niv or kjv- which is right

[Guest Cephas]

A person asked a pastor this question: "What is the best version of the Bible to read?"

The pastor answered: "I don't know which version is the best, but I know which is the worst."

"Yeah." Answered the questioner. "Which one?"

The pastor quietly answered:"The UNREAD one."

AMEN!

Amen and to quote the 1611 KJV

Mat 23:23 Woe vnto you Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; for yee pay tithe of mint, and annise, and cummine, and haue omitted the weightier matters of the Law, iudgement, mercie and faith: these ought ye to haue done, and not to leaue the other vndone.

Mat 23:24 Ye blind guides, which straine at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

Or for those who prefer a more current English NASB Mt 23:23

Edited April 17, 2006 by Cephas

[K.L.]

Why did I waste my time reading this thread!

The question started out with, which translation is right about Goliath. Stating a contradiction has been found. A good explaination was given as to how from the masoric text it can be read differently, since there is not spacing between words in the text. Thatshouldmakealotofsinceastohowhonostmistakeshappen. And if you want to know which "translation" is God's Translation. I will say Hebrew. If you are conserned as to what you're missing, and truly desire to know more about God's word and character, you would be learning it right now. Stop quarelling over endless and pointless debates and start putting your efferts to good works. We all have free access to the learn Hebrew, and become scholars with out ever leaving our home. Don't be shamed anymore because of your lack of knowledge, and don't be puffed up because of knowledge. It is a tool to be able to dig deeper into the heart of your creator YHWH (and to those who are now offended that I say YHWH read your Scripture, instead of your talmud)

There I feel better...

K.L.

[tah]

1Sa 17:45 David answered, "You are coming against me with sword, spear, and javelin, but I come against you in the name of the LORD Almighty, the God of the Israelite armies, which you have defied.

1Sa 17:46 This very day the LORD will put you in my power; I will defeat you and cut off your head. And I will give the bodies of the Philistine soldiers to the birds and animals to eat. Then the whole world will know that Israel has a God,

1Sa 17:47 and everyone here will see that the LORD does not need swords or spears to save his people. He is victorious in battle, and he will put all of you in our power."

1Sa 17:48 Goliath started walking toward David again, and David ran quickly toward the Philistine battle line to fight him.

1Sa 17:49 He reached into his bag and took out a stone, which he slung at Goliath. It hit him on the forehead and broke his skull, and Goliath fell face downward on the ground.

1Sa 17:50 And so, without a sword, David defeated and killed Goliath with a sling and a stone!

1Sa 21:9 Ahimelech answered, "I have the sword of Goliath the Philistine, whom you killed in Elah Valley; it is behind the ephod, wrapped in a cloth. If you want it, take it---it's the only weapon here." "Give it to me," David said. "There is not a better sword anywhere!"

2Sa 21:20 And there was yet again a battle in Gath.

another battle another giant..I don't think the scripture is mixed up..

Edited April 17, 2006 by tah

[st. Worm]

The wrong question has been asked in this thread. The real question is which is perfect, the KJV or the NIV?

The answer is that neither is perfect. Neither is infallable nor inerrant. Only the original autographs, which likely no longer exist are absolutely perfect and written under the inspiration of God.

Now, some translations are better than others and both of these are fine and preserve the important things by the grace of God, yet both are still imperfect copies.

[RGR]

I trust the KJV Bible to be the absolute truth.

That's right! Forget the Geneva Bible, any of the manuscripts, etc., they are unfit for reading, simply pick up a translation that was written over 400 years ago in archaic English and run with it! Makes perfect sense to me-gee, I wonder why more people don't become Christians given the simplicity of it all?

[WOJ]

This is a passage that has caused some difficulty. 2

[Guest Cephas]

actually, the debate is a losing debate, but I would like to add a few quotes from a site on the history of the English Bible

Protestants today are largely unaware of their own history, and unaware of the Geneva Bible (which is textually 95% the same as the King James Version, but 50 years older than the King James Version, and not influenced by the Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament that the King James translators admittedly took into consideration). Nevertheless, the King James Bible turned out to be an excellent and accurate translation, and it became the most printed book in the history of the world, and the only book with one billion copies in print. In fact, for over 250 years...until the appearance of the English Revised Version of 1881-1885...the King James Version reigned without much of a rival. One little-known fact, is that for the past 200 years, all King James Bibles published in America are actually the 1769 Baskerville spelling and wording revision of the 1611. The original

Edited April 25, 2006 by Cephas

[Guest Cephas]

Since I have a 1611 King James Bible, I have already read that myself. It is nothing more than mere opinion on the part of the translators. Their opinion is no more valid than yours or mine. The only part written by divine inspiration is the text of the 66 books of the canon.

95 percent the same is not good enough for me. I want word for word accuracy and believe I get that in the KJV Bible. I also find it funny that in the comments you posted the author claims the KJV is a reliable translation and even comes against some false translations. Then he claims that it is just as bad to be KJV only as one who promotes false versions, though he admits the KJV is reliable. How can standing on a reliable translation be as bad as standing for something like a gender neutral translation, that even the author opposes. He could claim I was in error in my opinion but to say as bad as someone promoting a false version is lunacy.

Your are right, you are in a debate you cannot win, or in some cases lose. Most have already made up their mind on this issue.

True enough, the comments of the Translators are just opinions, and the comments I posted were not directed at you, since your position is well documented, as is the way you arrived at your conclusion. My comments are directed to those who have not made up their minds, as well as to those who were offering commentary in the hopes of changing the mind of anyone who has already decided. I believe I've already stated elsewhere that I'm happy that you have a decision that you're comfortable with. I think I've also already stated elsewhere that I don't care what translation one uses, as long as they are convinced it's a reliable one.

Since we don't have Original Documents for any of the Scriptures, we can only rely on what we have and what has been discovered. Any selection of 'original source texts' is, by necessity, based somewhat on opinion, whether pro, or con, to the KJV and TR. Even your position about the "95%" is actually only opinion, since it is impossible to substantiate that the TR is not, in fact, the documents that are the error prone ones. Which, is pretty much the reasoning for the things I posted. To find the truth, one must start looking with the desire to find it, wherever that leads, and with NO preconceived notions as to what one will find. One then goes about finding all the possible sources that are deemed to be reliable as possible, on ALL sides of the 'argument', then analyzes it to determine the truth, as best as possible.

However, if one starts from a predetermined premise, then seeks only those sources that support that premise, while dismissing all those that don't support it merely because they don't agree with your original supposition, then one is merely seeking to bolstering his own opinion, not seeking to discover truth. It would be like deciding what you want the Bible to say, then searching for passages that support your opinion, while ignoring all those that oppose it. Or selecting a political viewpoint and only listening to sources that support it, rejecting any thing else as biased and inferior, simply because it doesn't agree with your pre-chosen view point. That is not seeking after truth.

Also, for point of reference only, the KJV preface quotations are from the 1611 KJV and are not related to the quotations presented above them. They are from different sources altogether, and are presented as separate topics, I just was too lazy to start another posting. If you're reading them as being interdependant, you would be reading them wrong.

[K.L.]

So you believe God's translation is Hebrew? You didn't mention it, but I would imagine you also recoginize the N.T. was written in Greek? Even so, if you cannot get hold of an original copy of the Textus Receptus, what good does knowing Greek and Hebrew really do? You would still have the same questions over which Greek and Hebrew manuscripts could be trusted. This has become a straw argument to silence those that hold the the King James Version of the Bible.

I hope you're not serious when you say "what good does knowing Greek and Hebrew really do?" I'm not a greek minded man, but I am a Hebrew minded man, and the language itself gives great insight where english can't do justice. The question isn't which translation is the Holiest, it's which translation is the safest. My "argument" isn't even connected to the King James Version or any other version. They are translations to the best of their abilities. I know how hard it is to translate from Hebrew to english, I do it all the time. I'm forced to explain the word than to just give a good english conterpart. Sometimes there just isn't one. But to debate on which translation said it right, you'd have to go back to the original language text and figure it out if it's right or not, otherwise you're just assuming it's right.

I'm hoping you weren't serious, but just alittle heated, and I understand that. It's a good place to be passionate in.

K.L.

[K.L.]

So you believe God's translation is Hebrew? You didn't mention it, but I would imagine you also recoginize the N.T. was written in Greek? Even so, if you cannot get hold of an original copy of the Textus Receptus, what good does knowing Greek and Hebrew really do? You would still have the same questions over which Greek and Hebrew manuscripts could be trusted. This has become a straw argument to silence those that hold the the King James Version of the Bible.

I hope you're not serious when you say "what good does knowing Greek and Hebrew really do?" I'm not a greek minded man, but I am a Hebrew minded man, and the language itself gives great insight where english can't do justice. The question isn't which translation is the Holiest, it's which translation is the safest. My "argument" isn't even connected to the King James Version or any other version. They are translations to the best of their abilities. I know how hard it is to translate from Hebrew to english, I do it all the time. I'm forced to explain the word than to just give a good english conterpart. Sometimes there just isn't one. But to debate on which translation said it right, you'd have to go back to the original language text and figure it out if it's right or not, otherwise you're just assuming it's right.

I'm hoping you weren't serious, but just alittle heated, and I understand that. It's a good place to be passionate in.

K.L.

Let me try to explain what I meant. You are correct in that if you know Hebrew and Greek and have the original manuscripts you will have a greater understanding of the Word. I don't dispute that. My point is that even if you do know Hebrew and Greek, if you don't have a copy of the original Textus Receptus in your possession, it doesn't help your understanding of the true Word of God.

It would be the same as if someone translated a book originally written in Spanish to English, and I knew Spanish. If the original Spanish language book was unavailable to me, my knowledge of the language doesn't help me understand the English version anymore than someone that doesn't speak Spanish. There are a lot of people that know Hebrew and Greek yet don't have the original T.R., so how does that knowledge help their understanding of scripture? That is my question.

The true word of God is not formatted for any language. The word of God is a life force, by his word life came into being. The English language Bible is not a true word of God. Scripture is the written words from God spoken to the people of Israel to be written for all generations. Written in Hebrew. With the Strict law not to change even one stroke.

The modern Hebrew text is constantly being confirmed by findings such as the dead sea scrolls etc. And there for they are in existance in the original state, so says the scolars.

The difference between "original" and a copy is one of copying from text to text, letter to letter, and the other is translating from language to language.

Hebrew WILL improve your understanding of scripture a thousand times over. And this understanding will caring over into any language, greek, english, german etc. For example; Jesus and Yeshua. Jesus has no meaning after going through greek (Iēsous) to latin(Iesus) to english(Jesus). But Yeshua, the Hebrew name for Jesus is also the word Salvation (Long form "Yahweh Saves"). The deeper meaning is obvious through the Hebrew.

Even such errors already a heated debate is the usage of "Easter" in the King James in Acts 12:4 in place of "pascha" in the Greek. Many argue that two different Greek translations are the cause and that "Easter" would be the correct translation. Putting it through a Hebrew eye, King Harod is King of the Jews. And He arrested Peter to please the Judians. Why would he offend them by making them wait until after a pagan holy day was over. These were zealots for tradition. That would have distroyed King Herod.

In my King James version, I just simply cross it out and put in the correction.

If Pastors are not studying the Hebrew and Greek, do you feel more secure, or less secure that truth is being presented?

K.L.