KJV Bible and other translations of the Bible

[Guest shiloh357]

Alright Shiloh, let us continue. What I stated about the Apocrypha was that there was a controversy over the books in it. I do not believe it is up to the standards of the other 66 books of the cannon, however, when I took the time to read it, I did so with an open mind. The only verse I saw that I felt was a contradiction to scripture was one dealing with divorce. As to the historical innacuracies, not being an expert on the subject, I will readily admit that those kind of mistakes would be unnoticed by me. At the same time, I have heard historians claim that events in the Bible didn't really take place as recorded, and I have seen people that don't believe in the Bible attempt to show inconsistencies by taking an account from one book and comparing it with an account in another, just as you did with regard to Meccabees. The response would normally be to either blame it on a translation problem or to show that it wasn't really an inconsistency, but that it was two accounts that together complete a picture.

Sorry it took so long to reply, I missed this response.

The problem with the above assertion is that I took two accounts on the death of Antiochus Epiphanes that cannot reconciled. They give two separate causes of death that cannot both be true. One says he died of fear, the other says he died of a disease which was a curse from God. They cannot both be true.

The historical inaccuracies bar the Apocrypha from being inspired. There are historical inaccuracies that can be documented. No such inaccuracies exist in the Bible.

Here once again is the problem with your argument with regard to the KJV Bible. You tell me that I cannot make the claim it is innerant, and that God couldn't have move upon the translators to create a perfect English text. I am saying you are wrong. God most certainly did have the power to do so.

I did not say that. YOUR problem is that you are unable to accurately frame my position, which means you are arguing against what YOU think I mean, instead of paying attention to what was actually said. At no time did I say God was incapable of moving upon the translators to make a perfect English text. I simply said that He didn't and that it was not possible for HUMANS to create a perfect, word for word text, given the linguistic, cultural and grammatical complexities that exist when attempting to translate from one language to another. It is not a matter of just using the lexical/dictionary definitions of words, but also being familiar enough with the culture to be able to distinguish between the ways that words are used in a given culture. Almost every language has some form of slang, or "street talk," figures of speech and so forth and only an understanding of that culture will produce an accurate rendering.

For example. Let's say 5,000 years from now (if the world is still here) America is long gone and is finally rediscovered by future archeologists. Little is known about us, but a piece of paper is found with the words, "I like to see old glory paint the wind." Now, without knowing anything about American culture, how would such a phrase be understood by a future generations that are as disconnected to the 20th century United States, as we are to the Middle east of say, 3,500 years ago? Only an understanding of our culture would help them decipher what "old glory" means and what the metaphor "paint the wind" refers to.

Even then, English might not even exist in the same form we know it today, just as it does not exist in the same form as it did just 600 years ago. At one time, English sounded more like German, and it wasn't until just 500-600 years ago that English added the letter "J" to the alphabet. You underestimate the complexities involved in translation from one language to another particularly when the language being translated from was a dead language like Hebrew was in 1611.

You are further claiming that since the translators didn't believe they were divinely moved upon to write this translation, it is not divinely inspired. I am saying that argument holds no water either, because there is one place after another where God moved upon people to do things, and they were not aware God was doing so.

The KJV translators did not claim they were moved by God. The only reason they did it, is because they were commissioned by King James. That is why it is called the "King James Version." It was done solely on the command of an earthly king, and no divine instruction is credited as to being the reason they embarked on that project. They did not all come together under some common move from the Holy Spirit that they were to make a new translation. They did it because they had to and were under orders from James to make him a new translation.

You make the argument that the doctrine of divine inspiration only applies to the original manuscripts. A doctrine is nothing more than something that is taught. While that is exactly what is taught by some, other people teach differen't doctrines. Some of the more liberal people teach the doctrine that the Bible isn't inspired at all, but is just literature. Some of the more conservative Baptists teach the doctrine that the KJV translators were moved upon to create a perfect English translation of the Bible from a perfect text, the TR.

The onus is on you and them to support that assertion with evidence, of which you have exactly none.

You make the argument that there is evidence that the original manuscripts are divinely inspired. You do that based on the claims various authors made about the things they wrote, or that others wrote. Here are a few problems with that argument. First of all, while the Bible does state that all scripture is given by inspiration of God, it doesn't name the individual books that are considered scripture.

It doesn't have to state that in that particular verse because we have all of the numerous references to the Old Testament text where the New Testament makes hundreds of quotations from nearly every book in the Old Testament and even Jesus own references to "Torah," the "Prophets" and the "Writings" (Psalms) in Luke 24:44. The Hebrew Old Testament is divided into those three sections, and Jesus referred to all of them as speaking of Him.

When Paul says "Scripture" that is Jew-speak for the entire Old Testament, or the Tanakh. Peter even refers to Paul's writings as Scripture. So, to claim we don't know what the term "Scripture" encompassed in Paul's day, is just nonsense. You really don't know what you are talking about.

Second, there are books refered to in the 66 books of the cannon that don't appear in the cannon.

Irrelevant. Just because they are mentioned does not suddenly give them impetus as being inspired. They are historical in nature and writers drew upon them and that really has no bearing on inspiriation. Paul also quotes from pagan philosophers. That does not make those pagan philosphers inspired. So that is really a nonstarter.

Third, while Peter refers to Paul's writings, I know of at least one epistle that didn't make it into the cannon. I also know of many additional books that are attributed to the Apostle Paul, so that brings into question why they were not included in the cannon? I know some are obvious forgeries, but the epistle I spoke of is not. Nobody I know of is disputing it was written by Paul, but for some reason, it isn't in the Bible.

The books that Paul was inspired to write made it into the canon. Just because Paul wrote it, does not mean it was inspired by God. I suppose Paul wrote all kinds of things we have not uncovered that were not "inspired." People are putting the cart before the horse. They assume that if Paul wrote it, it should be considered inspired, and that is not the criteria. Not everything Paul said and did in life was necessarily "inspired" or "perfect." Paul made mistakes and the Bible bears those out. Paul's letters in the Bible are inspired, but Paul did not walk around in a perpetual state of inspiration, but I think that people, in their subconscious, think he did, or at least that is how they treat him.

Next, if God couldn't have moved upon the KJV translators, then I could also claim he didn't move on the people who put the 66 books of the cannon together. I could claim that they were mere men doing the best they could to try to determine what should or should not make it into scripture. I could claim they may have left things out that belonged, or included things that shouldn't be there. I don't make those claims, because I do believe God moved upon these men, but that is by faith. I have read the completed Word, and can see the divine inspiration, not only in the text, but in the way it was put together.

You are trying to compare two different things. Peter already new that Paul's writings were Scripture. That's 13 out of the 27 books. Beyond that, any attempt to say what they knew and did not know about what books in the New Testament were to be part of the Word of God in the 1st century, would be conjecture at best.

What we do know is that there was a very strict criteria about what the books had to contain and not contain in order to inspired. It was actually very complex and orderly. It was not a fly-by-night enterprise, nor was it based on personal religious bias.

The problem with claiming that a translation is "inspired," is translators are not receiving revelatory information. The text is what they have to go on, and there are rules that govern translating and rules that govern how each language works, and God has never circumvented that. Those rules have to be followed because if they are not followed, you will have an unreadable, and unintelligible text. You would have worthless manuscript. God condescends and operates within these parameters to get His Word to the world. He always has. The KJV was not the first English translation.

Ever wonder why God doesn't just drop a bag of $1,000 bills to us when we need money? One reason because every bill printed in the US has a serial number. God would not create new money, because to do so would be considered counterfeiting. God uses legal channels to get the necessary finances to us when we need them. He works within the existing system to accomplish His Will.

Whether you want to admit it or not, the evidence you point to is very weak, and while you point to your evidence, you belittle the more important factor in this debate, one of faith.

I have not belittled faith at all. Instead, I have demonstrated that faith is not something that someone exercises without the benefit of evidence, and because of that, our faith is not a blind faith, but one that can be supported by evidence.

As I said earlier, if I was one who didn't believe the Bible was the Word of God, and someone came to me and showed me for evidence the things you mentioned, I wouldn't be moved in the least. I would shrug it off based on the things I just stated. I don't believe the Bible is the Word of God simply because it testifies to itself.

Jesus and Paul ran into the same problem, so I am in good company. There are people who will not believe no matter what is shown to them. The fact that people can shrug it off the evidence I present is more of a testimony to hardness of their hearts than it is to any misperceived "weakness" in the evidence. In the Millennium, when Jesus is on the earth ruling and reigin in person from the Jerusalem, there will still be people who join in with Satan and rebel against Him after the 1,000 years is complete. They cannot deny Jesus or the validity of the Bible, but that does not mean that they will accept Him even though they can see Him and God's existence is finally irrefutablly proven beyound a shadow of a doubt. Even if God were to manifest Himself, they would still rather remain in their sin. It shows that unbelief is not rooted in a lack of evidence, but is the result of the wickedness of the unrepentant heart.

By the way, when I said you were trying to demonize me, I was refering to your attempts to misrepresent my position. You were making it appear that I was disputing the validity of the Word of God, when clearly I was not.

I did not "demonize" you. I was simply honest about the unChristian nature of your argument. Your problem is that you cannot demonstrate from an evidentiary standpoint that the KJV is "inspired" and so to deflect attention from your baseless argument, you decided to claim that I was equally unable to "prove" the inspiration of the Bible. I responded that I never claimed be able to "prove" anything, but rather, evidence for the inspiration of the Bible exists, even within the text itself and that indeed the very nature of the Bible and the claims it makes are so foreign and offensive to human nature, that man left to his own devices would never have written the Bible. The nature of the Bible defies human origin, meaning that it must come from some place outside of humanity. I could go on and on, but the fact is that you are simply making desparate claims about my inability to defend the inspiration of the Bible to make it appear just as weak as your inability to demonstrate that the KJV is "inspired. I can guarantee you, that you are on the losing end of that contest.

[Reuben Hick]

Although 90% of Bibles agree on 90% of the translation........it ought to give us pause that almost all the modern translations leave out enough verses or words from Textus Receptus to make up THE ENTIRE BOOK OF JAMES!

Can you drill down more on this?

The TR is different. The example given in the website of 1Ti 3:16, the difference is based on the Alexandrian or the Byzantine texts. The former uses the Greek 'hos' which is a pronoun. The latter, or the TR gives us "theos" which we know is "God." The NIV and the NAS choose the Alexandrian; Geneva, KJV and the NKJV use the TR.

What I find interesting is the differences made by the interpreter. Open up Hebrews 11:11 in the KJV (Byzantine), and then the NAS (Alexandrian) read the passage and note that Sarah is included into the Hall of Faith. This shows that both text agree on Sarah's inclusion. Now open up the NIV (per)version and note that they gratuitously kicked her out of the Hall of Faith.

So which one is correct, or should we not care?

[Reuben Hick]

I used to go with what ever translation the church I was in at the time was using but as more and more came into focus the "business" of Bibles and Christian literature began to grind on me with regars to it being a seemingly monetary business, more so that spreading the word of God. I began to see Bibles like Mars Bars, we have the original Mars Bar, the Mars Bar Pods, the Mars Bar Bites..... Etc, you get my point. A new way of marketing the same product for extra profit.

With the degree of change I also saw in doctrine within the church, the twisting of scripture from the pulpit to fit the direction of leadership and the twisting of scripture to gain greater authority over congegants, I began to ask questions and wanted the real answer.

I wanted to know why we did as we did not because it was always done that way or because the Pastor was being "led by the Spirit" to go in another direction.

So I started with wanting to know which is the Bible translation to use and I wanted to know the history behind which is the best translation to use. What I have personally found is that unless I learn Hebrew I am not going to get the same text exactly. Right from the time of the Council of Niece politics and the motives of church leadership has played a part in the Bible we have today in english, be it the 1611 translation or the translations of today.

One thing I ask God about often though is that of personality. I know God gave us all the ability to learn to read but some struggle with reading greatly, some love the theological in depth reading others find that very hard and I do wonder if even the children's story books are God breathed. I go through times where I read the Bible stories as children's books to my boys and I get the greatest revelation ever but then sometimes it is when I am in a deeply theological or philosophical frame of mind that I have revelation through the word.

At the end of the day to have absolute Biblical truth we'd need a time machine and or the ability to speak and understand the language of the day.

All good points.

I would like to add a few more.

From a congregational standpoint, if the teacher is reading from one text and out in the congregation there are dozens of other translations, it is distracting, and for the elderly members, it is more difficult to resolve the differences.

The KJV is a fine English translation (I prefer the Geneva, but that's me). The KJV is also the best supported outside of the computerized versions, in that any books worth reading either use the original languages or quote from the KJV. Strong's concordance is based on the KJV. The KJV also treats technical words uniformally throughout the Bible so if you want to look up a word and see how it is used in the Bible, you don't necessarily have to consult Englishman's. Modern (per)versions like to play fast and loose with words and they will seek a thesaurus just to mix up the words - this isn't helpful for study.

The KJV has quite a number of errors. The nice thing is, they are very well documented and thus well known and correctable during study.

I won't go into paraphrases and dynamic equivalences because I believe they are heretical in their philosophy. The authors of the Scriptures were inspired by God to write what they did. For that reason I prefer the original languages when I study. If I must use an English, I use Geneva or KJV word-for-word translations. NKJV for publishing to foums since so many people are semi-literate and won't trouble themselves to learn God's word. The paraphrase, and worse, the dynamic equivalences like the blasphemous "The Message", by definition try to rephrase the Scriptures without the benefit of inspiration by the Holy Spirit. Thus, Dr.Taylor's Living Bible wrests Scripture so that it clearly pushes his personal Free Will soteriology. (Clue for FWTs, use the Message and Living Bible for your proof texts - it already manipulates the passages to say what you want them to say, not what God intended).

If you need proof that the modern (per)versions are NOT God's Word, just look for the copyright and the language threatening legal action if you quote too much from "their" Bible. Since when did God give up His copyright to Thomas Nelson and the IBS? And since when did God approve sueing Christians in court for sharing the Word? This copyright is an admission that their stuff is so unique to them that THEY own it and have the legal right to control its use.

And last, what are we communicating to the unbelievers when we have dozens upon dozens of translations? We are confirming a post moderninst philosophy that what is true for you may not be true for me or for that other person. Every time there is a new (per)version, we are hammering home the point that the Bible says what you want it to say. We are also communicating the idea that the Bible is errant - it has so many problems and difficulties in translation that every translation up to this new shiny one has some gross error(s) in it that have been corrected by this new version. And this new version will be the best we can do until the next new one comes out and make it even clearer and more accurate. And if trying to make a more accurate version is the goal, then it is to make it more readable, which suggests that the Bible is being dummied down to the lowest common denominator. Do you really think that a Dick & Jane version of the Bible is going to be faithful to the deep truths contained within, or is the Holy Spirit supposed to correct these errors or give you insight that the Paraclete failed to give to countless previous generations of scholars and theologians?

This is a deconstructionalist's dream having versions contradicting other version which says the whole Bible is a farce.

Maybe the Catholics were right in wanting to kill Tyndale.

[GymRose]

From a congregational standpoint, if the teacher is reading from one text and out in the congregation there are dozens of other translations, it is distracting, and for the elderly members, it is more difficult to resolve the differences.

The KJV is a fine English translation (I prefer the Geneva, but that's me). The KJV is also the best supported outside of the computerized versions, in that any books worth reading either use the original languages or quote from the KJV. Strong's concordance is based on the KJV. The KJV also treats technical words uniformally throughout the Bible so if you want to look up a word and see how it is used in the Bible, you don't necessarily have to consult Englishman's. Modern (per)versions like to play fast and loose with words and they will seek a thesaurus just to mix up the words - this isn't helpful for study.

The KJV has quite a number of errors. The nice thing is, they are very well documented and thus well known and correctable during study.

I won't go into paraphrases and dynamic equivalences because I believe they are heretical in their philosophy. The authors of the Scriptures were inspired by God to write what they did. For that reason I prefer the original languages when I study. If I must use an English, I use Geneva or KJV word-for-word translations. NKJV for publishing to foums since so many people are semi-literate and won't trouble themselves to learn God's word. The paraphrase, and worse, the dynamic equivalences like the blasphemous "The Message", by definition try to rephrase the Scriptures without the benefit of inspiration by the Holy Spirit. Thus, Dr.Taylor's Living Bible wrests Scripture so that it clearly pushes his personal Free Will soteriology. (Clue for FWTs, use the Message and Living Bible for your proof texts - it already manipulates the passages to say what you want them to say, not what God intended).

If you need proof that the modern (per)versions are NOT God's Word, just look for the copyright and the language threatening legal action if you quote too much from "their" Bible. Since when did God give up His copyright to Thomas Nelson and the IBS? And since when did God approve sueing Christians in court for sharing the Word? This copyright is an admission that their stuff is so unique to them that THEY own it and have the legal right to control its use.

And last, what are we communicating to the unbelievers when we have dozens upon dozens of translations? We are confirming a post moderninst philosophy that what is true for you may not be true for me or for that other person. Every time there is a new (per)version, we are hammering home the point that the Bible says what you want it to say. We are also communicating the idea that the Bible is errant - it has so many problems and difficulties in translation that every translation up to this new shiny one has some gross error(s) in it that have been corrected by this new version. And this new version will be the best we can do until the next new one comes out and make it even clearer and more accurate. And if trying to make a more accurate version is the goal, then it is to make it more readable, which suggests that the Bible is being dummied down to the lowest common denominator. Do you really think that a Dick & Jane version of the Bible is going to be faithful to the deep truths contained within, or is the Holy Spirit supposed to correct these errors or give you insight that the Paraclete failed to give to countless previous generations of scholars and theologians?

This is a deconstructionalist's dream having versions contradicting other version which says the whole Bible is a farce.

Maybe the Catholics were right in wanting to kill Tyndale.

I personally found a couple these points very interesting and very thought provoking.

It bought one question to my mind though. Do Jews and Muslims have different translations as we do? I ask this from the point of view that we all have the first 5 books of the Old Testement. Sorry if this is diverting a little from the OP but the question came to me reading this post about the witness of our translations to non Christians and I'm now curious if anyone knows the answer to this.

Second, why did the Catholics want to kill Tyndale? I'm still discovering Church and Christian history (my interest in this thread).

[Massorite]

From a congregational standpoint, if the teacher is reading from one text and out in the congregation there are dozens of other translations, it is distracting, and for the elderly members, it is more difficult to resolve the differences.

The KJV is a fine English translation (I prefer the Geneva, but that's me). The KJV is also the best supported outside of the computerized versions, in that any books worth reading either use the original languages or quote from the KJV. Strong's concordance is based on the KJV. The KJV also treats technical words uniformally throughout the Bible so if you want to look up a word and see how it is used in the Bible, you don't necessarily have to consult Englishman's. Modern (per)versions like to play fast and loose with words and they will seek a thesaurus just to mix up the words - this isn't helpful for study.

The KJV has quite a number of errors. The nice thing is, they are very well documented and thus well known and correctable during study.

I won't go into paraphrases and dynamic equivalences because I believe they are heretical in their philosophy. The authors of the Scriptures were inspired by God to write what they did. For that reason I prefer the original languages when I study. If I must use an English, I use Geneva or KJV word-for-word translations. NKJV for publishing to foums since so many people are semi-literate and won't trouble themselves to learn God's word. The paraphrase, and worse, the dynamic equivalences like the blasphemous "The Message", by definition try to rephrase the Scriptures without the benefit of inspiration by the Holy Spirit. Thus, Dr.Taylor's Living Bible wrests Scripture so that it clearly pushes his personal Free Will soteriology. (Clue for FWTs, use the Message and Living Bible for your proof texts - it already manipulates the passages to say what you want them to say, not what God intended).

If you need proof that the modern (per)versions are NOT God's Word, just look for the copyright and the language threatening legal action if you quote too much from "their" Bible. Since when did God give up His copyright to Thomas Nelson and the IBS? And since when did God approve sueing Christians in court for sharing the Word? This copyright is an admission that their stuff is so unique to them that THEY own it and have the legal right to control its use.

And last, what are we communicating to the unbelievers when we have dozens upon dozens of translations? We are confirming a post moderninst philosophy that what is true for you may not be true for me or for that other person. Every time there is a new (per)version, we are hammering home the point that the Bible says what you want it to say. We are also communicating the idea that the Bible is errant - it has so many problems and difficulties in translation that every translation up to this new shiny one has some gross error(s) in it that have been corrected by this new version. And this new version will be the best we can do until the next new one comes out and make it even clearer and more accurate. And if trying to make a more accurate version is the goal, then it is to make it more readable, which suggests that the Bible is being dummied down to the lowest common denominator. Do you really think that a Dick & Jane version of the Bible is going to be faithful to the deep truths contained within, or is the Holy Spirit supposed to correct these errors or give you insight that the Paraclete failed to give to countless previous generations of scholars and theologians?

This is a deconstructionalist's dream having versions contradicting other version which says the whole Bible is a farce.

Maybe the Catholics were right in wanting to kill Tyndale.

I personally found a couple these points very interesting and very thought provoking.

It bought one question to my mind though. Do Jews and Muslims have different translations as we do? I ask this from the point of view that we all have the first 5 books of the Old Testement. Sorry if this is diverting a little from the OP but the question came to me reading this post about the witness of our translations to non Christians and I'm now curious if anyone knows the answer to this.

Second, why did the Catholics want to kill Tyndale? I'm still discovering Church and Christian history (my interest in this thread).

William Tyndale was inspired by God to translate the bible into the first English bible. The Catholic church considered the English language to be vulgar and unholy. An English bible meant that the Catholic church would loose control over the scriptures and the interpretation of them as the Catholic church did then and still does today believe that they are the only people ordained by God who can properly interpret scripture and all other interpretations or wrong. Which is why they have their own bible.

I have a CD titled "God's Outlaw" ( THE STORY OF WILLIAM TYNDALE) When Tyndale was a wanted man in England and all of Europe, the bible and even prayers in English were outlawed by a harsh religious establishment.

Yes the Muslims have two translations. One for the middle east and one for all other countries. But you don't hear about that. The one for the middle east is much more hard core and radical which justifies killing, lying, and all sorts of deception in the name of advancing Islam.

[GymRose]

Thank You Massorite

That helps on both counts.

I think I'll have to read more about Tyndale, I did know he one of the first to interpret into English, I didn't know he was the first nor did I know of those harsh penelties although I've known for a long time about the control the Catholic Church has or would like to think it has / had over scripture.