Is the KJV easy for you to read?

[Marnie]

Hi Crystal,

Here's what you wrote:

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God" 1 Tim 3:16

We dot' have most of hte Oriignal manuscripts (not counting the major one: the dead sea scrolls) becuase they ahve been used so widely.. but God said He woudl preserve His Word. It's your opinion that reading the KJV is like "drinking watered down milk" but the newer translations must be even worse, considering the grade levels listed for the newer versions.

However, I dont' know Hebrew (yet) so I can't say. Question, WHERE is God's fully preserved Word?

First, 1 Timothy 3:16, if you want to be technical, is referring to the Old Testament, which was all they had at that time. You are correct, the original manuscripts have long since vanished in time. The Dead Sea Scrolls are still generations removed from the originals. The reason the newer translations are more reliable is because they used the more recently discovered MSS that are far older and therefore closer to the originals.

G-d's Word is miraculously preserved for us in the MSS that we have. There are more MSS that support the Biblical writings than Shakespeare and Homer! The fact the the oldest and the newest MSS differ so slightly is evidence that G-d has preserved His Word. But the fact remains, the text has become more corrupted with each passing copy and generation. Therefore the older the MSS the more accurate the translation. It's not rocket science.

[ayin jade]

In fact, I'd seriuosly discouraged someone from reading the newer versions. I"m not talking about other languages etc, but verisons such as the NIV, RV, RSV, NRSV, NASB, NKJV, Living Bible, AV, and all the newer versions becuase I know what they are based off of, and it isn't the Recieved Text, the Textus Receptus.

Kitty, that isnt so. There are newer translations that I know of, that use the Textus Receptus.

[apothanein kerdos]

In fact, I'd seriuosly discouraged someone from reading the newer versions. I"m not talking about other languages etc, but verisons such as the NIV, RV, RSV, NRSV, NASB, NKJV, Living Bible, AV, and all the newer versions becuase I know what they are based off of, and it isn't the Recieved Text, the Textus Receptus.

Kitty, that isnt so. There are newer translations that I know of, that use the Textus Receptus.

My question would be, why would it matter?

[TheoMike]

In fact, I'd seriuosly discouraged someone from reading the newer versions. I"m not talking about other languages etc, but verisons such as the NIV, RV, RSV, NRSV, NASB, NKJV, Living Bible, AV, and all the newer versions becuase I know what they are based off of, and it isn't the Recieved Text, the Textus Receptus.

Kitty, that isnt so. There are newer translations that I know of, that use the Textus Receptus.

My question would be, why would it matter?

The KJV-only people have a fanatical devotion to the Textus Receptus that borders on idolatry.

[Floatingaxe]

I just love the Word of God. If I could read in Swahili, I would love the version they use too!

[Scarletprayers]

I just love the Word of God. If I could read in Swahili, I would love the version they use too!

Great minds FA, I was just gonna post, I'm just glad I have a Bible and I can read it!

[KeilanS]

It is beyond me why people fight about translations so much. The King James is great, I love it. The NIV is great, I love it too. Bibles like The Message bug me a bit, but even they have there place (casual reading). If all else fails, when a verse sounds odd, compare it with other translations to make sure.

[kittylover0991]

Amen Butero

Marnie, I agree with you that just becuase a MS is old, does not make it more realiable. Again, most of the original MSS we don't have anymore because they have been used so often... Just because it's older, doesnt' automatically mean it is more accurate. For instance, supposedly, I'veh eard someone say that Aleph and B are older than the Textus Receptus (Recieved Text... aka, it came from God!!!), but that obviously does not make them more accurate.

I'm also glad to have a bible I can read.. but I'm also glad to know that when I read my Bible, I have no doubt I am reading God's pure, preserved Word that doesnt' ahve verses labeled as not being in the most reliable manuscripts. SOmeone said once that if you soemthing is wrong with their car, and sothey look in the car manual to see if they can figure out what to do... and yeah, the manual goes into detail about to deal with the problem, but then at the bottom it says "Well, we believe this to be the method of fixing this problem, but, this has been said not to be a realiable method". Honestly? I would throw that book out! I don't want a car manual that says that it's not realiable!!! God's pure word is realiable... the newer versions say that are not the most realiable MSS, which are actually only two. I think I'd prefer a "book" that can actually be supported, in this case, but thousands of manuscripts that have even been quoted by church fathers before the even greater preversion (there was preversion of God's Word before) of the 2nd and 3rd century.

Older doesn't mean better, and newer doesn't always mean worse in the way of MSS.... but with the newer versions of hte bible, they are man's translations from English, into the "common language" ... English. The bible says in Rev 22 abotu those who add or take away from the words in the Bible, and the newer versions do jsut that (NIV being a main one) and then many others such as the NASB and the NKJV that deem parts of God's Word unreliable. Not to metnion, as someone already said, the amount of verses that have been change, equal that of about 2 peter. Even though that isn't a huge book in the bible, that obviously a good chunk, and a very important chunk of God's Word to take out.

Crystal

[kittylover0991]

It is beyond me why people fight about translations so much. The King James is great, I love it. The NIV is great, I love it too. Bibles like The Message bug me a bit, but even they have there place (casual reading). If all else fails, when a verse sounds odd, compare it with other translations to make sure.

I understand what you are saying, becuase it sounds pointless, but wouldn't it be great to know that you have the pure Word of God and you don't have to compare it to some other bible to see what it means? The words are different in common english, how can they be God's pure word? Seriously?!

I love the KJV too... NIV, well, not going there.... and a "friend" gave me "The Message".... if "all else fails" why not just rely on God's holy preserved Word instead of havening to compare to books that aren't God's perfectly preserved Word? Books taht have errors? God's Word should NEVER sound odd... sure, parts can be confusing as we grow in the Lord, but the Holy Spirit gives us discernment, wisdom, and understanding. Why waste time trying to compare bible versions when you can have God's Hoy and preserved Word in front of you??

Again.. back to the original post, for me (although not for some), the KJV is easy to read... if I haven't only had four hours of sleep But.... even if the newer versions are "easier" to read, they sound weird.. they leave out things, change things.. the words are different and I've had this dsicussion too manyt imes with other people ... even when we aren't discussing this, I'll be a shown a verse adn not recognize it.. get something out of it that doesn't quite add up, look it up in the KJV and see that the verses are almost completely different... The newer versions are easier to read, but I'd rather trust hte Holy Spirit to give me understanding, rather than mans.

Besides, the idolatry thing? Do I dare take this out of context?

"In the beginnign was the Word, and the Word was God, and the Word was with God.... And the word was made flesh and dwelt among us"..

Alright, fun loop.... so... The Word is actually Christ, who is God.. to be particular about reading God's WOrd and not the words of man.. idolatry? come on folks.... It's God's Word

Crystal

[Guest Biblicist]

Hi Crystal,

Here's what you wrote:

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God" 1 Tim 3:16

We dot' have most of hte Oriignal manuscripts (not counting the major one: the dead sea scrolls) becuase they ahve been used so widely.. but God said He woudl preserve His Word. It's your opinion that reading the KJV is like "drinking watered down milk" but the newer translations must be even worse, considering the grade levels listed for the newer versions.

However, I dont' know Hebrew (yet) so I can't say. Question, WHERE is God's fully preserved Word?

First, 1 Timothy 3:16, if you want to be technical, is referring to the Old Testament, which was all they had at that time. You are correct, the original manuscripts have long since vanished in time. The Dead Sea Scrolls are still generations removed from the originals. The reason the newer translations are more reliable is because they used the more recently discovered MSS that are far older and therefore closer to the originals.

G-d's Word is miraculously preserved for us in the MSS that we have. There are more MSS that support the Biblical writings than Shakespeare and Homer! The fact the the oldest and the newest MSS differ so slightly is evidence that G-d has preserved His Word. But the fact remains, the text has become more corrupted with each passing copy and generation. Therefore the older the MSS the more accurate the translation. It's not rocket science.

Don't you believe that God can preserve his Word, Marnie?