Is the KJV easy for you to read?

[KeilanS]

One thing I've noticed is that people are throwing out numbers like Translation A is 90% accurate, Translation B is 95-96% accurate.

These numbers are insanely exaggerated. In my experiance with multiple translations, the worst of them would probably be around 99% accurate at the very least. Although I am omitting things like the gender neutral bible and paraphrase translations, which may be much more inaccurate (these are not intended to be study bibles). The differences are usually very tiny discrepancies that only matter in the most intensive of studies. (and if you're really doing some life and death bible study, you should be using the original texts)

I think it would be fair to say that upwards of 99% of the time you will be able to perform a study just as well with the NIV as with the KJV. I read the KJV because I enjoy the translation, if somebody wished to study with the NIV, I would have no issues with it.

If these new translations truly are 90% accurate, people would see mistakes 3-4 times per chapter. It just doesn't happen. We are arguing over the tiniest details here.

[Floatingaxe]

God is preserving His Word---the words change according to language evolution---but His Word--the message, the essence of His Word NEVER has, nor will change.

Fine, but there are variations between one translation and another. As such, it is not possible for them all to be 100 percent accurate, and those defending them never make the claim that is the case. They will perhaps believe they are 96 percent right or 95 percent right, but never 100 percent. Is that your position?

The message of God, given by His Holy Spirit inspired Word is always 100%! He sees to it that we receive the Word to our hearts and minds without any adulteration. I don't worry about it. That is what we call His preservation. He is Lord Most High. He wants us to know what He says...He sees to it we get the message.

It's easy for Him.

How can he see to it that it is in our hearts when it is not in the text? The example I gave showed the NIV leaving an entire verse out and then discredited a whole passage. I can see it now. The minister decides to preach a message on the great commission and takes his text from Mark 16:15-16. While he is reading the scripture text, a man or woman is sitting there with their NIV Bible which says, "The two most reliable early manuscripts do not have Mark 16:9-20," and he or she thinks to themselves, doesn't the preacher know we can't trust these verses because the Bible says the most reliable manuscripts don't have them? You can make light of this, but this kind of faith stealing remark is nothing short of being the work of Satan.

The footnotes in my NKJV tell me the sitution plainly, but that the text is in all other manuscripts of Mark. My pastor doesn't delete it because it is in our Bibles. Thus, we preach it.

I am reading a book by my favourite author, Harold Hill, called "How to Live in High Victory" and in it he tells of an encounter with a woman who was ill, and he asked her if she wanted to be healed. He used this passage in Mark in his speaking with her. She used the old excuse that it was a passage missing from some early manuscripts, and that it therefore appeared only in a footnote in some modern translations of the Bible.

"What's the matter?" he said, "Don't you think God's Word can work from the small print of a footnote?"

After determining that this woman was not using her pain as a hobby, and that she truly wanted healing, he laid his hands on her in obedience to the Word--- footnote and all---and in faith she was healed!

Reading this affirmed to me that it is all God's Word, and He has seen to it that NOTHING goes missing. He knows how many hairs are on your head, and he knows the population count of sparrows, and each of millions of stars He has taken the trouble to name. He can certainly make His Word known to our hearts!

[Guest Biblicist]

Lets test this.

In Genesis 1:1-2a It says " In the begining God created the heavens and the Earth, and the earth was (note that word) without form and void. Now upon careful consideration that makes no sense. How did God create the earth without form ( waste), and void (empty).

Isa 45:18 KJV testifies.. For thus saith the LORD that created the heaven; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, (vain is same word use in Genesis for without form) he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.

This would seem to be a contradiction in the word. But let us take a look at that word was. That word 'was' is translated become or come to pass. That same Hebrew word is also use in the case of Lots wife stating that she became a pillar of salt. I would say that that word was is rightly translate became in light of Isa 45:18.

In the beginingGod created the heaven and the earth and the earth became waste and empty.

Strongs defines it as this. . .link

huparcho, "to exist," especially when referring to an already existing condition, e.g., Luk 8:41; Act 5:4 (2nd part); 16:3; 27:12; Rom 4:19, AV, "when he was" (RV, "he being");

Acutally the whole defination is this. . . link

1) to be, become, come to pass, exist, happen, fall out

1a) (Qal)

1a1) -----

1a1a) to happen, fall out, occur, take place, come about,

come to pass

1a1b) to come about, come to pass

1a2) to come into being, become

1a2a) to arise, appear, come

1a2b) to become

1a2b1) to become

1a2b2) to become like

1a2b3) to be instituted, be established

1a3) to be

1a3a) to exist, be in existence

1a3b) to abide, remain, continue (with word of place or time)

1a3c) to stand, lie, be in, be at, be situated (with word

of locality)

1a3d) to accompany, be with

1b) (Niphal)

1b1) to occur, come to pass, be done, be brought about

1b2) to be done, be finished, be gone

I am amazed that you use ONE WORD out of scripture to create an entire "doctrine".

It could also be translated, In the beginning God created the Heaven and the earth, and the earth. . .

~ existed without form and void.

~ stood without form and void.

~ occured without form and void.

~ came into being without form and void.

[RGR]

I used to teach Sunday School class some years back and our Teacher's book was "interlinear" with both KJV and NIV. I never saw one instance of the NIV contradicting the KJV in any of the books. I have used the NLT at church before and comparing it with the KJV that our pastor is reading, I have rarely found anything out of line. The times that I did disagree w/ something it was simply a case that I thought that NLT could have used a different word or something and not something doctrinally wrong.

[Guest Biblicist]

Thank you for your response. Its funny that you think that I 'created' this "doctrine". I dont think anyone is smart enough to make this up. Also, I am well aware of all the uses of that paticular Hebrew word. If the world was created without form and void then we have to say that there is a contridiction in the word. For it plainly states in Isa 45 that God formed the earth and didn't CREATE it in vain (or without form). To be honest the Word seems only to be explaining Word. I dont care for your agreement with me, I am no one. But let us agree with the Word of God. His Word says that He didnt formed the earth and didnt create it in vain (or without void). How do you reconcile Isa 45:18 against Gen 1:1-2 ?

I think this would be best worked out in a different thread. . .

[Friarbob]

I do have preference for the King James Bible but I also read other translations such as the NKJVand the NIV. And yes I find the king james as easy to read as the nIV or NKJV. In fact I find it easier to to read than the NASB.

[EricH]

It is not written in the way I speak naturally, so it takes more concentration to understand.