Is the KJV easy for you to read?

[Marnie]

For the sake of the many young believers who read this stuff, it might be helpful to mention that the so-called errors referred to are NOT doctinal errors or errors of theology or errors surrounding the Faith. The errors my husband, butero and others refer to are we call "errors in transmission," and "errors of translation."

An "error in transmission" is a copiest's error. The early MSS were all copied by hand and circulated to various churches. During this time, there was persecution of the Church and so many of these MSS were written on the run and at night, in the dark. And so while human errors crept, the basic teachings remain intact. So, in the oldest MSS you would read, say, an army had 10,000. In a later manuscript, that army now had 100,000. You can see somebody made a mistake, a zero was added or dropped. The odds are good that the earliest MSS, is probably correct, the army had 10,000. You see? We encounter these minor errors all the time with numbers, locations and spellings of names. Again, doctrines and theology don't change or have errors, just the mechanical erros associated with hand copying lengthy MSS under less than ideal conditions.

The "errors in translation" are a little more elusive. It is said that for political reasons, King James actually changed some of wording in "his" version to suit his treasury. That is why we read in the KJV the word "charity" instead of "love." It's a minor point, but one worth making. Also, as time has marched on we have learned more about the original languages of the Bible through archeological discoveries and extra biblical sources recently discovered, like the Dead Sea Scrolls. These new discoveries have shed light on the ancient Biblcial languages which the modern translations have taken into account. An unwillingness to revise the KJV has left it hopelessly out of date. That is one why the NIV is so highly recommended; it is always issuing corrections and alternate translations of certain words or phrases. How do we learn more about a language through historical discoveries? Consider this: Years ago our word "queer" meant strange or unusual. Today it doesn't. Years ago our word "gay" meant happy and joyful; not any more. Years ago you could use the word "niggardly" and everybody would know you were talking about my husband...somebody who watches every penny they spend. Do you see how history dictates the meanings assigned to words? And so as we learn more about ancient Near-Eastern culture through recent discoveries, we learn more about how they used the language of their day.

All I wanted to make clear is that ANY version of the Bible (orthodox version) will contain the fundamental Christian theology and doctrines, so nobody needs to be concerned that somehow they are reading lies or mistakes or whatever. I don't think anybody here is trying to say that about any good, decent translation.

[Floatingaxe]

For the sake of the many young believers who read this stuff, it might be helpful to mention that the so-called errors referred to are NOT doctinal errors or errors of theology or errors surrounding the Faith. The errors my husband, butero and others refer to are we call "errors in transmission," and "errors of translation."

An "error in transmission" is a copiest's error. The early MSS were all copied by hand and circulated to various churches. During this time, there was persecution of the Church and so many of these MSS were written on the run and at night, in the dark. And so while human errors crept, the basic teachings remain intact. So, in the oldest MSS you would read, say, an army had 10,000. In a later manuscript, that army now had 100,000. You can see somebody made a mistake, a zero was added or dropped. The odds are good that the earliest MSS, is probably correct, the army had 10,000. You see? We encounter these minor errors all the time with numbers, locations and spellings of names. Again, doctrines and theology don't change or have errors, just the mechanical erros associated with hand copying lengthy MSS under less than ideal conditions.

The "errors in translation" are a little more elusive. It is said that for political reasons, King James actually changed some of wording in "his" version to suit his treasury. That is why we read in the KJV the word "charity" instead of "love." It's a minor point, but one worth making. Also, as time has marched on we have learned more about the original languages of the Bible through archeological discoveries and extra biblical sources recently discovered, like the Dead Sea Scrolls. These new discoveries have shed light on the ancient Biblcial languages which the modern translations have taken into account. An unwillingness to revise the KJV has left it hopelessly out of date. That is one why the NIV is so highly recommended; it is always issuing corrections and alternate translations of certain words or phrases. How do we learn more about a language through historical discoveries? Consider this: Years ago our word "queer" meant strange or unusual. Today it doesn't. Years ago our word "gay" meant happy and joyful; not any more. Years ago you could use the word "niggardly" and everybody would know you were talking about my husband...somebody who watches every penny they spend. Do you see how history dictates the meanings assigned to words? And so as we learn more about ancient Near-Eastern culture through recent discoveries, we learn more about how they used the language of their day.

All I wanted to make clear is that ANY version of the Bible (orthodox version) will contain the fundamental Christian theology and doctrines, so nobody needs to be concerned that somehow they are reading lies or mistakes or whatever. I don't think anybody here is trying to say that about any good, decent translation.

Yep!

[Floatingaxe]

I believe the KJV will remain with us. There are people like myself that won't use or trust any other, and when we speak from the Bible, will only use the KJV. By now, I think this topic has been thoroughly debated, and ulitimately the readers will have to decide for themselves who is right and who is wrong.

So, you mean to tell us that only those who read from the KJV can know the whole truth?

If so, how elitist of you, Butero. There are millions of people who have NO access to the KJV, simply by virtue of the fact that they DO NOT SPEAK ENGLISH! Are they deprived from the whole 100% truth because they do not speak or read from the "ye olde english" of some of our forebears? Ridiculous.

My God is able to preserve the truth, don't you worry about it one bit. His message has never been altered by any of the translations. You are spreading fearsome hype to our weaker brothers and sisters, and I stand against it.

[Floatingaxe]

So, someone in Borneo who has been given a translation based on any other version of the Bible does not possess 100% truth?

God is soooooo able to reveal Himself to all who read the Bible, no matter what version or language it is in. The King James vernacular is not sanctified.

I believe God has preserved his Word perfect in one translation to every language where they have a Bible. In this case, the perfect English version is the King James Bible. Let me ask you this again Floatingaxe. There are likely more than 50 translations of the Bible in English today. They are all differen't. How can 50 plus translations all be 100 percent perfect? I don't see any way you can make such a claim, and if you can, please explain?

This is where I addressed that earlier. You have yet to explain any way where God can preserve his Word 100 percent in numberous translations that differ from each other?

WHAT? God can do anything. He is committed to making sure His Word is propogated. Your concern is the 100%. God's concern is the message, and His Holy Spirit coming in and changing lives. His concern is salvation and relationship. No translation conceals those truths.

[Vickilynn]

For the sake of the many young believers who read this stuff, it might be helpful to mention that the so-called errors referred to are NOT doctinal errors or errors of theology or errors surrounding the Faith. The errors my husband, butero and others refer to are we call "errors in transmission," and "errors of translation."

An "error in transmission" is a copiest's error. The early MSS were all copied by hand and circulated to various churches. During this time, there was persecution of the Church and so many of these MSS were written on the run and at night, in the dark. And so while human errors crept, the basic teachings remain intact. So, in the oldest MSS you would read, say, an army had 10,000. In a later manuscript, that army now had 100,000. You can see somebody made a mistake, a zero was added or dropped. The odds are good that the earliest MSS, is probably correct, the army had 10,000. You see? We encounter these minor errors all the time with numbers, locations and spellings of names. Again, doctrines and theology don't change or have errors, just the mechanical erros associated with hand copying lengthy MSS under less than ideal conditions.

The "errors in translation" are a little more elusive. It is said that for political reasons, King James actually changed some of wording in "his" version to suit his treasury. That is why we read in the KJV the word "charity" instead of "love." It's a minor point, but one worth making. Also, as time has marched on we have learned more about the original languages of the Bible through archeological discoveries and extra biblical sources recently discovered, like the Dead Sea Scrolls. These new discoveries have shed light on the ancient Biblcial languages which the modern translations have taken into account. An unwillingness to revise the KJV has left it hopelessly out of date. That is one why the NIV is so highly recommended; it is always issuing corrections and alternate translations of certain words or phrases. How do we learn more about a language through historical discoveries? Consider this: Years ago our word "queer" meant strange or unusual. Today it doesn't. Years ago our word "gay" meant happy and joyful; not any more. Years ago you could use the word "niggardly" and everybody would know you were talking about my husband...somebody who watches every penny they spend. Do you see how history dictates the meanings assigned to words? And so as we learn more about ancient Near-Eastern culture through recent discoveries, we learn more about how they used the language of their day.

All I wanted to make clear is that ANY version of the Bible (orthodox version) will contain the fundamental Christian theology and doctrines, so nobody needs to be concerned that somehow they are reading lies or mistakes or whatever. I don't think anybody here is trying to say that about any good, decent translation.

Shalom Marnie,

Thank you!

[Floatingaxe]

Vickilinn, since you are a defender of the NIV, I would like you to comment on the following. In the NIV, Mark 15:27-29 appears like this:

27 They crucified two robbers with him, one on his right and one on his left.

29 Those who passed by hurled insults at him, shaking their heads and saying, So! You who are going to destroy the temple and build it in three days,

You may be saying to yourself, where is verse 28? It is found in a footnote at the bottom.

a27 Some manuscripts left 28 and the scripture was fulfilled which says, "He was counted with the lawless ones: (Isaiah 53:12)

To someone who is simply reading, without looking to the footnotes, they completely omitted verse 28. In addition, even if you took the time to read the footnote, the validity of the verse is discredited.

Now, if you turn over to Mark 16, after verse 8 comes this remark. (The two most reliable manuscripts do not have Mark 16:9-20.)

This completely discredits verses 9 through 20 in the minds of the gullible who actually believe the lie that the two most reliable manuscripts leave all those verses out. This is typical of the kind of problems found in the NIV and why I don't have any regard for it. In addition, they are also the same people that intentionally perverted the scriptures with the gender neutral abomination. My question to you is how do you defend them, and given the fact they were willing to intentionally change scripture to cater to feminists, how can you trust them?

Why don't you ask them, seeing as you are alarmed?

[Vickilynn]

Vickilinn, since you are a defender of the NIV, I would like you to comment on the following.

Shalom Butero,

Excuse me?

I'm not "defending" any translation.

Listen, if you wish to use the KJV-only, that's your choice. I'm not attacking your choice or the KJV. I only wonder at your lack of the same. And I disagree with your assertion that KJV is the ONLY true Word of G-d. But hey, you are entitled to your opinion. And since you readily admit that your opinion cannot be proven by fact, and it is your opinion, I again wonder at you not giving grace to others who hold different opinions.

[kittylover0991]

Alright,

May I please attempt to clear something up?? You all are absolutely right.... the idea that the KJV is the pure word of God is simply opinion, and the same with the newer versions being based on the Word of God. With this, one bases these "opinions" on the facts they have seen/heard or what they have seen/heard that may or may not be facts.

WIth that in mind, the question is NOT as to whether or not God CAN preserve His Word.. remember, the bible says God can do anything!!! We all know that he is all power, etc.... However, the quesiton comes down to Psalms 12:6-7 that says GOd woudl preserve His Word.

The quesiton.... WHERE IS GOD"S PRESERVED WORD.

Please hear me out.. Butero has been tyring to find the answer to this question for a while now, and maybe the question just isn't being understood. We've established that there are various versions of the bible and that the newer versions are different, mostly becuase of the fact that they are in "modern" english. Not even consideirng the verses that are mising, this proves that His WOrd has been changed from what God says, to what man thinks God said.

With this in mind, GOd said he woudl preserve (means 100%) His Word. I'm not asking where parts of God's Word exists, or even "this versions is worse than version". EVEN IF the KJV is NOT the pure word of God.... WHERE IS GOD"S FULLY PRESERVED WORD HERE ON THIS EARTH??

I woudl really apprecaite if someone coudl answer the quesiton of "where" instead of beating around the bush and saying it's not important, or that something else is more important, becuase really, this is what the discussion comes to.. Where is the preserved Word that God PROMISED us he woudl preserve? We've already established that at least most of the oriignal manuscripts are gone because of use.... WHERE is God's preserved Word? Would anyone mind answering the question of "where" for me please???

Crystal

[Vickilynn]

If you go back and read Marnie's post that you gave a thumbs up to, she specifically endorces the NIV.

Shalom Butero,

Sorry, but you're mistaken. The thumbs up was for the position she takes on the different translations, not one in particular.

Here is the statement that sums up my agreement with Marnie

All I wanted to make clear is that ANY version of the Bible (orthodox version) will contain the fundamental Christian theology and doctrines, so nobody needs to be concerned that somehow they are reading lies or mistakes or whatever. I don't think anybody here is trying to say that about any good, decent translation.

She had a lot of information in her post. I'm not defending anything except the L-rd who I trust to speak His Word to us through different translations. And I've not been dogmatic about anything I've posted, so you addressing me is curious.

I refuse to argue with you about this. I do I am not dogmatic about the translations, I trust G-d to speak to us through His Word. If you want to argue with someone who endorses the NIV, there are those in this thread that do, I don't "endorse" any translation, so you're barking up the wrong tree.

[Vickilynn]

These new discoveries have shed light on the ancient Biblcial languages which the modern translations have taken into account. An unwillingness to revise the KJV has left it hopelessly out of date. That is one why the NIV is so highly recommended; it is always issuing corrections and alternate translations of certain words or phrases.

Shalom Marnie,

Thank you!

Vickilynn, this is the portion of Marnie's post I am refering to. You gave an across the board endorsement of the post, so that is why I stated you were defending the NIV. Are you now saying you do not defend the NIV? Also, do you believe that we have a perfect translation of the Bible in English, or do you hold to the view that every English translation has errors? Do you believe God preserved his Word for us, or are we left with translations with varying degrees of mistakes?

Shalom Butero,

I already explained to you what I agreed with in her post and why. I'm sorry that is not good enough for you, but you are mistaken in your assertions.

Also, I expected more than this from you. I am saddened that you are intent on pushing this with me when I already stated my position. I refuse to argue with you. You need to argue with those who endorse the NIV. I endorse G-d and His ability to speak to us through His Word and not any particular translation.

I cannot make my position any clearer than that. If you wish to argue your position, it will be with someone else.