Deleated Verses In NIV ??

[Lonewolf7]

I read this....and was quite shocked!!!

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/nivdelet.htm

They have a major point!!

Lonewolf

[lambsrus]

Hi, Lonewolf. The KJV has passages that contain words/thoughts transposed from other verses, and a few words added here and there to help express a thought/concept. The NIV, on the other hand, strictly sticks to the 'script'. I prefer the KJV because I rely on my Strong's and Englishman's to look at original word definitions, and to see how the word was used overall. The NIV, in my opinion, loses something for me in their choice of wording sometimes, and I'm aware of the letter from the scholars that originally accompanied the KJV, which explains to the reader why they wrote certain things a particular way, and what areas they had a hard time understanding.

There are also two trains of thought on which manuscripts are best. From my PCBiblestudy software:

"The set of Strong's numbers used in BIBLESOFT's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance for the New Testament follow the Nestle Greek textual tradition. This is the same tradition that most modern English Bible translations follow today (such as the NIV, NASB and NRSV). This tradition is also followed by the United Bible Societies' (UBS) Greek Text. Most scholars consider this tradition to represent the oldest and most accurate Greek text available today.

On the other hand, the King James Version and Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of 1894 follow the Textus Receptus tradition. This tradition is generally considered by most scholars today to be based on later, inferior manuscripts than the Nestle tradition. In spite of this, in most cases the Nestle text and the Textus Receptus agree.
The Nestle tradition applies modern textual criticism to examine all existing manuscripts and determine which variant readings represent the oldest and most reliable. Today scholars have over 2500 manuscripts available to them for study, some of them very old and very close in time to the original writings. Although there are numerous variant readings in these manuscripts, none of these differences affect, in any way, New Testament theology or doctrine."

I disagree that KJV is based on inferior manuscripts. This is the bible that made the gospel of Christ available to much of the world a few hundred years ago, where before it had only been in the hands of a select few who dictated what was known of it.

[waiting39]

LONEWOLF,

Stay away from the NIV, its really bad. Look at the people who helped write it. The NIV leaves out the end of the Gospel of Mark. People should stay with the JKV, I've seen churches who use the NIV, and you can see a difference in the attitude towards the Lord and His Word. There demeaner is changed, worldly in attitude. JUst don't like the version. Always bothered me. thanks sue:sigh

[filosofer]

Today scholars have over 2500 manuscripts available to them for study, some of them very old and very close in time to the original writings

This issue is primarily a New Testament issue. With manuscripts (meaning hand written, not printed) there are

5,200+ Greek manuscripts

30,000+ translation manuscripts (Latin, Coptic, Georgian, etc.)

1,000,000+ manuscripts from the early church fathers who quote/refer to Scripture passages.

As for the passages that are "left out" or "added in" depending on your view, the new translations reflect the manuscript evidence. The NKJV is helpful because it footnotes where these occur.

And as stated above, not one of the manuscript differences in any of them affect or change any doctrine.

[JesusCompatable]

Yes I agree, I prefure the NIV myeslf, but I have not missed any of the great teachings for thes few small bits that are supposedly missing, however im My NIV all the scriptures they mentioned are either left IN the bible, or noted in the footnotes, not one is left out persay or ignored compleatly.

[Carl]

KJV tried and true for over 400 yrs.

God is in control of His Word, don't you think? Since faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God, don't we need the written Word to judge from where our faith is coming from?

Scripture warns against deletions or adding. Scripture promises a preservation of the written Word.

The methods of translation are two different sides of the coin between the NIV and KJV.

KJV----literal word for word(as close as possible)

NIV---dynamic equivallancy(what the translators thought it meant)

What about the obvious progression in the newer(gender correct) NIV? They got one to be popular, and now they slide in one even more watered down. Anyone notice the de-sensitising of the public in all areas of our life?

Tried and true for me, can't go wrong, it's God's Word, KJV.

Peace, Carl:D

[Romten9]

The fact is that the King James Version arrived amid controversy, just like the modern translations have, because it was, in its time, a new translation!

'Our Old Bibles are good enough!' argued the supporters for the Geneva Bible.

Since the Geneva and Bishop's Bible predate the KJV-- and the KJV makes changes to those Bibles, one could rightly argue that the KJV has also many 'omissions'!

The KJV is not the Backbone of Christianity! Jesus Christ is!

The KJV was not used by the early settlers of this nation. The Bible which was used by the Puritan Pilgrims who came over on the Mayflower, was the Geneva Version!

Now please remember the reason these Pilgrims came to this nation. They came because they felt religious oppression in England. The King who commissioned that Bible, King James; told the people how to worship God! In fact demanded it! He decided what Bible translation everyone had to use!

Of course the immigrants who came over, after the Pilgrims carried the KJV; they had no choice....it was the Bible of the realm!

The King James Version of the Bible was The official Government Bible!

[Redeemed1]

As for leaving out or adding to , the kj is not completely innocent .
The original k.j. included the apocypha(sp.?) then later deleted it.
Also the K.J. translators admitted they took "liberties in translating some words that appeared only once in the whole bible. They were also not in favor of there being only one bible translation per language.They said that a translatoin in even the most vulger(common)language contained,nay , wasthe word of God.

Look at 1st samuel 13:19-21 in the king james then in the NIV,NASB,orNKJV.

In the KJ it would appear a contradiction.

The isrealites had to carry thier tools to the philistines to be sharpened yet they(the isrealites) had a file to sharpen thier tools.

It was a mistranslation of a word that appeared only 1 time.The NKJ corrected it along with the other versions.Also the KJ refers to the Holy Spirit as it in the n.t. Other versions say He.

The KJ is still the word of God and these quirks don't change what God has said.It just seems man can't do any thing perfectly including translate.

[Romten9]

The Bible, according to Jesus Christ, is given to us, to point the way to Him! He is the living Word, and we can only live by every Word he speaks to our souls!

John 5:39
You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me

John 1:14
"The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only,[4] who came from the Father, full of grace and truth."

[Workfromhomemom]

Well, folks, the translation issue is only a secondary concern, as these BIbles are based on different foundations.

KJB (Masoretic OT (the one the Judean Jews of Jesus' day used) and the Textus Receptus (based on the abundance of Byzantine family manuscripts and ECF quotes, fragments, etc) for the NT

All other new versions - just read the introduction section of any of these to find that they used something else. Their OT is different, including the Septuagint and some consideration of Dead Sea scrolls. Their NT is based on the Alexandrian family of manuscripts (by way of Westcott/Hort and Nestle/Aland) which are a very small minority of the manuscripts. Two of the MSS are "old" and many of the differences are due to either of these being relied upon. These two are very controversial and THEY DON"T AGREE TOGETHER!

We are warned about removing the ancient landmarks. Tyndale, Guttenberg, Erasums, Luther et al all got the ball rolling with doing a vernacular version. The KJB translators had the best and most rigorous translation process so I happen to take their product above the rest. JMO

:)

[lambsrus]

< The KJB translators had the best and most rigorous translation process so I happen to take their product above the rest. >

Agreed!

[filosofer]

Do you know what translation process the KJV translators used? How does that translation process differ from current translations? What is the philosophy of translation behind the KJV? Were the KJV translators consistent in that approach? How did the KJV translators handle the manuscript evidence?

If someone wants to use the KJV, that's fine. But to make claims about the KJV translators using "better process/method" shows a lack of knowledge about the issues.

[Romten9]

Originally posted by filosofer
Do you know what translation process the KJV translators used? How does that translation process differ from current translations? What is the philosophy of translation behind the KJV? Were the KJV translators consistent in that approach? How did the KJV translators handle the manuscript evidence?

If someone wants to use the KJV, that's fine. But to make claims about the KJV translators using "better process/method" shows a lack of knowledge about the issues.

Exactly! As I already stated, the Bible's purpose is to point one to the Living Word: Jesus Christ!

Consider this verse: Jude 25, we have a case where the KJV "omits'" 'Jesus Christ our Lord'!!

First in the NASB:
'To the only God our Saviour, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion and authority, before all time and now forever. Amen.'

Now the KJV:
'To the only wise God our Savior, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.'

Here in Jude 25, not only are the words, "through Jesus Christ our Lord," "omitted" in the TR/KJV, but also the words,'before all time' have been 'left out'!
There are many 'omissions' in the KJV, when compared with the more modern versions!

Here is another example:

'Who by the Holy Spirit, through the mouth of our father David Thy Servant, didst say, why do the gentiles rage and the peoples devise futile things?'(Acts 4:25 NASB)


'Who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said, Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things?' (Acts 4:25 KJV)


Dear reader did you see what the KJV "omitted"? It was the words, 'by the Holy Spirit'! The KJV translators attack the doctrine of Holy Spirit inspiration?!!


Also the cross-reference to the following verse is 'destroyed' in the KJV above.


'The Spirit of the LORD spake by me, and his word was in my tongue.' (2 Samuel 23:2 KJV)


The words, 'by the Holy Spirit,' speak of the means of the Divine inspiration of the Word of God. It was the Holy Spirit Himself who spoke through David, 'the sweet psalmist of Israel' (2 Samuel 23:1; 2 Peter 1:20-21).

It must be a plot by those aristocratic King supporters! ;) After all, these people considered the King the ruler of the Church, which is why Christians left England! Those Christians had the nerve to say and feel, "We have no King, but King Jesus!"


There was no plot, of course. And it is silly to likewise dismiss the new translators. If the translators did not want to support the doctrine of Holy Spirit inspiration, they would have excised it from the entire Bible! Yet, it is plainly taught in the KJV at such passages as 2 Timothy 3:16 and 2 Peter 1:21. Even in the verse quoted above, in Acts 4; the prior vs. 24 states that 'GOD' spoke through David. . But since we are told in other passages that the Scriptures were given by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (the third Person of the Trinity), Acts 4:25 in the NASB (& NIV, Amplified) makes a clearer (if not even stronger) case for this truth!

It is the same in the newer translations. They may say things in a different way, but they still teach all the major Christian doctrines and point to Jesus Christ was our only saviour and the only way to God.

[lambsrus]

< But to make claims about the KJV translators using "better process/method" shows a lack of knowledge about the issues >

I'm sure some here have made a choice as to what they believe is valid based on an examination of all the facts. I'm aware of the merits of the NIV, and also the flaws in the KJV, but I still prefer the latter.

[Naldacon]

workfromhomemom wrote:KJB (Masoretic OT (the one the Judean Jews of Jesus' day used)...


This is false. The Masoretic OT didn't exist until 600 to 1000 years after Jesus. If you look into the history of the Masoretic text you find that the Masoretes did what more modern Bible translators did - they assembled all the manuscripts and oral traditions they could find and codified the texts and made them as consistent as they could.

Jesus quoted a version of a Psalm from the Septuagint rather than the version appearing later in the Masoretic text on at least one occasion.

[lambsrus]

< Jesus quoted a version of a Psalm from the Septuagint rather than the version appearing later in the Masoretic text on at least one occasion >

LOL Naturally Christ did not quote it. The Massorah was not assembled yet. For that matter, neither were any of the books of the NT.

Recommended reading:

"The Language of the King James Bible", by:G. A. Riplinger.

John Pearson et al, "A most incredible look at the built in tools in the King James Bible (and only the KJ) left by God for its understanding. Though word usage has changed, word meaning has not. The word definitions of the King James are "fixed" or set as is promised in Psalms 119:89. Truely a scholarly work by the best kind of scholar, a Bible believer."

[lambsrus]

The Names and Order of the Books of the Old Testament:, by E.W. Bullinger.

"(Highly Recommended!) Before Christ came, the Hebrews Scriptures were translated in Greek. The Greek translation, the Septuagint changed the 'names' of the books and altered their 'order', for reasons no one knows. This was carried over into the Latin Vulgate and into our current Bibles. However, thanks to extensive work by the author, E. W. Bullinger, Bible students of today can again be acquainted with God's original order and names, and there are many lessons to be learned from seeing God's original names and order."

[Luke Hobbs]

That was an interesting article, written by people who seem to revere only the KJV and think the NIV came from hell. Notice that they do NOT say that the NIV doesn't use better manuscripts than the KJV did. They just say if someone tells you that, then they're saying that when you read the KJV, you're reading an inferior translation. No one says that.

Let's face it folks, God did not pick one translation over all the rest and say, "You read this and only this."

And obviously the KJV translators didn't use better methods when translating that. As a matter of fact, there was a lot of it that they themselves didn't even translate that was originally theirs. In their NT, they used 90% of William Tyndale's translation. That doesn't mean it was inferior, it just means it wasn't originally theirs. Nothing wrong with that, but let's not go saying they used better methods than modern-day translators do.

[lambsrus]

< That was an interesting article, written by people who seem to revere only the KJV and think the NIV came from hell. >

My point is that the KJV is an excellent work, not that NIV users are destined to hell.

My 'study buddy', someone I consider a very serious student of the word, uses the NIV and is well versed in the history of most translations. I use the KJV, and yet I still compare those occasions where it differs from the Nestle's translation.

I stated above that I am aware of both the flaws in the KJV, and the merits of the NIV. Whatever translation someone uses, a serious student (imho) will do a little research, and look at word origins and how a word was translated elsewhere when there are differences in interpretation.

Just because I defend the KJV, please do not assume that I believe anyone who opts for the NIV is using something other than the word of God. The KJV aligns with James Strong's concordance, and I find him to be an excellent source of deeper understanding into word meanings.

[CoreIssue]

This subject was hit hard and heavy with a lot of links given in another area.

http://www.rr-bb.com/showthread.php?threadid=17899

I use the NIV as my main and the KJV and others as cross reference.

I came to Christ 40 years ago using the KJV. I switched to the NIV because after studying the issues out I found it to be a better book for today.

I have seen so many people making errors in understanding because of the old English used. The style is clumsy and misleading often in light of the language of today. And some words have actually had their meanings change over time.

And as for those grievous wording changes that some declare so disasterous, on the other string I posted Interlinear word meanings on some of the verses. Then I challenged the KJV people to clarify their complaints in light of the definitions.

No takers. Why? Because often the words of the NIV actually covered the definitions more correctly. Or, both definitions equally covered the definitions with equal amounts of success and failure.

Got to tell you, all the translations have issues.

Those of you who see the KJV as the only Bible need to understand it was never the only translation out there at any given time.

And, I want the see the revelation from God that says it is the only one to use.

Bottom line is the wise person uses all the translations in parallel when doing deep study. You will get more out of it than by using any one version alone.

And for more general reading the NIV is better because it is written in the language of today.

But, please, use the link and read there. Not really much more to say than what has already been covered. And I mean from all perspectives, not just mine.

[Jennie in TO]

Gail Riplinger, the illustrious Bible scholar, has a home-ec degree. She has absolutely NO knowledge of the original languages of scripture. I'm sorry folks. I want my Bible scholars to have a little more knowledge than that. She is a petty, slanderous woman.

If you would like to read God's word as given to the English speaking people then you will have to learn Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek.

:rolleyes

[Jeffer]

Archaic Words in the NIV (http://www.biblebelievers.com/Vance2.html)


12:6,7
The words of the LORD are pure words:
as silver tired in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Thou shalt keep them, O LORD,
thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever

[lambsrus]

< 12:6,7
The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tired
in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt
keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever >

A good reminder that God is in charge, even when man thinks he is.

[Jeffer]

Originally posted by lambsrus
< 12:6,7
The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tired
in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt
keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. >

A good reminder that God is in charge, even when man thinks he is.

Amen!

[antsinmypants]

Originally posted by Romten9
Of course the immigrants who came over, after the Pilgrims carried the KJV; they had no choice....it was the Bible of the realm!

The King James Version of the Bible was The official Government Bible!

The pilgrims did not carry the KJV, it was not carried until well into the mid/late 1700s.

[antsinmypants]

Originally posted by Naldacon
workfromhomemom wrote:

This is false. The Masoretic OT didn't exist until 600 to 1000 years after Jesus. If you look into the history of the Masoretic text you find that the Masoretes did what more modern Bible translators did - they assembled all the manuscripts and oral traditions they could find and codified the texts and made them as consistent as they could.

Jesus quoted a version of a Psalm from the Septuagint rather than the version appearing later in the Masoretic text on at least one occasion.

They also added vowel points.. Not bad, as everything in Hebrew and Aramaic was only consonants!

[antsinmypants]

The Facts on the King James Only Debate... a Must read for EVERY believer (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1565074416/qid=1059143308/sr=1-16/ref=sr_1_16/002-5253302-0406449?v=glance&s=books)


Hey at only $4... it's not like it's too expensive :B:

[linuxpenguin]

Originally posted by lambsrus
I disagree that KJV is based on inferior manuscripts. This is the bible that made the gospel of Christ available to much of the world a few hundred years ago, where before it had only been in the hands of a select few who dictated what was known of it.

This isn't completely accurate. The Geneva Bible was very popular and well-established in England. It was still the most popular bible half a century after the KJV was first published.
The Pilgrims who settled in America brought the Geneva Bible with them, not the KJV. It's quite an interesting history if you ever feel the desire to check in to it.

[antsinmypants]

Linuxpenguin : :nod

[linuxpenguin]

Originally posted by antsinmypants
Linuxpenguin : :nod

After reading the rest of the thread I saw that you pointed out the the Pilgrims indeed did not bring the KJV with them. Oh well, I guess if it's worth saying it's worth saying twice. :):

[antsinmypants]

LP: :laugh

[col311]

Originally posted by Lonewolf7
I read this....and was quite shocked!!!

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/nivdelet.htm

They have a major point!!

Lonewolf


Different Manuscripts, Niv is not deleting scripture, its using a different manuscript to translate it from

[Torah_Worm]

Originally posted by col311
Different Manuscripts, Niv is not deleting scripture, its using a different manuscript to translateit from

well you beter look abit closer there are 64.00 0 deletions of words and verses starting with

Acts chapter 8 verse 37 is completly deleted this is what the NIV says

36As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, "Look, here is water. Why shouldn't I be baptized?"[6] 38And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him.

hmm i wonder where verse 37 is at ? they leave out a very important verse and here is what should be verse 37

missing verse

37 [[1] And Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."] [this is taken out of the NASB]

WHOLE Bible verses deleted in the NIV

The following WHOLE verses have been removed in the NIV--whether in the text or footnotes...over 40 IN ALL!!!

Matthew 12:47 -- removed in the footnotes

Matthew 17:21 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?
"Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting."

Matthew 18:11 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?
"For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost."
Matthew 21:44 -- removed in the footnotes

Matthew 23:14 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?
"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation."

Mark 7:16 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?
"If any man have ears to hear, let him hear."

Mark 9:44 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?
"Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched."

Mark 9:46 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?
"Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched."

Mark 11:26 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?
"But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses."

Mark 15:28 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?
"And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors."

Mark 16:9-20 (all 12 verses) -- There is a line separating the last 12 verses of Mark from the main text. Right under the line it says: [The two most reliable early manuscripts do not have Mark 16:9-20] (NIV, 1978 ed.) The Jehovah's Witness "Bible" also places the last 12 verses of Mark as an appendix of sorts.

Luke 17:36 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?
"Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left."

Luke 22:44 -- removed in the footnotes

Luke 22:43 -- removed in the footnotes

Luke 23:17 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?
"(For of necessity he must release one unto them at the feast.)"

John 5:4 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?
"For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had."

John 7:53-8:11 -- removed in the footnotes

Acts 8:37 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. It's deletion makes one think that people can be baptized and saved without believing on the Lord Jesus Christ. Sounds Catholic. What are you NIV readers missing?
"And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."

Acts 15:34 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?
"Notwithstanding it pleased Silas to abide there still."
Acts 24:7 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?
"But the chief captain Lysias came upon us, and with great violence took him away out of our hands,"

Acts 28:29 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?
"And when he had said these words, the Jews departed, and had great reasoning among themselves."

Romans 16:24 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?
"The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen."

I John 5:7 -- Vitally important phrase COMPLETELY removed

this is only a partital list of the words or verses that have been deleted

rember it says in the bible not to add or TAKE AWAY from the bible

so with that i think i will stick with my complete Jewish Bible

[linuxpenguin]

Here's a cut and paste from a website showing the timeline of major Biblical translations.

500 BC: Completion of All Original Hebrew Manuscripts which make Up The 39 Books of the Old Testament.
200 BC: Completion of the Septuagint Greek Manuscripts which contain The 39 Old Testament Books AND 14 Apocrypha Books.
1st Century AD: Completion of All Original Greek Manuscripts which make Up The 27 Books of the New Testament.
390 AD: Jerome's Latin Vulgate Manuscripts Produced which contain All 80 Books (39 Old Test. + 14 Apocrypha + 27 New Test).
500 AD: Scriptures have been Translated into Over 500 Languages.
600 AD: LATIN was the Only Language Allowed for Scripture.
995 AD: Anglo-Saxon (Early Roots of English Language) Translations of The New Testament Produced.
1384 AD: Wycliffe is the First Person to Produce a (Hand-Written) manuscript Copy of the Complete Bible; All 80 Books.
1455 AD: Gutenberg Invents the Printing Press; Books May Now be mass-Produced Instead of Individually Hand-Written. The First Book Ever Printed is Gutenberg's Bible in Latin.
1516 AD: Erasmus Produces a Greek/Latin Parallel New Testament.
1522 AD: Martin Luther's German New Testament.
1525 AD: William Tyndale's New Testament; The First New Testament to be Printed in the English Language.
1535 AD: Myles Coverdale's Bible; The First Complete Bible to be printed in the English Language (80 Books: O.T. & N.T. & Apocrypha).
1537 AD: Matthews Bible; The Second Complete Bible to be Printed in English. Done by John "Thomas Matthew" Rogers (80 Books).
1539 AD: The "Great Bible" Printed; The First English Language Bible to be Authorized for Public Use (80 Books).
1560 AD: The Geneva Bible Printed; The First English Language Bible to Add Numbered Verses to Each Chapter (80 Books).
1568 AD: The Bishops Bible Printed; The Bible of which the King James was a Revision (80 Books).
1609 AD: The Douay Old Testament is added to the Rheimes New Testament (of 1582) Making the First Complete English Catholic Bible; Translated from the Latin Vulgate (80 Books).
1611 AD: The King James Bible Printed; Originally with All 80 Books. The Apocrypha was Officially Removed in 1885 Leaving Only 66 Books.
1782 AD: Robert Aitken's Bible; The First English Language Bible (a King James Version without Apocrypha) to be Printed in America.
1791 AD: Isaac Collins and Isaiah Thomas Respectively Produce the First Family Bible and First Illustrated Bible Printed in America. Both were King James Versions, with All 80 Books.
1808 AD: Jane Aitken's Bible (Daughter of Robert Aitken); The First Bible to be Printed by a Woman.
1833 AD: Noah Webster's Bible; After Producing his Famous Dictionary, Webster Printed his Own Revision of the King James Bible.
1841 AD: English Hexapla New Testament; an Early Textual Comparison showing the Greek and 6 Famous English Translations in Parallel Columns.
1846 AD: The Illuminated Bible; The Most Lavishly Illustrated Bible printed in America. A King James Version, with All 80 Books.
1885 AD: The "Revised Version" Bible; The First Major English Revision of the King James Bible.
1901 AD: The "American Standard Version"; The First Major American Revision of the King James Bible.
1971 AD: The "New American Standard Bible" (NASB) is Published as a "Modern and Accurate Word for Word English Translation" of the Bible.
1973 AD: The "New International Version" (NIV) is Published as a "Modern and Accurate Phrase for Phrase English Translation" of the Bible.
1982 AD: The "New King James Version" (NKJV) is Published as a "Modern English Version Maintaining the Original Style of the King James."

[D.K]

I have to agree with CoreIssue on this 'debate.' :nod
When a person studies a section of the bible they SHOULD be cross referencing material in other translations as well as the original manuscripts.
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God." :thumb
I don't think that we can go wrong for studying God using multiple interpretations...

I see this debate as a fisherman does. Ex.
Mr. Smith: I only use worm with a bobber
Trinity: I only use corkies and yarn.
Mr. Anderson: I use whatever I need to catch the fish.

In one particular situation Mr. Smith may catch more than Trinity, and vice versa, but Mr. Anderson pending bad weather will catch more than both combined. :fish

[col311]

Originally posted by Torah_Worm
well you beter look abit closer there are 64.00 0 deletions of words and verses starting with

Acts chapter 8 verse 37 is completly deleted this is what the NIV says

36As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, "Look, here is water. Why shouldn't I be baptized?"[6] 38And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him.

hmm i wonder where verse 37 is at ? they leave out a very important verse and here is what should be verse 37

missing verse

37 [[1] And Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."] [this is taken out of the NASB]

WHOLE Bible verses deleted in the NIV

The following WHOLE verses have been removed in the NIV--whether in the text or footnotes...over 40 IN ALL!!!

Matthew 12:47 -- removed in the footnotes

Matthew 17:21 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?
"Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting."

Matthew 18:11 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?
"For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost."
Matthew 21:44 -- removed in the footnotes

Matthew 23:14 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?
"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation."

Mark 7:16 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?
"If any man have ears to hear, let him hear."

Mark 9:44 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?
"Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched."

Mark 9:46 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?
"Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched."

Mark 11:26 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?
"But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses."

Mark 15:28 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?
"And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors."

Mark 16:9-20 (all 12 verses) -- There is a line separating the last 12 verses of Mark from the main text. Right under the line it says: [The two most reliable early manuscripts do not have Mark 16:9-20] (NIV, 1978 ed.) The Jehovah's Witness "Bible" also places the last 12 verses of Mark as an appendix of sorts.

Luke 17:36 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?
"Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left."

Luke 22:44 -- removed in the footnotes

Luke 22:43 -- removed in the footnotes

Luke 23:17 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?
"(For of necessity he must release one unto them at the feast.)"

John 5:4 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?
"For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had."

John 7:53-8:11 -- removed in the footnotes

Acts 8:37 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. It's deletion makes one think that people can be baptized and saved without believing on the Lord Jesus Christ. Sounds Catholic. What are you NIV readers missing?
"And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."

Acts 15:34 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?
"Notwithstanding it pleased Silas to abide there still."
Acts 24:7 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?
"But the chief captain Lysias came upon us, and with great violence took him away out of our hands,"

Acts 28:29 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?
"And when he had said these words, the Jews departed, and had great reasoning among themselves."

Romans 16:24 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?
"The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen."

I John 5:7 -- Vitally important phrase COMPLETELY removed

this is only a partital list of the words or verses that have been deleted

rember it says in the bible not to add or TAKE AWAY from the bible

so with that i think i will stick with my complete Jewish Bible


I don't think you're hearing me.


Those verses are not missing!!!

Because those verses are not in thier version of the manuscripts to begin with.

I'm not raising the issue of which manuscript is more accurate. I'm simply telling you that, according to the manuscript that they translate from.......
Its not there to begin with.

[Jeffer]

col311, we don't read manuscripts we read a Book, the Holy Bible, Gods words. Or at least I do.

Bibles that are not the same are different. .

[glorymj]

Original King James Version 1611 is below. See if you can read it. (http://www.bibleandscience.com/kjv.htm)

http://www.bibleandscience.com/kjvpsalm23.jpg

In case you could not read it, it is Psalm 23.

The current KJV being printed is not the same as the original 1611 KJV. The original included the apocrypha. Do you read the apocrypha as inspired?

The translators themselves did not even claim it was an inspired perfect translation.

[Jeffer]

You are quite wrong , the Apocrypha was not "included" in the Scriptures, but mearly placed BETWEEN the testaments.


The Apocrypha was accepted reading based on its historical value, though not accepted as Scripture by anyone outside of' the Catholic church. The King James translators therefore placed it between the Old and New Testaments for its historical benefit to its readers. They did not integrate it into the Old Testament text as do the corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts.


If having the Apocrypha between the Testaments disqualifies it as authoritative, then the corrupt Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts from Alexandria, Egypt must be totally worthless since their authors obviously didn't have the conviction of the King James translators and incorporated its books into the text of the Old Testament thus giving it authority with Scripture.



The King James translators rejected the Apocrypha as divine is very obvious by the seven reasons which they gave for not incorporating it into the text. They are as follows:

1. Not one of them is in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament.

2. Not one of the writers lays any claim to inspiration.

3. These books were never acknowledged as sacred Scriptures by the Jewish Church, and therefore were never sanctioned by our Lord.

4. They were not allowed a place among the sacred books, during the first four centuries of the Christian Church.

5. They contain fabulous statements, and statements which contradict not only the canonical Scriptures, but themselves; as when, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in as many different places.

6. It inculcates doctrines at variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection.

7. It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assassination and magical incantation.

[glorymj]

Faith in God? Care to clarify? Are you saying that I have no faith in God because I do not ascribe to the KJV-only cult? :eek :doh

[Jeffer]

In case you could not read it, it is Psalm 23.

Yes I know, I memorized Psalm 23 in the KJV, long ago.

Also for your information there have been several editions but no revisions of the Holy Bible Authorized King James Version.

[glorymj]

:rolleyes

[Jeffer]

Why not use the Bible God uses and Satan hates?
Holy Bible Authorized King James Version.

[glorymj]

Why not use many translations to make sure you understand a concept? Why not use a translation you can understand without utilizing archaic dictionaries (when it's not necessary)? Why not refer to the perfect inspired and preserved word of God (the originals!) to shed more light on a difficult topic? Why exclusively use an archaic translation in a language that no one speaks anymore? Why make it more difficult for the new and unsaved than it needs to be? Why add legalistic bounds to those struggling?

There are a lot of whys.. :thumb

A few what's too.. :D: What if you can't speak english? What if the archaic olde english is too difficult for a child to understand? What if someone gets the wrong impression of God or a passage because the meaning of a word has changed? What if the insistence on reading a translation that is unnecessarily difficult discourages a believer from ever picking it up? What do you think God thinks about claiming his originals need to be interpreted by a translation?

[Hootmon]

Originally posted by Jeffer
Why not use the Bible God uses and Satan hates?
Holy Bible Authorized King James Version. God uses a Bible? Are you serious? :confused

[Jeffer]

Isaiah 55:11
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.

[Hootmon]

Originally posted by Jeffer
Isaiah 55:11
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.
That would have been written in Hebrew originally, yes?

Strict adherence to a single translation borders on idolatry. There is nothing particularily 'holy' about Elizabethan English, thoght it does sound pretty.

Any translation that successfully transmits the Word of God is a good translation.

[LSF]

Jeffer.

Would you, for once, try to explain to me how you can say the AV1611 is inspired when the translators admit that it is not in that preface that is hardly ever published but shows up in my 1769 update? Please explain the logic that allows you to claim that the AV1611 is the ultimate translation when, once again, in that missing preface, the translators claim that the translation should be updated as the language changes. Thanks.

Your thorn in your side.
LSF

PS-- To read that infamous second preface, go here (http://www.bible.ca/b-kjv-only.htm#preface).

[furball]

this is getting stupid ...........it is these kinds of threads that would make someone backslide and get confused (like me)

would the moderators PLEASE bomb this thread thank you:frusty

[Jeffer]

Strict adherence to a single translation borders on idolatry.



Not if that translation lifts up higher than any other and idolizes my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ!


Strict adherence? why would anyone NOT want to please God by obedience to His words.

[JesusCompatable]

I had just recently reread the arguments on the NIV missing scripture, I verified it and yes, it seems those scriptures are missing or not included for one reason or another.

However something else I seen while cross referencing KJV and the NIV and simalar translations

"1 John 5:7 For there are three bearing witness in Heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.
"

This scripture right here would basicaly put a compleat end to the trinity argument, There is no Doubt (by this translation) that there are 3 and the three are 1. However I read later that this was basicaly infured by the first part "there are three that bear witness" and the last part about the 3 being 1 was added by the translators because it seemed logical.

"The only Greek manuscripts in any form which support the words, "in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one; and there are three that bear witness in earth," are the Montfortianus of Dublin, copied evidently from the modern Latin Vulgate; the Ravianus, copied from the Complutensian Polyglot; a manuscript at Naples, with the words added in the Margin by a recent hand;-- "

That THE TRINITY was the truth meant is a natural inference: the triad specified pointing to a still Higher Trinity; as is plain also from 1Jo_5:9, "the witness of GOD," referring to the Trinity alluded to in the Spirit, water, and blood. It was therefore first written as a marginal comment to complete the sense of the text, and then, as early at least as the eighth century, was introduced into the text of the Latin Vulgate.

Jamieson, Fausset and brown Comentary


To be Honest It is more dangerous to Add to scripture than to take away from it. So we see that both have advantages and disadvantages that are key only to each particular type.

Ive read almost exclusivly from the NIV, I was not lead astray or confused by the meaning of any scripture. Why? Because I was Seeking God. Is God so small that one who is seeking Him with his Whole heart can be turned away to a false teaching? I believe that God is in controll and He can overcome any thing, Heck Jesus DID overcome the world. As I am more mature in my Faith, I might now start to cross reference different translations and do a little more in depth study.

But why are we putting a stumbling block in front of our imature brothers and sisters? The best thing to do is let them read whatever is easiest for them, and if they need further explanation, we must always leave the door open to help them in their walk, not hinder them by saying "oh the book your reading is Inferior".

[Hootmon]

Originally posted by Jeffer
Not if that translation lifts up higher than any other and idolizes my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ!

? why would anyone NOT want to please God by obedience to His words. If you take that to the logical extreme you should study the original languages as they are closer to 'His words'.

[Jeffer]

Why Not Test your NIV?



Instructions: Using the New International Version Bible, answer the following questions. Do not rely on your memory. As the Bible is the final authority, you must take the answer from the Bible verse (not from footnotes but from the text).



Fill in the missing words in Matthew 5:44. "Love your enemies, _____ them that curse you, _____ to them that hate you, and pray for them that _____ and persecute you."

According to Matthew 17:21, what two things are required to cast out this type of demon?

According to Matthew 18:11, why did Jesus come to earth?

According to Matthew 27:2, what was Pilate's first name?

In Matthew 27:35, when the wicked soldiers parted His garments, they were fulfilling the words of the prophet. Copy what the prophet said in Matthew 27:35 from the NIV.

In Mark 3:15, Jesus gave the apostles power to cast out demons and to _____.

According to Mark 7:16, what does a man need to be able to hear?

According to Luke 7:28, what was John (teacher, prophet, carpenter, etc)? What is his title or last name?

In Luke 9:55, what did the disciples not know?

In Luke 9:56, what did the Son of man not come to do? According to this verse, what did He come to do?

In Luke 22:14, how many apostles were with Jesus?

According to Luke 23:38, in what three languages was the superscription written?

In Luke 24:42, what did they give Jesus to eat with His fish?

John 3:13 is a very important verse, proving the deity of Christ. According to this verse (as Jesus spoke), where is the Son of man?

What happened each year as told in John 5:4?

In John 7:50, what time of day did Nicodemus come to Jesus?

In Acts 8:37, what is the one requirement for baptism?

What did Saul ask Jesus in Acts 9:6?

Write the name of the man mentioned in Acts 15:34.

Study Acts 24:6-8. What would the Jew have done with Paul? What was the chief captain's name? What did the chief captain command?

Copy Romans 16:24 word for word from the NIV.

First Timothy 3:16 is perhaps the greatest verse in the New Testament concerning the deity of Christ. In this verse, who was manifested in the flesh?

In the second part of First Peter 4:14, how do [they] speak of Christ? And, what do we Christians do?

Who are the three Persons of the Trinity in First John 5:7?

Revelation 1:11 is another very important verse that proves the deity of Christ. In the first part of this verse Jesus said, "I am the A_____ and O_____, the _____ and the _____:"

BONUS: According to Second Samuel 21:19, who did Elhanan kill?





So now what do you think of your "accurate, easy-to-understand, up-to-date Bible?"

[glorymj]

This thread is ridiculous.

[glorymj]

KING JAMES VERSION ERRORS

By Juan Baixeras

[had to crop - too long]

Translation Errors
Here is a partial listing of King James Version translation errors:

[had to crop - too long]

Ezekiel 20:25 should read "Wherefore I permitted them, or gave them over to, [false] statutes that are not good, and judgments whereby they should not live." God's laws are good, perfect and right. This verse shows that since Israel rejected God's laws, He allowed them to hurt themselves by following false man made customs and laws.

Daniel 8:14 is correct in the margin, which substitutes "evening morning" for "days." Too bad William Miller didn't realize this.

Malachi 4:6 should read " . . . lest I come and smite the earth with utter destruction." "Curse" doesn't give the proper sense here. Same word used in Zechariah 14:11.

Matthew 5:48 should be "Become ye therefore perfect" rather than "be ye therefore perfect." "Perfect" here means "spiritually mature." Sanctification is a process of overcoming with the aid of the Holy Spirit.

Matthew 24:22 needs an additional word to clarify the meaning. It should say "there should no flesh be saved alive."

Matthew 27:49 omits text which was in the original. Moffatt correctly adds it, while the RSV puts it in a footnote: "And another took a spear and pierced His side, and out came water and blood." The Savior's death came when a soldier pierced His side, Revelation 1:7.

Matthew 28:1, "In the end of the Sabbath as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week . . ." should be translated literally, "Now late on Sabbath, as it was getting dusk toward the first day of the week . . . ." The Sabbath does not end at dawn but at dusk.

Luke 2:14 should say, "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among men of God's good pleasure or choosing." That is, there will be peace on earth among men who have God's good will in their hearts.

Luke 14:26 has the unfortunate translation of the Greek word miseo, Strong's #3404, as "hate", when it should be rendered "love less by comparison." We are not to hate our parents and family!

John 1:31, 33 should say "baptize" or "baptizing IN water" not with water. Pouring or sprinkling with water is not the scriptural method of baptism, but only thorough immersion in water.

John 1:17 is another instance of a poor preposition. "By" should be "through": "For the law was given by [through] Moses . . . ." Moses did not proclaim his law, but God's Law.

John 13:2 should be "And during supper" (RSV) rather than "And supper being ended" (KJV).

Acts 12:4 has the inaccurate word "Easter" which should be rendered "Passover." The Greek word is pascha which is translated correctly as Passover in Matthew 26:2, etc.

I Corinthians 1:18 should be: "For the preaching of the cross is to them that are perishing foolishness; but unto us which are being saved it is the power of God", rather than "perish" and "are saved." Likewise, II Thessalonians 2:10 should be "are perishing" rather than "perish."

I Corinthians 15:29 should be: "Else what shall they do which are baptized for the hope of the dead, if the dead rise not at all? Why are they then baptized for the hope of the dead?"

II Corinthians 6:2 should be "a day of salvation", instead of "the day of salvation." This is a quote from Isaiah 49:8, which is correct. The day of salvation is not the same for each individual. The firstfruits have their day of salvation during this life. The rest in the second resurrection.

I Timothy 4:8 should say, "For bodily exercise profiteth for a little time: but godliness in profitable unto all things . . ."

I Timothy 6:10 should be, "For the love of money is a [not the] root of all evil . . ."

Hebrews 4:8 should be "Joshua" rather than "Jesus", although these two words are Hebrew and Greek equivalents.

Hebrews 4:9 should read, "There remaineth therefore a keeping of a Sabbath to the people of God."

Hebrews 9:28 is out of proper order in the King James. It should be: "So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them without sin that look for him shall he appear the second time unto salvation."

I John 5:7-8 contains additional text which was added to the original. "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one." The italicized text was added to the original manuscripts. Most modern translations agree that this was an uninspired addition to the Latin Vulgate to support the unscriptural trinity doctrine.

Revelation 14:4 should be "a firstfruits", because the 144,000 are not all the firstfruits.

Revelation 20:4-5 in the KJV is a little confusing until you realize that the sentence "This is the first resurrection." in verse five refers back to "they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years" in verse four.

Revelation 20:10, "And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are [correction: should be 'were cast' because the beast and false prophet were mortal human beings who were burned up in the lake of fire 1,000 years previous to this time, Revelation 19:20], and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever." The point is that Satan will be cast into the same lake of fire into which the beast and false prophet were cast a thousand years previously.

Revelation 22:2 should be "health" rather than "healing."


Italics: Sometimes Helpful, Sometimes Wrong
No language can be translated word for word into another language. Hebrew and Greek idioms often do not come through clearly into literal English. Thus, beginning in 1560 with the Geneva Bible, translators initiated the practice of adding italicized clarifying words to make the original language more plain. The fifty-four King James translators did the same. Often, the added italicized words do help make the meaning clearer. At other times, the translators through their doctrinal misunderstandings added errors instead.

[had to crop - too long]

Punctuation Problems
Luke 23:43 has been erroneously used by some to claim that Jesus went straight to heaven at His death. The original Greek did not have punctuation marks as we do today. The KJV states, "And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise." The comma should not be after "thee", but "day." The believing malefactor would be with Christ in the paradise of the redeemed when he was resurrected far into the future.

Mark 16:9 does not say that Jesus was resurrected Sunday morning. There is a missing implied comma between "risen" and "early" and there should be no comma after week as the KJV has it: "Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene . .." Thus, it should say, "Now when Jesus was risen, early the first day of the week he appeared first to Mary Magdalene . . ."


Word Differences
Another thing to keep in mind is the fact that the 1611 AD King James English is somewhat different than today's English language. The meaning of certain words has changed, and/or the King James sometimes uses words not familiar to most people today in their common speech. In addition, certain idioms in the original Hebrew and Greek are a little difficult to understand today. The Oxford Wide Margin KJV has excellent marginal references which often explain the correct meanings. Here is a partial listing of changed word meanings:

King James Phrase (on top)
Modern English (on bottom)

Abraham's bosom
"the Kingdom of God" in which the redeemed will have an intimate relationship with father Abraham in sharing the eternal inheritance of the earth.
adoption
"sonship", as in Romans 8:23, 9:4, Ephesians 1:5.
affections
"passions", as in Galatians 5:24, "mind" as in Colossians 3:2.
afflict soul
"fast" as in Leviticus 23:27, 32 (Psalms 35:13).
beguile
"judge against you", as in Colossians 2:18.
betimes
"early", as in Proverbs 13:24.
blains
"blisters", as in Exodus 9:9.
bosom, in his
"have an intimate relationship with", as in II Samuel 12:3, 8, John 1:18.
bruit
"report, rumor", as in Jeremiah 10:22, Nahum 3:19.
charity
"spiritual love", as in I Corinthians 13.
clean heart
"right attitude", as in Psalms 51:10, 73:1.
communicate
"share", as in Hebrews 13:16.
communications
"associations, companionships", as in I Corinthians 15:33.
conversation
"conduct", as in Philippians 2:27, I Peter 3:1, "citizenship" as in Philippians 3:20.
convince
"convict", as in Titus 1:9, James 2:9.
corn
"grain", as in Leviticus 23:14, Deuteronomy 23:25.
cover his feet
"go to the toilet", as in I Samuel 24:3.
creature
"creation", as in Romans 8:20-21, II Corinthians 5:17, Galatians 6:15.
cross
"stake"
damned
"judged", as in Mark 16:16.
devils
"demons", as in I Timothy 4:1.
dissimulation
"hypocrisy", as in Galatians 2:13.
divers
"different" places, persons or things as in Matthew 24:7 and Acts 19:9, Hebrews 1:1, James 1:2.
dividing
"expounding, dissecting", as in II Timothy 2:15.
doting
"sick", as in I Timothy 6:4.
due benevolence
"sexual dues", as in I Corinthians 7:3.
ensamples
"examples, types", as in I Corinthians 10:11.
faint
"give up" as in Luke 18:1, Galatians 6:9.
froward
"evil, wrong", as in Proverbs 2:12.
gay
"expensive, costly", as in James 2:3.
Ghost
"Holy Ghost" should be rendered "Holy Spirit."
glass
"mirror", as in I Corinthians 13:12, James 1:23.
hardness
"blindness" as in Mark 3:5.
he
In reference to the Holy Spirit, the KJV usage of "he" rather than "it" implies the false notion of the trinity. The Holy Spirit is not a separate person, but the mind of God the Father and God the Son. See John 14:16, 17, 26 and 16:7-8, 13-15.
heart
"attitude of mind", as in Jeremiah 17:9.
hell
There are three Greek words rendered "hell" in the New Testament: gehenna, hades (equivalent of Hebrew sheol used in the Old Testament), and tartaroo. Gehenna is the lake of fire, hades is the grave and tartaroo is the abyss, the place of restraint for Satan. For English speaking people during the time of King James, "hell" [hades] was a cellar to store potatoes, not a lake of burning brimstone. In Acts 2:27, "hell" is hades, meaning the grave, while in Matthew 10: 28 and Mark 9:43-48 "hell" means the lake of fire. The only place tartaroo is used is in II Peter 2:4.
husbandman
"farmer, rancher", as in James 5:7.
iniquity
"lawlessness", as in Matthew 24:12.
jealous
"zealous", as in II Corinthians 11:2.
knew
"had sexual relations with", as in Genesis 4:1.
leasing
"lying", as in Psalms 4:2, 5:6.
letteth
"restrains", as in II Thessalonians 2:7.
lusteth after
"earnestly desires" as in Deuteronomy 14:26.
mansions
"offices" as in John 14:2.
meat offering
"meal offering", as in Leviticus 23:13, etc.
meet
"fitting, proper", Matthew 3:8, Genesis 2:18.
mocked
"deceived", as in Galatians 6:7.
morning stars
"angels", as in Job 38:7.
nether
"lower", as in Deuteronomy 24:6.
outlandish
"foreign", as in Nehemiah 13:26.
perfect
"spiritually mature", as in II Timothy 3:17, or "upright or sincere" as in Genesis 17:1.
perform
"finish", as in Philippians 1:6.
him that "pisseth against the wall"
"males", as in II Kings 9:8, etc.
press, the
"the crowd", as in Luke 19:3.
prevent
"precede", Psalms 88:13, I Thessalonians 4:15.
prophesy
"inspired preaching", as in I Corinthians 14.
quicken
"make alive", as in Romans 8:11.
quit
"keep on", as in I Corinthians 16:13.
rain
"teach", as in Hosea 10:12, Isaiah 2:3.
rentest
"distort", as in Jeremiah 4:30.
requite
"offer support for", as in I Timothy 5:4.
rereward
rear guard" as in I Samuel 29:2.
rudiments
"elements", as in Colossians 2:8.
those who "seemed to be somewhat"
"boasters", as in Galatians 2:6.
servant
"slave", as in Philippians 2:7.
simple
"harmless", as in Romans 16:19.
sincerity
"with incorruption", as in Ephesians 6:24.
slept with his fathers
"died", as in II Kings 13:9, II Chronicles 16:12.
sons of God
"angels", as in Job 1:6.
spiritual wickedness
"wicked spirits", as in Ephesians 6:12.
sprinkle
"astonish, startle", as in Isaiah 52:15.
stranger
"newcomer, new convert", as in Deuteronomy 14:29.
suffer
"let, allow, permit" as in Mark 10:14, Revelation 11:9.
tarry
"wait", as in Luke 24:49, I Corinthians 16:8, which is explained in Acts 1:4.
tempted
"tried or tested", as in I Corinthians 10:13, James 1:13.
tenor
"intent or purpose", as in Exodus 34:27.
tongues
"foreign languages", Mark 16:17, I Corinthians 14.
virtue
"power" as in Mark 5:30.
visage
"appearance", as in Isaiah 52:14.

Unjustified Additions to the KJV
Derived From Latin Vulgate, Not in Greek Text
These additions should be omitted from the KJV:


Matthew 27:35
"that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots." This verse appears properly in John 19:24.
John 8:9-10
Delete: "being convicted by their own conscience . . . unto the last . . . alone . . . and saw none but the woman . . . those thine accusers."
The Greek properly reads: "But when they heard it, they went away, one by one, beginning with the eldest, and Jesus was left with the woman being before him. Jesus lifted himself up and said to her, 'Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?'"
Acts 9:5-6
"it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him . . . ."
Acts 10:6
"he shall tell thee what thou oughtest to do"
Acts 10:21
"which were sent unto him from Cornelius"
Acts 21:8
"that were of Paul's company"
Romans 13:9
"Thou shalt not bear false witness"
Romans 16:20
"Amen"
Colossians 1:14
"through his blood"
Hebrews 2:7
"and didst set him over the works of thy hands"
Hebrews 11:13
"and were persuaded of them and embraced them"
Hebrews 12:20
"or with a dart shot through"
I John 2:23
"(but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also" is placed in italics in the KJV. The Greek Text omits this portion entirely.
I John 5:7-8
"in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit: and these thee are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth" As previously explained, this is not part of the original Greek text.
Revelation 1:8
"the beginning and the ending"
Revelation 1:11
"I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and . . . which are in Asia"
Revelation 1:20
"which thou sawest"
Revelation 2:17
"to eat of"
Revelation 5:4
"and to read"
Revelation 5:14
"four and twenty . . . him that lives forever and ever"
Revelation 11:1
"and the angel stood"
Revelation 12:12
"the inhabiters of"
Revelation 14:5
"before the throne of God"
Revelation 15:2
"over his mark"
Revelation 16:7
"another out of"
Revelation 16:14
"of the earth and"
Revelation 21:3
"and be their God"

Misplaced Verses in the KJV
In Matthew 23:13-14, the proper order is: "But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretense make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in."

Romans 16:25-27 belongs after Romans 14:23, not at the end of the book.


Items Wrongly Substituted or Left Out of the KJV,
Should be Reinstated
Matthew 27:49
"And another took a spear and pierced his side and out came water and blood."
[The Orthodox Church says this was part of the Greek Text until mistakenly deleted in 511 AD]
Luke 9:50
". . . for his is not against you."
This verse should read: "And Jesus said to him, Forbid him not, for he is not against you. For whoever is not against you is for you."
Luke 10:22
"And having turned to the disciples, he said:"
John 1:28
"Bethany" instead of "Bethabara", which was a corrupt Egyptian reading.
Acts 9:19
Should read, "Then was Saul certain days with the disciples which were at the time in Damascus."
Acts 20:28
Should read, " . . . the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to feed the church of the Lord and God, which He purchased with His own blood."
Philippians 3:3
Should be "serve in (the) Spirit of God" rather than "serve God in the spirit."
Colossians 1:6
Should have added "and is growing" after "bringeth forth fruits."
Colossians 2:13
Should read, "And you--being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh--you hath He quickened together with him, having forgiven us all the trespasses . . . "
I Thess. 5:21
Should read, "Despise not prophesyings, but prove all things . . . ."
II Timothy 2:19
"of (the) Lord" rather than "of Christ."
Hebrews 8:8
"To them", not "with them."
Hebrews 13:9
"Carried away", not "carried about."
James 5:12
Should be "into hypocrisy" instead of "under judgment."
I Peter 2:2
End of verse should have added: "unto salvation."
Revelation 2:21
Should be " . . . and she wills not to repent of her fornication."
Revelation 6:12
Should be " . . . and the whole moon became blood . . . ."
Revelation 8:7
Should be " . . . and the third part of the land was burnt up, and the third part of the trees . . . ."
Revelation 8:13
"eagle" rather than "angel."
Revelation 11:18
"nations" instead of "dead."
Revelation 12:6
Should read, "And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has there a place prepared of God . . . ."
Revelation 13:5
Should read, " . . . and power was given it to make war forty-two months . . . ."
Revelation 14:1
Should read, "having His name and the name of His Father written on their foreheads..."
Revelation 15:3
"nations" instead of "saints."
Revelation 17:8
Should read, " . . when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and shall be present..."
Revelation 18:17
Should read, " . . . everyone who sails to any place . . . " instead of "and all the company in ships."
Revelation 18:20
Should read, " . . . ye holy saints and apostles and prophets."
Revelation 19:12
Should read, " . . . and on his head were many crowns, having names written, and a name written that no man knew . . ."
Revelation 19:17
Should read, " . . . gather yourselves together unto the great supper of God . . . ", not "supper of the great God."
Revelation 21:24
Should read, "And the nations shall walk by means of its light."
Revelation 22:19
Should read, "tree of life" instead of "book of life."
Revelation 22:21
Should close with "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with all of the saints. Amen."


CONCLUSION – With all these admitted errors, how can anybody insist that this is the only true word of God. It is a rather closed minded and arrogant position. If you like using the KJV, by all means use it, but to insist that it is the only Bible that all English-speaking people should use is ridiculous and unfounded.

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/5257/kjverror.htm

[filosofer]

I am not a KJV Only advocate, but rather a person who appreciates translation work and looks for translation accuracy (I have been doing it for 20+ years). Therefore, while the list seems "convincing about the how the KJV is in error," there are some cautions about using the arguments involved. Here a couple of comments.

Revelation 14:4 should be "a firstfruits", because the 144,000 are not all the firstfruits

Use care not to read theology (second half of your statement) into the translation.

Luke 14:26 has the unfortunate translation of the Greek word miseo, Strong's #3404, as "hate", when it should be rendered "love less by comparison." We are not to hate our parents and family!

There is a distinction between translation and interpretation. Translating MISEO as hate is legitimate. How that is understood/interpreted is what you are arguing.

Matthew 5:48 should be "Become ye therefore perfect" rather than "be ye therefore perfect." "Perfect" here means "spiritually mature." Sanctification is a process of overcoming with the aid of the Holy Spirit.

Again, this is a case of reading into the text a person’s theology, rather than translating the text.

[Hootmon]

I am not a KJV Only advocate, but rather a person who appreciates translation work and looks for translation accuracy :thumb

[glorymj]

Originally posted by filosofer
I am not a KJV Only advocate, but rather a person who appreciates translation work and looks for translation accuracy (I have been doing it for 20+ years). Therefore, while the list seems "convincing about the how the KJV is in error," there are some cautions about using the arguments involved. Here a couple of comments. Um, actually, I use the KJV quite a bit. I LIKE the KJV.. the post was a copy-and-paste rebuttal to his copy-and-paste argument. :D: My main point was this:If you like using the KJV, by all means use it, but to insist that it is the only Bible that all English-speaking people should use is ridiculous and unfounded.

[Jeffer]

Matthew 18
10 Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven.
11 For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.
12 How think ye? if a man have an hundred sheep, and one of them be gone astray, doth he not leave the ninety and nine, and goeth into the mountains, and seeketh that which is gone astray?
13 And if so be that he find it, verily I say unto you, he rejoiceth more of that sheep, than of the ninety and nine which went not astray. Authorized King James Version



Matthew 18
10"See that you do not look down on one of these little ones. For I tell you that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven.
12"What do you think? If a man owns a hundred sheep, and one of them wanders away, will he not leave the ninety-nine on the hills and go to look for the one that wandered off? 13And if he finds it, I tell you the truth, he is happier about that one sheep than about the ninety-nine that did not wander off. 14In the same way your Father in heaven is not willing that any of these little ones should be lost. NIV© Copyright 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society
All rights reserved worldwide

[Don]

Originally posted by Jeffer
Matthew 18
10 Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven.
11 For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.
12 How think ye? if a man have an hundred sheep, and one of them be gone astray, doth he not leave the ninety and nine, and goeth into the mountains, and seeketh that which is gone astray?
13 And if so be that he find it, verily I say unto you, he rejoiceth more of that sheep, than of the ninety and nine which went not astray. Authorized King James Version



Matthew 18
10"See that you do not look down on one of these little ones. For I tell you that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven.
12"What do you think? If a man owns a hundred sheep, and one of them wanders away, will he not leave the ninety-nine on the hills and go to look for the one that wandered off? 13And if he finds it, I tell you the truth, he is happier about that one sheep than about the ninety-nine that did not wander off. 14In the same way your Father in heaven is not willing that any of these little ones should be lost. NIV

Looks like the KJV added an extra verse there. The reason it's not in the NIV is because most manuscripts are missing it to.

I wonder what else the KJV has added to the Bible?...

(see, the argument goes both ways)

[Jeffer]

Ephesians 1
6to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves.
NIV© Copyright 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society
All rights reserved worldwide

Ephesians 1
6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved. KJV


The KJV says "Accepted in the beloved"

Today, acceptance is a huge problem for people. They need to know that they are accepted in spite of their past sins and that they don’t have to do something in addition to their salvation to make themselves acceptable to God.

[Don]

Originally posted by Jeffer
Ephesians 1
6to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves.
NIV© Copyright 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society
All rights reserved worldwide

Ephesians 1
6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved. KJV


The KJV says "Accepted in the beloved"

Today, acceptance is a huge problem for people. They need to know that they are accepted in spite of their past sins and that they don’t have to do something in addition to their salvation to make themselves acceptable to God.
Talk about nitpicky. What's the difference here?

[LSF]

Time for some serious reading.

THE LOCKMAN FOUNDATION'S REPLY TO New Age Bible Versions (http://www.kjvonly.org/other/riplinger_lockman_pr.htm)

DEMYSTIFYING THE CONTROVERSY OVER THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS AND THE KING JAMES VERSION OF THE BIBLE (http://www.ibri.org/03dmyst.htm)

FACTS on the TEXTUS RECEPTUS and the KING JAMES VERSION (http://www.ibri.org/Tracts/trkjvtct.htm)

The King James Version vs. Other Bible Translations (http://www.shasta.edu/articles/ggunn/kingjames.htm)

A Summary Critique: New Age Bible Versions (http://www.equip.org/free/DB015.htm)

The Preface to the King James Verion and the King James Only Position (http://www.dbts.edu/media/journals/1996_2/Preface.pdf)

That ought to do for a while.

[Jeffer]

Acts 8
36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. KJV


Acts 8

36As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, "Look, here is water. Why shouldn't I be baptized?" 38And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him.
NIV© Copyright 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society
All rights reserved worldwide

[Don]

Originally posted by Jeffer
Acts 8
36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. KJV


Acts 8

36As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, "Look, here is water. Why shouldn't I be baptized?" 38And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him.
NIV© Copyright 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society
All rights reserved worldwide
Wow, another verse added by the KJV writers!

End this nonsense already.

[chrislb]

Did God not preserve His Word like He promised??

All of this just seems like though there is so much for manuscript evidence...in actuality...a lot of them do not agree. the infamous words of pilate come to mind: "what is truth."

answer from the audience: The Word of God!!

Which one...with so many different readings. from what i've seen there are verses that if added or left out, can change doctrine. so what gives? God promised...did he not deliver?

[filosofer]

Originally posted by chrislb

Which one...with so many different readings. from what i've seen there are verses that if added or left out, can change doctrine. so what gives?

Not one doctrine is affected, if all manuscript differences are discarded, nor if they are added.

[Don]

Originally posted by chrislb
Did God not preserve His Word like He promised??
Where exactly is this promised? Do you have the passage handy?


Originally posted by chrislb
All of this just seems like though there is so much for manuscript evidence...in actuality...a lot of them do not agree. the infamous words of pilate come to mind: "what is truth."

answer from the audience: The Word of God!!

Which one...with so many different readings. from what i've seen there are verses that if added or left out, can change doctrine. so what gives? God promised...did he not deliver?
This was the eye opener for me when I first did a study on the differences between the different Bibles and their origins. I came to the conclusion that the Bible is not the Word of God, rather, the Word of God is the message of the Bible. In fact, all the Bibles in the world could be destroyed and the Word of God would still remain...in the hearts of believers everywhere.

[chrislb]

Where exactly is this promised? Do you have the passage handy?

Psalms 12:6,7
The words of the LORD are pure words:
as silver tired in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Thou shalt keep them, O LORD,
thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever



I came to the conclusion that the Bible is not the Word of God, rather, the Word of God is the message of the Bible.
very interesting and an excellent perspective. It goes against what i've been taught all my life so forgive me the phrase, "the bible is not the Word of God..." is a hard concept to swallow. Perhaps, this is what I will eventually get to as well. The problem I come to is if the Bible isn't the Word of God and only a book w/ errors that God speaks through (which doesn't make sense either), why even bother. God is not a God of error and mistranslations. Perhaps I should change focus and look at the different translations and where they differ and distinguish if there really is a change at causing these different doctrine "opinions" between denominations and individuals.

[Don]

Originally posted by chrislb
Psalms 12:6,7
The words of the LORD are pure words:
as silver tired in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Thou shalt keep them, O LORD,
thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever

Ah, there we go (although it's a bit sketchy).


Originally posted by chrislb
The problem I come to is if the Bible isn't the Word of God and only a book w/ errors that God speaks through (which doesn't make sense either), why even bother.
Why doesn't it make sense? One only has to look at the history of the Bible to know that the Bible cannot be anything more than a book which contains information from God as opposed to being [written by] God.


Originally posted by chrislb
God is not a God of error and mistranslations.
That is correct, but God did not introduce errors nor mistranslate what people wrote in the books of the Bible.


Originally posted by chrislb
Perhaps I should change focus and look at the different translations and where they differ and distinguish if there really is a change at causing these different doctrine "opinions" between denominations and individuals.
Without a doubt different translations have help spur denominationalism. It's even resulted in perversions like LDS and JWs.


I think we have wrongly elevated the words of men to be the Word of God. I believe, rather, that the Bible contains a compilation of the works of some men recording some of what God has revealed to us. I think the sooner we stop obeying the Bible and begin obeying the Word of God, the better.

And I highly doubt I can say these things without inflaming someone to anger, but the evidence out there suggests to me that what we know today as the Bible is not some perfect work written by God and preserved perfectly to this day. I do not deny that the Bible is largely intact and contains the Word of God. It is like a sign to God built by men who were told by God in which direction it should point.

[blitzkreig]

I'm not sure I entirely agree with Don (maybe just the way he put it perhaps) but I just wanted to say that the Word is not the Bible as we know it. The Word even pre-existed creation.

That said what we call the Bible was inspired by God. This information, once given to man to put in first in oral tradition and then down in form of writings, was subject to man's imperfection. It is remarkable to say the least that in all the various versions we Christians use today that there is so little disagreement. You won't go wrong in reading any one of them. Non-Christian versions are the exception...

I have many versions. The each have their place. The NIV is easy to read. The NASB is easy as well but seems to attempt to precisely phrase the original writings (from which it was translated)... so is not as easy to read out loud. The Message should be limited to use by those under 10 years old :nod

[linuxpenguin]

Originally posted by blitzkreig
I have many versions. The each have their place. The NIV is easy to read. The NASB is easy as well but seems to attempt to precisely phrase the original writings (from which it was translated)... so is not as easy to read out loud. The Message should be limited to use by those under 10 years old :nod

If you can find a copy, An American Translation by William F. Beck is probably the best translation for a young person you can find. It's a well done translation, true to the originals, but in extremely basic English.

[Don]

Originally posted by blitzkreig
I'm not sure I entirely agree with Don (maybe just the way he put it perhaps) but I just wanted to say that the Word is not the Bible as we know it. The Word even pre-existed creation.

That said what we call the Bible was inspired by God. This information, once given to man to put in first in oral tradition and then down in form of writings, was subject to man's imperfection. It is remarkable to say the least that in all the various versions we Christians use today that there is so little disagreement. You won't go wrong in reading any one of them. Non-Christian versions are the exception...

I have many versions. The each have their place. The NIV is easy to read. The NASB is easy as well but seems to attempt to precisely phrase the original writings (from which it was translated)... so is not as easy to read out loud. The Message should be limited to use by those under 10 years old :nod
Well, it sounds like we're more or less in agreement so far (especially the one about "The Message" :B: ).

[filosofer]

Originally posted by linuxpenguin
If you can find a copy, An American Translation by William F. Beck is probably the best translation for a young person you can find. It's a well done translation, true to the originals, but in extremely basic English.

Yep. I have one of the original NT (1963) one of the original OT (1976), the 1988/1992 update, which was even later updated and was published as God's Word (1995). Beck was a phenomenal scholar and translator. he is perhaps the last of his kind - to be equally conversant and proficient in Hebrew, Aramaic, Akaddian, and OT studies, as well as Greek for NT studies, and Latin, and German (and stayed current in all). Beck died in 1966, but some of his former students/colleagues completed the editing of the translation. One of those students was one of my NT professors in seminary 20 years ago - a fine Christian gentleman and scholar (he retired about 10 years ago, although he was still active in writing and teaching).

[rizzo]

I am a biblical studies major and I use the NASB. It is a word for word translation. From what I have seen you can't really go wrong. I also own a Greek/English INterlinear bible with NIV and RSV translations. I have used the NIV before, but I switched to the NASB because it is word for word and not phrase for phrase like the NIV. Although for non-scholars phrase for phrase might be a better read. With word for word it is easy to misunderstand literary tricks(hyperbole's and whatnot). Why do I feel like I'm doing a commercial? Well, anyways, I never use the KJV or the NIV except when I get to a problem passage and then I will look at what ALL translations say about it as well as reading exegetical explanations and commentaries.

I am no expert on these things though as of yet, but I find my procedure to be fruitful.

[Jeffer]

1. Would God inspire a text and then lose it?

2. If so, is this Theistic Evolution a-la-Bible translation?

3. If God would inspire it, would He preserve it?

4. Would He preserve it through men who did not believe that He inspired it?

5. Would there be any counterfeits of the preserved text circulating around the world?

6. Where would these come from?

7. How could you tell the difference, or would God show you the difference?

8. Does God bear witness to a Divinely - preserved text, or must you go to a Seminary to find it?

9. Since speech by communication of word is the main thing that distinguishes men from animals in (Darwin's zoo), why would God not reveal Himself by words in a book?

10. Which Book? More than one? Which ONES?

[glorymj]

:frusty

[chrislb]

glory,
don't :frusty

at least answer the questions.

[glorymj]

they've been answered many times.. try rereading the threads

This is just another blatant attempt to persuade us that KJV is the ONLY bible that one should use. Even if I examined or talked about every single one he would ignore it and copy and paste something else.

edited to add: This is only one of at least two threads he's posted this exact same thing in. :D:

[chrislb]

I have read the thread and all of seen is disagreements on some issues, agreements on others. Whenever Jeffer posts something like this, people say he's wrong and that he' promoting a cultish kjv-only doctrine or something.

I think the first four questions should be address with straight up answers though. someone please.

[glorymj]

Jeffers copy and pasted his questions from
http://www.thebiblestudypage.com/preserve2.htm

They were written by Dr. James Modlish, linked as a proponent for the AV 1611 KJV by many websites advocating KJV-ONLY.

One of the last sentences in his paper is: The vast majority of all papyrus readings agree with the A.V. 1611.

So, yes, I have reasons to believe it is just more KJV propoganda.

:D:

[chrislb]

I completely understand your reasons for believing this and doing this: :frusty

however, I am on the fence about the reliability of the bible, so could someone answer at least the first four questions instead of dodging them? thank you

[glorymj]

1. Would God inspire a text and then lose it?

2. If so, is this Theistic Evolution a-la-Bible translation?

3. If God would inspire it, would He preserve it? I believe inspiration to be that God preserved for us "truth without error" not necessarily that each and every word was transferred from the lips of God to the pen. (Notice how the apostles have different literary styles.)

That being said, I can emphatically say that yes, he inspired the text, and yes that it has been preserved error free. 4. Would He preserve it through men who did not believe that He inspired it? He would preserve it through any means he deemed necessary. 5. Would there be any counterfeits of the preserved text circulating around the world? The existance of counterfeits does not invalidate the preserved word. 6. Where would these come from? Obviously Satan. 7. How could you tell the difference, or would God chrshow you the difference? Any couterfeit would violate one of the divine truths (known to us as doctrines). 8. Does God bear witness to a Divinely - preserved text, or must you go to a Seminary to find it?

9. Since speech by communication of word is the main thing that distinguishes men from animals in (Darwin's zoo), why would God not reveal Himself by words in a book?

10. Which Book? More than one? Which ONES?I'm not sure what this is asking. It seems to only be a leading questions to get you to believe that one translation is better than all the rest. You can find God's truth all around - in many translations.

chrislb - :D:

edited to get rid of messy looking typos.. LOL

[chrislb]

thank you glory...those first four is what was really needed. i was brought up on kjv...and now am at a church that is pretty doctrinally sound except they believe the kjv is the superior of versions. coming here has helped me grow (as well as hank hanegraffs shows-though some do not like his attitude, he's taught a more literal approach to the bible rather than spirituallizing everything)....and the main issue is this bible versin and manuscript topic. i have always believed like jeffer and now i'm confused and...well, you can only imagine the feeling...sort of "culture shock" but not w/ culture. make sense? anyway, thank you

[glorymj]

Originally posted by chrislb
well, you can only imagine the feeling...sort of "culture shock" but not w/ culture. make sense? Yes, I came out of a KJV-ONLY church myself. They basically idolized the book. It was all I could do not to reject the KJV altogether. Much damage was done, many hearts turned away. (One of them even told a visiting child that their treasured bible was Satanic - I believe it was a NKJV.) You can see why I am so :mad about this.

Fortunately, I can see past the falliblities of MAN - and I still use the KJV occasionally. It's not my favorite, though, and I don't even believe it is the most accurrate. I prefer the NASB for most study, although I will generally use a wide range of translations as well as consult the original languages as much as I can with my limited knowledge of them.

[chrislb]

i still stick to the kjv..i love the old english, though most don't, but it does shake my faith a little, and i'm sure you could see this too, that if we view "God's Word" as the literal words of the Bible, it seems that it wasn't preserved. however, w/ your view and i think Don's, also stated earlier, the overall themes and doctrines of the Bible have always remained consistant. This is still a tough view to hold to considering the upbringing, but the only one that is coherant and logic. thank you again.

[glorymj]

I use the KJV for teaching the children (because it helps them to understand older documents) and for memorizing (because it just sounds so cool!):D:

Glad I could help. :):

[Don]

Originally posted by Jeffer
1. Would God inspire a text and then lose it?
Would God create a man in perfect communion with Him and then let him fall?

Originally posted by Jeffer
2. If so, is this Theistic Evolution a-la-Bible translation?
I don't understand the question.

Originally posted by Jeffer
3. If God would inspire it, would He preserve it?
See #1.

Originally posted by Jeffer
4. Would He preserve it through men who did not believe that He inspired it?
If God chose to preserve something, he could use believers and unbelievers alike to preserve it.

Originally posted by Jeffer
5. Would there be any counterfeits of the preserved text circulating around the world?
If there was such a thing as a perfectly preserved text, then there would either a) be no counterfeits (lest it be impossible to distinguish the preserved from the counterfeit), or b) a way to distinguish the preserved from the counterfeits.

Originally posted by Jeffer
6. Where would these come from?
The counterfeits? I presume they would come from enemies of God and/or believers who made mistakes.

Originally posted by Jeffer
7. How could you tell the difference, or would God show you the difference?
See #5

Originally posted by Jeffer
8. Does God bear witness to a Divinely - preserved text, or must you go to a Seminary to find it?
Neither. God bears witness through his Holy Spirit. Any preserved text or divine teaching from others would be meaningless to one who refuses the counsel of the Holy Spirit.

Originally posted by Jeffer
9. Since speech by communication of word is the main thing that distinguishes men from animals in (Darwin's zoo), why would God not reveal Himself by words in a book?
I would think the ability to reason is the main thing that distinguishes man from animals. Many animals use "words" to communicate, too.
Why would God not reveal himself in a book? I see no reason why not. Why would God not reveal himself as an ever-burning pillar of fire in the sky? Why would God not reveal himself in any way He wanted to?

Originally posted by Jeffer
10. Which Book? More than one? Which ONES?
Moot.

[Jeffer]

How many people am I leading to Hell because I believe the KJV is infallible?

How many young Christians will grow up with a stunted knowledge of the Bible, if I teach them to read it with the belief it is infallible and the very words of God?

What is wrong with holding up the KJV and telling Bible-believing Christians, "You can trust every word"?

How much of my reward will I lose for trusting God to keep his "WORDS" to every generation?


Come on..... What's wrong with believing the King James Bible Only?

What do YOU have to offer in its place other than confusion - hundreds of different versions all saying different things - hundreds of different Greek texts all saying different things because you DO KNOW that the 'originals' are not available, right? You do know that, I hope!

And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God. Luke 4:4

What do you have to offer us regarding that EVERY word of God that we are to live by?

[Don]

Originally posted by Jeffer
How many people am I leading to Hell because I believe the KJV is infallible?

How many young Christians will grow up with a stunted knowledge of the Bible, if I teach them to read it with the belief it is infallible and the very words of God?

What is wrong with holding up the KJV and telling Bible-believing Christians, "You can trust every word"?

How much of my reward will I lose for trusting God to keep his "WORDS" to every generation?

Come on..... What's wrong with believing the King James Bible Only?

What do YOU have to offer in its place other than confusion - hundreds of different versions all saying different things - hundreds of different Greek texts all saying different things because you DO KNOW that the 'originals' are not available, right? You do know that, I hope!

And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God. Luke 4:4

What do you have to offer us regarding that EVERY word of God that we are to live by?
What a frightening post. You sound like you've made the KJV Bible your god...

[rizzo]

It is most proper to say that the original manuscripts were the 100% infallible word of God. The KJV is no different really from the NASB, although I will take the NASB over the KJV any day. What needs to be explained here is why the "man" who translated the greek texts into english for the KJV was any more qualified or God-inspired/directed than the "man" who translated the greek texts into english for the NASB. This question is quite unanswerable unless you are God. All that can be done is careful study. If you want to get down to the nitty gritty and be argumentative, then I advise you throw away all english translations and learn biblical greek. ;)

[linuxpenguin]

The King James Bible is basically nothing more than a revised version of the Bishop’s Bible. And the Bishop's Bible was nothing more than a revised version of the Geneva Bible. The Geneva Bible was in virtually every English-speaking home for decades when the KJV was originally published. King James simply didn't agree with the Calvinist and anti-Catholic leanings of the Geneva Bible's margin notes. The King James Version of the Bible was, to put it bluntly, a politically motivated translation of the Bible.

God did not appear on Mount Sinai and hand Moses the King James Bible despite what people would like to believe.

[glorymj]

Originally posted by Jeffer
Come on..... What's wrong with believing the King James Bible Only? Let me tell you a little story Jeffers. This story changed my whole perception on KJV-only, an issue I hadn't even considered too much before.

A little boy came by himself to our church one day. This sweet little soul was awkward and a little scared, as can be imagined. In his hands he clutched a tiny NKJV bible - a gift from his grandmother I heard.

This little boy (I never caught his name) attended for a few Sundays, getting a little more comfortable each time. Then one Sunday, he was chosen to read to the class. A little shy - he proceeded to open the NKJV bible to the passage and began to read.

After he had finished reading, the "teacher" of the class told him he read very well, but now he would ask someone to read it in their KJV. The boy was understandably a bit confused.

So later, he asked why they had to read the passage in the KJV. Do you know what the teacher said? After trying to explain several times (and the boy apparently not getting it) he said it's because all other versions are ultimately from Satan. Can you imagine, Jeffers, what that did to this little boy? His precious little NKJV - was FROM SATAN.

That little boy never returned. :(: :cry

The bible says - ALL THINGS IN MODERATION. If you like the KJV - use it - enjoy it - but don't go telling us that it is the ONLY version. It's only a translation.

edited to fix spelling errors

edited again to fix quote.. sorry Don! :pound

[MrsG0529]

:clap :clap :clap :clap

Standing ovation from me!!

[Jeffer]

Originally posted by glorymj
[B]Let me tell you a little story Jeffers.

That was a nice little story. Why would anyone attend a church like that?

[glorymj]

Originally posted by Jeffer
That was a nice little story. Why would anyone attend a church like that? What church do you attend, Jeffers? ;):

You have said over and over that the KJV is the ONLY version people should use. If you follow this to it's logical conclusion - it means that all other versions were NOT inspired by God. If they were not inspired by God, who were they inpired by? The author of evil, apparently.

So the logical conclusion of the KJV-ONLY stance is that all other versions are inspired by Satan (at least to some degree).

You asked what harm could come...

[Jeffer]

Originally posted by waiting39
LONEWOLF,

Stay away from the NIV, its really bad. Look at the people who helped write it. The NIV leaves out the end of the Gospel of Mark. People should stay with the KJV, I've seen churches who use the NIV, and you can see a difference in the attitude towards the Lord and His Word. There demeaner is changed, worldly in attitude. JUst don't like the version. Always bothered me. thanks sue:sigh

That's true.:baby

[Don]

Originally posted by glorymj