KJV vs other Bibles

[Reinitin]

On 3/24/2017 at 9:36 AM, TheMatrixHasU71 said:

KJV vs other bibles.

Everyone knows that the KJV is the best known translation in history. It is also the most hotly disputed between those that accept the KJV only, like myself, and others who prefer modern translations because older translations didn’t have access to the most ancient texts like the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Because of that, there are many who believe that the KJV is riddled with errors, and I would like to prove that is just not so.

One thing I have noticed is that many people who are against the KJV are so because they really don’t understand the nature of the original texts nor the history of the KJV.

Not having a computer, I cant do as thorough a study as I would like here but I will do my best.

One thing that one does have to remember, as anyone knows anyway, is that no one translation is 100% free of error. Likewise no one original text is 100% free of error, not even the tiniest most insignificant ones.

In any text there will always be things like, misspelled words, an unimportant word added or dropped, or the Greek equivalent of not dotting some Is or crossing a few Ts.

God always has a reason for allowing this. To show ONLY GOD IS PERFECT NOT MAN. What matters is that none of these errors do anything to affect OT teaching or the Gospel message in any way.

Ironically enough the so called most ancient texts available today are sometimes the WORST. The Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are two that come ti mind because they drop several passages of Scripture.

http://www.deanburgonsociety.org/CriticalTexts/sinaiticus.htm

http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/q-arent-older-manuscripts-more-reliable

http://www.preservedword.com/content/the-unreliablitity-of-the-alexandrian-manuscripts/

Even Origen, ironically himself a heretic, recognised that texts were already becoming corrupted.

The NIV bible today is well known for using these two Egyptian texts as well as the heavily corrupted Greek translations written by the known occultists Westcott and Hort.

Although amongst modern ENGLISH translations today, some are a fair bit better than others, they all uniformly water down scripture either to a greater or lesser degree, usually by denying the veracity of Scripture regarding the divinity or first and second comings of Christ.

I would also like to forestall another argument that many, especially non Christians, have with the KJV, and that is the numerous revisions it has undergone.

That is easily explained away by the fact that the early revisions were nothing more than the translators putting BACK into the bible words and phrases that got DROPPED, not by THEM but the PRINTERS. This was a notorious problem in the earlier days of printing, and bibles were not spared. There is, for example, an infamous KJV, nicknamed the Wicked Bible, because in it, Thou shalt NOT commit adultery drops the NOT (Some say the printer did that intentionally….hmm I wonder why lol).

Later revisions were really not revisions at all the way we might understand them but just attempts at standardizing spelling and grammar.

Some people who are against the KJV will use some horridly weak arguments like this site…

http://www.bible.ca/b-kjv-only.htm

On it they show a page of an original 1611 with its fancy calligraphy and archaic spellings and asks Can anyone read this? Well excuse me but people in the 1600s could read that so there goes that argument….we are simply not used to reading that style of writing so the answer is simple.

DUUUH DON’T READ THE ORIGINAL!!!

They also bring up another example

The first example (Judges 19:2) below shows a place where the meaning of the Hebrew is obscure. Was it "4 months" or "a year and four months"??? Quite a difference! But the structure of the Hebrew makes it difficult to for any translators to know for sure which it is. So they show the alternate reading, NOT KNOWING THEMSELVES FOR SURE WHICH IS CORRECT!

The simple answer to this is entirely due to the differences amongst some manuscripts. They choose according to majority rule. Though as the passage says the structure of the Hebrew can make thing a bit difficult as well.

Also this is completely irrelevant anyway as this is yet another example of one of those unimportant errors that God allows in the bible. Surely these guys can do better than this.

BTW the passage referred to here is this

19:2  And his concubine played the whore against him, and went away from him unto her father's house to Bethlehemjudah *, and was there four whole months

I will just let things go with this as I don’t want this to get too long winded. So I will just leave off with a few other links on the history of the KJV including info on the Tyndale bible that was used in the translation process

http://www.christianity.com/church/church-history/timeline/1601-1700/story-behind-king-james-bible-11630052.html

http://www.bibleinfo.com/en/questions/history-kjv

http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/william-tyndale.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version#Old_Testament

It is a very sound translation and for study it connects to greek and hebrew well for root study. It does have a few problems. When i was a little girl i fought with my parents that unicorns were real. They are in the kjb and every word is truth, my argument. But our modern vocabulary has changed and kjv can be used to manipulate the nieve that have no understanding of the roots. Unicorn=ox. 

Jesus said, all day long you search the scriptured because you believe you will find eternal life in them but you refuse to come to me that i may give you life. Salvation is of the Lord and he takes over the responsibily for the education, understing, givinh gifts of those who call on his name.

The Lord promises to complete the work he starts us. The Promised Holy Spirit leads us in all truths. John 17: (paraphrase) this is eternal life to know the One true God and his Son Jesus Christ. Christ is in us makinh the Father known to us.  

I also think there are mystical pagan teachings about the kjv that are more enchantments then truth.

Jesus and the diciples taught truth and revealed the fulfillment of 1000's of years of establish prophetic holy scripture, rarely quoting it word for word. Understanding allows us to go way beyond the written word to articulate the will, the purposes and the truth (being knowing our living God and the reigning King of heaven).

Corrie Tenboon studied a Phillip paraphrased insightful interpretation of the New Testiment and look how she knew Gods heart and was able to add to his kingdom.

[Deborah_]

JWs have their own Bible - they certainly wouldn't like my NIV, because it states so plainly that Jesus is God!

[Deborah_]

2 hours ago, Giller said:

King James version 1Jn 5:7-8 (7)  For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. (8)  And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

New International version 1Jn 5:7-8 7 For there are three that testify: 8 the[a] Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

New World Translation 1Jn 5:7-8 7  For there are three witness bearers: 8  the spirit+ and the water+ and the blood;+ and the three are in agreement.

 

The N.I.V  and N.W.T totally leaves out the phrase:” For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.”

The King James shows that they are in agreement, but also they are one, but the N.I.V  and N.W.T just shows they are in agreement, and that is a major trinity scripture.

And the N.I.V and N.W.T does not show 3 bearing record in heaven.

How can people be not concerned about things like this, unless they do not care much about adding or taking away from his word, which is very dangerous.

King James version Col 1:15-16 (15)  Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: (16)  For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

New International version Col 1:15-16 15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him.

New World Translation Col 1:15-16 15  He is the image of the invisible God,+ the firstborn of all creation;+ 16  because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible,+ whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All other things have been created through him+ and for him.

 

The words:”firstborn over all creation” is used by the JW’s  to show forth that Christ was the first created being in God’s creation, and in truth Christ was not the firstborn over all creation or of all creation,  but rather Christ was the firstborn of every creature, that is he was the first to be born of the Spirit, not because he needed to become born again, but rather Christ came as a man, and a perfect spirit was born within him, so we men can become born again, as the scriptures say” that Jesus was the firstborn among many brethren”.

 

I John 5:7 is of such dubious provenance (in manuscript terms) that it can't be used as a proof-text anyway, even if you yourself believe that it is genuine.

Colossians 1:15

Do you realise how subjective your analysis is? To me, the KJV plays into the hands of the JWs far more easily - because it can so easily be misinterpreted as saying that Christ is a creature (merely the 'first born creature'). At least the NIV makes it clear that 'firstborn' is a statement of authority, not origin.

 

4 hours ago, Giller said:

Oh you would be surprised, how they use certain verses, as to deny the trinity, and show forth Jesus as a created being, and the facts are people have been converted to the Jehovah's witnesses, through the N.I.V, check it out, and you will see.

And a good book that reveals a lot stuff concerning bible versions, is "One book, One authority" found at: http://bibledoug.com/one-book-one-authority

And Deborah, be careful of being so unconcerned about the watering down of the bible, and pay attention to what is happening as concerns the ecumenical movement, which does not promote at all the King James bible, which is no coincidence.

 

Well, they use the KJV just as easily - they used it happily for decades before they produced their own version, the NWT.

However, the following verses in the NIV show that Christ's deity has not actually been 'watered down' at all:

"We wait for the blessed hope - the appearing of the glory of our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for us..." (Titus 2:13,14)

"To those who through the righteousness of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours." (II Peter 1:2)

"No-one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is Himself God and is in the closest relationship with the Father, has made Him known." (John 1:18)

Edited March 29, 2017 by Deborah_

[Jeff2]

I John 5:7 is of such dubious provenance (in manuscript terms) that it can't be used as a proof-text anyway, even if you yourself believe that it is genuine. 

Or they way I would put it, the K.J.V. totally adds the phrase:” For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.”

 

[Jeff2]

Mormons use the King James Bible. Apparently the King James believes that Jesus was created.

I have always had Jehovah's Witnesses use the King James when they spoke to me.

Every cult I have encountered uses the King James Bible. Is it because the archaic Old English is easy to confuse people with? Is it because the King James manuscripts are based upon a thousand years of additions that do not exist in the oldest known manuscripts? Cults always like to add to Scripture to make them say what they want!

Edited March 29, 2017 by Jeff2

[simplejeff]

King James sites have plenty of evidence where the King James Translation is more accurate than others,  whether in everything or most or just some things,  I don't know.

With King James or virtually any other translation that's been around a while,  as far as I've seen, 

the mormons don't like to sit and talk with someone who points out the truth in SCRIPTURE that

Y'SHUA MESSIAH is not created,  could not be created (though a body was prepared for HIM by YHWH)

and is self-existent (to use a human term that still really falls way short of HIS GLORY WITH THE FATHER ETERNALLY).

That and several other truths in all the translations ,  they not only don't like to discuss,  but apparently when those are brought up,  they make a quick exit.

[Jeff2]

King James sites have plenty of evidence where the King James Translation is more accurate than others

There is ZERO Evidence that the King James is more accurate than other translations.

 

That fact is, cults use the King James. therefore the King James is suspect! (I am only using your King James Only logic)! It's the standard in which to make that judgement of a translation according to the posts above! 

[Jeff2]

be careful of being so unconcerned about the watering down of the bible, 

Yes, I would be careful about using a Bible that waters everything down with hundreds of additions that are not in any early manuscripts!

[Deborah_]

11 minutes ago, Giller said:

Oh well just look at the ecumenical movement, and I guess people will defend whatever they like.

And the Mormons have also the book of Mormon.

Can you please define what you mean by "the ecumenical movement"? You evidently regard it as some kind of 'bad guy', but I'm not sure how it relates to the Bible versions that people choose to read.

[Guest Teditis]

All this talk about the virtues of a single translation seems rather cultic and similar to idolatry.

Many versions are perfectly fine for understanding the Will of God and the Word, itself.

The KJV, while very nice and suitable for reading, is just one of many that carry the Word of

God to us. Still, it does have it's drawbacks and yes, even errors. Despite many posts here in

this thread pointing out differences, nobody seems to be able to declare that they are any more

accurate than other versions nor can they demonstrate that the KJV has faithfully followed the

true and original documents that were initially penned. Thusly, the "other" translations have very

often gone above and beyond "due diligence" to get as close to the originals as can be expected...

just as the KJV seems to have done.