doesn't Are you a KJV only believer Worthy? Question: "Why can’t all Christians agree on one Bible?" Answer: There are many different versions of the Bible—with new translations coming out all the time, it seems—and sometimes it’s hard for Christians to agree on which one is best to use. Different churches recommend different translations, and many church-goers simply go with the version being preached in the pulpit. The good news is that Christians don’t have to agree on one translation of the Bible. First, because of language barriers, it’s impossible for all Christians worldwide to agree on one Bible. If we all agreed that the KJV (for example) is the one true Bible, then what are Christians to read who speak Spanish or French? There’s no such thing as King James Russian or King James Papiamento. Non-English translations have to be made, and there’s nothing more “inspired” about a translation in English than a translation in, say, Urdu. But if we limit our consideration to English translations, Christians still don’t have to agree on one Bible. There are several reasons why various Bible translations are good and even necessary: 1) Language changes over time, and words and spellings become obsolete. Christians in the 21st century do not have to agree with the spelling of the 14th century. For example, consider John 3:16 in the first English translation ever made, John Wyclif’s 14th-century version: “For God louede so the world, that he yaf his 'oon bigetun sone, that ech man that bileueth in him perische not, but haue euerlastynge lijf.” And here is the same verse in the KJV of 1611: “For God so loued þe world, that he gaue his only begotten Sonne: that whosoeuer beleeueth in him, should not perish, but haue euerlasting life.” Obviously, these translations (which were necessary in their time) needed to be replaced with translations that reflected contemporary spelling. 2) Christians don’t have to agree on one version of the Bible because only the original autographs of Scripture were inspired. The words that Joshua wrote in the Book of the Law of God (Joshua 24:26) were inspired by God. Every translation of those words since that time has involved a measure of human interpretation—that’s the nature of translating. For example, the Hebrew word Joshua wrote concerning false gods was nekar in Joshua 24:23. That inspired word can be translated into English as “strange,” “foreign,” or “alien,” or the gods in question can simply be called “idols.” It’s up to the translator, but the basic meaning does not change. The English translation is not what’s inspired anyway, as most Christians would agree. 3) Christians don’t have to agree on one version of the Bible because such agreement would tend to foster autocracy and absolutism. Having different translations prevents any one group or church from saying, “Only our translation is holy. We are the only ones who have God’s Word.” This is in fact what happened during the Middle Ages. The Roman Catholic Church (and later the Anglican) held in their grasp all the copies of the Bible (in Latin, which most people could not read), and they forbade anyone else from making a copy or reading it for themselves. Bibles in the vernacular were illegal. Fortunately, the Reformation changed all that: Luther made a German translation, and Tyndale an English translation, and the rest, as they say, is history. 4) Christians shouldn’t have to agree on one version of the Bible because having different translations allows more people access to God’s Word. Various versions of the Bible are written at various reading levels. The KJV, for example, is about a 12th-grade reading level. The NKJV is about a 7th-grade reading level. The NCV has a 3rd-grade reading level. The ERV (Easy-to-Read Version) is better for people just learning English. John 3:16 in the ERV is, “Yes, God loved the world so much that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him would not be lost but have eternal life.” If all Christians agreed on the NIV Bible, for example, anyone at a reading level lower than junior-high would have difficulty reading God’s Word. It’s important to know that not every translation is equally faithful to the original text: some take a more literal approach, and some take a more dynamic approach. But all good translations of the Bible do their best to stay true to the original Greek and Hebrew texts and accurately communicate the Word of God. In the final analysis, agreement on one particular translation is not all that crucial. Most of the differences are quite minor. Mark 3:5, for example, reads like this is four popular translations: “He looked around at them in anger and, deeply distressed at their stubborn hearts . . .” (NIV). “And he looked around at them with anger, grieved at their hardness of heart . . .” (ESV). “And when he had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts . . .” (KJV). “After looking around at them with anger, grieved at their hardness of heart . . .” (NASB). The wording is different, but they all mention Jesus’ look, His anger, His distress/grief, and the people’s stubborn/hard hearts. What is the value in promoting one of these translations to the exclusion of all the others? The differences among the good translations are not differences in doctrine. Whether we’re reading the KJV, the NIV, the NAS, the ESV, or the ERV, Jesus is still the Lord and one-and-only Savior, and salvation still comes by grace through faith. https://www.gotquestions.org/Christians-agree-Bible.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Rabbitt Posted January 13, 2017 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 7 Topic Count: 13 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 219 Content Per Day: 0.06 Reputation: 190 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/28/2014 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/31/1950 Share Posted January 13, 2017 47 minutes ago, The_Patriot2017 said: Probably the biggest argument against the KJV, and take this with a grain of salt because I love the KJV and hold it as extremely accurate is a large portion of the NT was translated from the Latin Vulgate, not from the Greek. Food for thought. Yes, this is where we got the words Easter and Calvary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fran C Posted January 13, 2017 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 337 Content Per Day: 0.13 Reputation: 214 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/11/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted January 13, 2017 2 hours ago, worthy said: the NKJV takes out scripture and adds it as a footnote well I would want the niv it has taken out scripture. The bible says ye shall not add nor take away well the kjv actually lets you know it is Lucifer while the NASB doesn't It's not up to the KJV to decide what the person inspired be God meant! The scribe or translator should just translate from the original text. Fran Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts