7thseal Posted April 16, 2008 Group: Senior Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 14 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 825 Content Per Day: 0.13 Reputation: 186 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/13/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted April 16, 2008 I've mostly stuck with KJV and the KJV study bible. I'm just about through reading the NKJV Life Application which my father-in-law had given me and I must say that I like reading from it very much. It gives a vary of different interprets on a good chunk of the verses. I became really interested in reading these. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ovedya Posted April 17, 2008 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 375 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 11,400 Content Per Day: 1.43 Reputation: 125 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/30/2002 Status: Offline Birthday: 08/14/1971 Share Posted April 17, 2008 That the KJV is viewed to be the inerrant Word of God must be entirely by faith, for we do not have the original manuscripts to compare the translation. Therefore I would submit that it is really no better or worse, or any different, than any other translation which is received equally "by faith" as the Word of God. You are correct in that we do not have the original manuscripts. That being the case, it takes an act of faith to believe they were innerant. It also takes an act of faith to believe the 66 books of the cannon all belong in the Bible, and that no others should be included. The point I am making is that you have no problem with those doctrines, even without proof, yet those of us who take things a step further and say that God preserved his Word perfectly in the KJV Bible are supposed to have to provide evidence beyond what you are doing in defending the original manuscipts or the integrity of the cannon. It is all by faith, just as I believe by faith that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God, while others deny his diety. God has given me the faith to believe it. I do not believe the comparison between faith in Jesus Christ as the Son of the Living God (As in Peter's confession) and faith in the KJV as the Word of God are the same thing. For with the one there is the impartation of the very life and nature of God and with the other there is the resonance within our human spirit that the Words of Christ are true. IN other words, the faith that God has imparted into all believers alike, is through the Son whereas the Word of God merely corresponds with that life, as the confirmation of what God has spoken. The fact is, the Word if God transcends those minor ineffectual human contradictions which normally occur during translations. The Word if God is in the message of the word, not literally in the text. The problems with translation occurs when the message is changed or watered down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wingwalker Posted April 17, 2008 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 1 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 970 Content Per Day: 0.14 Reputation: 11 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/20/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted April 17, 2008 "Of course we all know that St Paul used the KJV. If it was good enough for him, its good enough for me." Is there anyone on this thread who understands the biblical canon wasn't even set until 200 plus years after Paul's time, and, seeing as it wasn't published until 1611, the only way Paul COULD have used it was via time travel? Olde English didn't even exist in Paul's time, nor did at least one book (Revelation). The argument that "the KJV is the Bible that Paul used" is an absolute nonstarter... The statement is being used sarcasticly. They realize the KJV was not around at that time, that is the point. What so many people either fail to recognize, or choose to forget is that the KJV is a translation and one that is no better or worse than most others. It is not perfect, it is not inspired, it is not the only "allowable" bible. It's an argument that is human-based, carries no weight, and continues to cause division and animosity whenever and wherever it is argued so single-mindedly. The enemy loves it when we argue about stuff like this. Thank you for sharing my exact intent. Since the 1611 KJV was translated from copies of copies of copies of manuscripts, btw, these were hand written manuscripts where quite easily, over the years, a spelling error could have and did occur. If the KJV is the only "true" translation, why is there no fuss over the millions of Bibles being printed in China. I really doubt that the are KJV. I do believe they are printed in Mandarin. I dont believe that the KJV or any other Bible is literally word for word translation. We would not understand it if it were. Just try to take a statement from another language and do a word for word translation in to english. The issue that the translators had was to get the most appropriate idea or meaning across without loosing its effectivenss or intent. What is amazing, is that translators were able to go back to copies of copies of copies 300 years after 1611 and still get the same gospel from the manuscripts. It still says "God so love the world, that He sent His only Son, to save the world" but perhaps not using those exact words, the meaning is still there. There have been misprints and omissions in the Bibles down through the years. More I think because of humon error not human intent. We are blessed to have concordances and commentaries available to us to help us to understand the the life and times of the people and politics of each book in the Bible. I use several different translations when I study the Bible. I find that I get more out of what I am studying. As far as picking a translation, I would recomend choosing a translation that you can read and understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr_Coffee Posted April 17, 2008 Group: Junior Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 1 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 78 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/03/2008 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/18/1985 Share Posted April 17, 2008 Does anybody know why the King James Version is always being attacked? Does anybody still use the KJV? Do you know that the king James is the closest to the true translation? Did you know that in 24 Bible versions that there are 200 omissions? The New English New Testament has 197 omissions and the NIV has 195 Omissions. In Matthew 16:20 they left out Jesus' name!!!!! That is in the New International Version. I Know because I checked this out for myself. I know that the King James version is hard to understand but if you got a good KJV that was also a study Bible then it might be easier to understand. Who said that the word of God was to be simplified so that words were taken out. God only wrote one Bible, that was the KJV. Not all these others. I know that I have just put myself into the firing line. but we are in a time when Jesus is about to come and take his people home and the devil is putting a lot of False things out there and tampering with the Bible is one of them. This is something that ALL Christians need to look at. I have a leaflet that gives all of the missing text listed. I will try to scan it onto the computer and post it on here if possible. Myrtle My church deals only with the KJV because of the reasons you stated above. I'd be interested to read that leaflet you have whenever you can get it scanned. As for the NIV version I only use it when something doesn't make a whole lot of sense. NIV has its uses but I always use it in conjunction with my KJV. Its nice having a parallel Bible on hand. I've also read a book that has every single omission that the NIV leaves out and on a few occasions they decided to leave out whole verses. I'll take a look around and see if I can dig the book up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HIS girl Posted April 17, 2008 Share Posted April 17, 2008 I asked this question before but didn't get an answer. Is the NKJ version faithful to the KJ? Because I LOVE the NKJv and would hate to think it is half the strength of the original version. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scarletprayers Posted April 17, 2008 Group: Royal Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 135 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 7,537 Content Per Day: 1.07 Reputation: 157 Days Won: 2 Joined: 04/06/2005 Status: Offline Birthday: 09/29/1956 Share Posted April 17, 2008 I asked this question before but didn't get an answer. Is the NKJ version faithful to the KJ? Because I LOVE the NKJv and would hate to think it is half the strength of the original version. I have heard its not, but I've never used one and don't remember why I was told it wasn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HIS girl Posted April 17, 2008 Share Posted April 17, 2008 It's not? Wow, that's huge because the Holy Spirit has revealed much to me through that version and the Amplified. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scarletprayers Posted April 17, 2008 Group: Royal Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 135 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 7,537 Content Per Day: 1.07 Reputation: 157 Days Won: 2 Joined: 04/06/2005 Status: Offline Birthday: 09/29/1956 Share Posted April 17, 2008 It's not? Wow, that's huge because the Holy Spirit has revealed much to me through that version and the Amplified. Honey, I have 5 or 6 different translations, I've got something out of all of them...........why? Because they ALL contain the Word of God, and we do have the Holy Spirit! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HIS girl Posted April 17, 2008 Share Posted April 17, 2008 I'll have to grab me a copy of the KJ!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingsson Posted April 17, 2008 Group: Members Followers: 1 Topic Count: 1 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 7 Content Per Day: 0.00 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/09/2008 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/13/1947 Share Posted April 17, 2008 Does anybody know why the King James Version is always being attacked? Does anybody still use the KJV? Do you know that the king James is the closest to the true translation? Did you know that in 24 Bible versions that there are 200 omissions? The New English New Testament has 197 omissions and the NIV has 195 Omissions. In Matthew 16:20 they left out Jesus' name!!!!! That is in the New International Version. I Know because I checked this out for myself. I know that the King James version is hard to understand but if you got a good KJV that was also a study Bible then it might be easier to understand. Who said that the word of God was to be simplified so that words were taken out. God only wrote one Bible, that was the KJV. Not all these others. I know that I have just put myself into the firing line. but we are in a time when Jesus is about to come and take his people home and the devil is putting a lot of False things out there and tampering with the Bible is one of them. This is something that ALL Christians need to look at. I have a leaflet that gives all of the missing text listed. I will try to scan it onto the computer and post it on here if possible. Myrtle I don't have an answer as to why the KJV is attacked all the time, but it is the version I use all the time. Some say it is hard to understand, but I have found that frequent study will help with that problem. Isaiah 55:11 (KJV) says this: "So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it." I believe that the God who created all can control His message to the world in spite of mans interference. Let no one discourage you about your faith and belief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts