Bible Versions

[ThomasDGW]

This is an interesting discussion, and I read most of the whole three pages. One point that I have not seen mentioned is that faulty manuscripts could have been preserved better because they were not used. For example, the Bible versions I do not use regularly such as the RSV sit on my shelf well preserved, while the ones I use regularly such as the KJV are showing significant wear and will probably be replaced with newer copies in a few years. If an archaeologist came by my library in a few hundred years, the oldest versions of the Bible he would find would be the RSV, the NIV and others I have just kept for occasional reference. This is something to consider when someone hammers the "oldest manuscripts are the best" argument. I have come to believe that the Greek text that the KJV follows is the accurate one, based on certain internal consistencies and also based on a simple decision to accept it until God should reveal something different. Thus I am not a good one to debate a naysayer but I don't believe that we have to prove everything scholastically 100% to step out on faith.

It is admitted that the KJV translators did not consider themselves to be faultless. Amos 3:7 says that the Lord will do nothing that He does not reveal to His prophets. Would God inspire a translation team to make a faultless translation and not give one of those translator/prophets the message that that is what they were doing? This to me is a conclusive argument that the KJV was not a faultless, inspired translation.

I believe that even a distorted translation like the JW New World Translation contains part of the truth and when I have talked with JWs, I always have looked up the verses I wanted to use in their version to see if the truth had escaped the alterer's axe somewhere. I like to concentrate on salvation by grace through faith with them. It is there, even in the JW distorted version. Truth is also there in the NIV, which I think is less distorted than in the JW version.

However, if you are going to find a good Bible to read, why not get one that does not do things like call Jesus God's "one and only Son", nor renders the flesh as "the sinful nature", nor says that "the new has come" instead of "all things have become new". Even a Greek neophyte like me can tell that such things are not translations, but added and subtracted interpretations of God's word. I think that even though the KJV translators failed sometimes to capture the full meaning of God's words, they did not fail intentionally ( I understand that even the use of the word "Easter" was sincerely believed to be necessary to refer to the pagan holiday that was being referred to), whereas the NIV team deliberately did not try to capture all of the meanings of all of the words of the original text, instead implying, "These words will better convey what God really wanted to say." Even while I recognize that, in places, the NIV is an accurate translation, the places where they deliberately go off the beam anger me greatly.

My favorite version as far as reading ease is Jay P. Green's King James II version of the First and Second Editions. I used to bring it to church and time and time again the preacher would say, "What the Greek here means literally is ..." and Green's KJII would use the exact word the preacher chose. I thought he kind of ruined what he had going by the time he got to the Fourth edition with Greek word order preserved, making it quite stilted to read. I use his interlinear a lot still, and, incidentally, my father was a personal friend of his. I met him when I was a little tyke of 5 years old, and amazingly I still remember meeting him. Unfortunately, those editions have even whole verses missing in some places. My father used to send him error reports, but they still didn't catch them all.

Then I began to realize that the "Elizabethan English" of the KJV is a better language than modern English. I don't think it should be lost. I appreciated the efforts of the 21st Century KJV to keep that old language with conjugated verbs. After a struggle was resolved in which I had doubted the accuracy of the Hebrew and Greek texts used to translated the KJV, I again picked it up to read to my children. The old English problem is compounded by the fact that my two younger children have grown up in Bolivia and English is something like their second language. However, I believe that they are slowly getting it and have been enriched in their language abilities (they will now be able to read old historic English documents and works as I have been since my father read to us from the KJV) by hearing the KJV as well as understanding the Bible as I insert some discussion and explanation. My older son follows along in Green's translation and chimes in modern word translations occasionally to clarify the archaic words.

Now I teach in a church in Spanish, and in this language, the Reina-Valera translation which was made slightly before the KJV (and was consulted by the KJV translators) is in wide use in the form of the 1960 revision. This has been THE Spanish Bible for most of these past 400 years for the Spanish-speaking evangelical Christians. Unfortunately, the ex-priest Casiodoro de Reina picked up some of the alternate readings that the KJV translators rejected and that are now picked up again in the NIV and NASB. His fellow ex-priest Cipriano de Valera did not correct them when he did a revision in 1602. Interestingly, this translation was also done in England, where the ex-priests had fled from the wrath of the Roman Catholic Church. I don't emphasize those errors in my teaching, but instead encourage the people that if they seek the Lord's guidance, he will lead them to understand the truth. Most of the Reina-Valera is right along the line of the KJV I certainly cannot solve the problem by teaching them English, even though many of them are eager to learn English. It would take too much time to get them to a level of adequate comprehension, unless I could get them all to come to my house every night, like I do with my children, and even then, it would be too difficult for the older ones.

Even with a completely accurate translation from a perfect text in the original language, there still is the possibility of misunderstanding on the part of the reader. On the other hand, even with a faulty translation, one can still find much truth and also can detect something that doesn't jive in a erroneous translation or erroneous understanding by comparing scripture to scripture in prayer. Remember the "two or three witness" concept that Jesus and Paul even applied to their own testimony. That's why we have three synoptic Gospels.

That's my perspective on this issue.

[David L]

This is something to consider when someone hammers the "oldest manuscripts are the best" argument.

This is not an argument.

It is a standard that is accepted at the scholarly level. The idea is not that because it is older that it is better but that because it is older it is highly possible that it is closer in accuracy to the original manuscripts. The problem with only accepting one family of manuscripts is that you are no longer critically evaluating the text or making comparisons with similar texts, in this case, older texts that are highly valued at the scholarly level for the purpose of textual criticism.

I think the real issue is 'church' tradition. Nobody will admit it but they just want to stick to what they are familiar with since it is impossible that God would uncover any older manuscripts or text that may actually provide us with a better text to translate. I have no problem with the Byzantine or Neutral text since my approach is the ecclectic approach and is more advantageous to me, the expositor, the exegete, the teacher. I benefit from both families of text in my studies since they are both valid texts to me.

What is really funny is that the Byzantine is the 'newer' text and anything 'new' is quickly labelled as heretical or of Satan. Yet, the KJV or Byzantine proponents don't apply the same bias to their preferred text.

lols @ family text worship...and bibliolatry (that is bible idolatry for the layman).

[Abiding in His Word]

I may have posted this before, so forgive me if it's a duplication. But I think it's a very good overall view of the various translations by Holly. She does hold a Phd in Apologetics, so I value her perspective.

The New American Standard Version (NASV) is known to be one of the most literal translations of the Greek, word for word, into English. It is harder to read because the word for word doesn't always translate smoothly into English. However, if you want to closely study a passage of Scripture, it is good to read this version or, at least, consult it.

The New International Version (NIV) is also a good translation. However, it isn't translated word for word from the Greek, but, instead, is translated phrase by phrase. Although this is a less literal translation, sometimes a phrase-by-phrase translation can be closer to the original text because the phrase used in the Greek may not make sense to us today and may even convey something different in the English than intended in the Greek. For example, the Spanish phrase "Como se llama?" would literally be translated, word for word, into English as "How you call?" However, the phrase translated into English is "What is your name?" Which one is more accurate? That depends. The first one is more accurate word for word. The second is more accurate in conveying the meaning of the phrase.

As far as the New Living Translation, it is more paraphrased than the NASV and the NIV. However, one of my hermeneutics (the study of Bible interpretation) professors at Talbot, Walt Russell, who is respected by conservative Christian scholars, told our class that the New Living Translation (not to be confused with the Living Bible) is actually a very accurate translation, one that he uses for devotional Bible reading. It's also highly readable. It is good when your purpose for reading the Bible is devotional (as opposed to a close study of a Scripture passage). I, also, use the New Living Translation for devotional reading.

The Living Bible and the Message are highly paraphrased and are, generally, not thought to be the best for regular Bible reading. However, I think they serve purposes. My parents gave my brother and me the Living Bible when we were kids, so we could have a version of the Bible that we could understand. They were afraid that if we had a version we couldn't understand, then we might get turned off to the Bible. I'm not too familiar with The Message, but it might be edifying for someone to read devotionally or for a new Christian or non-believer.

The bottom line is that the NASV is known to be best for a close study of Scripture, and the NIV and NLT are thought to be good for devotional reading (like one may do in his or her daily devotionals). It's also good to have multiple versions to consult. By comparing them, you might gain helpful insights into understanding a passage. A lot of times, when I'm reading the NLT devotionally, I will wonder if a certain passage is accurate to the original text or if it contains some of the interpreters' bias. So, I will go to the NASV to see.

The King James Version is generally not regarded as the most accurate translation we have today because we have discovered more reliable manuscripts since its translation. Also, the language is so archaic that it is difficult for many modern readers.

http://fulfilledprophecy.com/bb/viewtopic.php?t=15507[/quote]

[Rte66]

Just a quick answer to Sparrow's question:

Could it be that what you perceive in Terry Watkins' article is NOT SARCASM but rather a righteous indignation toward those who would pervert God's Word, and cause confusion in the House of God through the new versions?

Is this not the same thing the writer of Hebrews said of Jesus when he says that Jesus loved righteousness and hated iniquity? Didn't Jesus get angry at times over wickedness and rebuke the Pharisees calling them whitewashed tombs?or overturn the moneychangers tables in the temple?

It is difficult for me to see past the exhibited emotions of a person to their arguement as I am hyper-sensitive. Therefore, whenever anyone displays a "tude", I am on guard as to the real fuel behind the "tude". I have been studying anger (AKA righteous indignation) these past several months as I realize I have a spirit of anger. I have come to doubt that "man" is capable of Pure righteous indignation. With man, it is too easily linked with retribution, pride. Only God is capable of "True" Righteous indignation, in my opinion.

[Abiding in His Word]

With man, it is too easily linked with retribution, pride. Only God is capable of "True" Righteous indignation, in my opinion.

I agree, Rt66. This would make an interesting new topic for discussion...

[Rte66]

I am going to wrap up my participation in this thread.

I read Tale of Three Cities. It had a couple compelling arguements. I wished the author had given a bibliography so that I could verify his statements. In a nutshell, this is what I came away with: 1) Alexandria: The Church leaders, influenced by the scholarly and the scientific, deleted many Scriptures. 2) Rome: The Church leaders added church "tradition" to Scripture. 3) Antioch preserved the Scripture accurately as determined by God. Therefore, since the KJV is translated from the Antioch version, then it is more accurate.

Isn't it funny the timing of events in one's life (and I attribute the "coincidental" timing to God) that help one to come to a decision? Recently I have been reading about the history of theology. I want to understand how the doctrines and beliefs of different denominations came about. I have been learning about the Ecumenical councils and the formation of the Nicene Creed. I am up to the 4th council and the debate now is not Why but "How did divinity and humanity unite into one man." It is interesting to me in light of having just read yesterday afternoon, The Tale of Three Cities, that in reading the pocket theology yesterday evening, the two main camps in this arguement were the Alexandrians and the Antiochenes. "Alexandrians argued that as the Trinity was one substance, or nature, and three Persons, so Jesus Christ is one nature and one Person. The Antiochenes argued that Jesus Christ is two natures and two persons who can be conceived as one Person." (Pocket History of Theology, Olson and English, P. 40) It's difficult to follow the semantics of the arguements. I'm sure that I'd benefit from something more than a Pocket history to understand in more detail, but suffice it to say, what resulted was that the view of the Alexandrians was accepted and the view of the Antiochenes was excepted from church doctrine.

Now I find it interesting that in just this one case alone, if the Antiochenes had their Bible right, how could they err in doctrine? If God is supernaturally preserving their version of His Word, then wouldn't He do the same for their interpretation of His Word? What's the point of having the correct Word, if you are going to interpret it incorrectly? It happens to the best of us I suppose! If the Antiochenes were specially chosen by God to preserve His Word, then how could He let them compromise the nature of Jesus Christ?

OR.....da..da..da..dum...Heaven Forbid!!!...The Antiochenes had their doctrine right and the church has since been following wrong doctrine? Possible? I suppose. I don't know.

So, as I see it, I could dig and dig and dig and never be satisfied with an answer and what would I be doing? Trying to establish the letter of the law instead of living the spirit of the law.


So again I appreciate the food for thought, Sparrow and all the others, but I feel Spirit led to let this discussion be and not spend any more time on this topic.


May God lead you all into His Mighty Truth!

[JayCee]

I have up to now avoided reading this particular thread, as I know from experience how hot it gets. I've only read the first page today, and I will leave it at that, but I have a book recommendation.

This book, among serveral I have read, is the most readable, easy to understand, non technical jargon one - a great blessing to me. Read it and be informed as to how to choose which translation you would prefer to read.

Back cover reads:

How do we know our Bible is THE Bible?
- When did all the various Bible Translations get produced?
- Who decides how a translation is worded?
- What about those 'missing verses' in my New Testament?

With refreshing clarity and remarkable detail, Philip Comfort has written a tutorial that answers complex Bible questions in plain English.

Take a look at what the ESSENTIAL GUIDE TO BIBLE VERSIONS gives you:
Timeline of events in the history of the Bible
- Overview of Old and New Testament manuscripts and scribal practices
- Discussion of Bible Translation methods
- Detailed comparison of English translations
- Chart of New Testament manuscripts and their symbols
- Glossary of technical terms
- Comprehensive index

The Ultimate reference on the Ultimate Book
For Pastors. For Students. For You.

The Essential Guide to Bible Versions by Philip W. Comfort Ph D
Published by Tyndale House Publishers

Is leaves you to draw your own conclusions after providing the information for you to make an informed choice, and know the strengths and weakness of all translations.

[Sparrow]

With man, it is too easily linked with retribution, pride. Only God is capable of "True" Righteous indignation, in my opinion.

I agree, Rt66. This would make an interesting new topic for discussion...

Explain Elisha and the 3 groups of 50 men consumed.

There are multiple examples of godly men and women who displayed righteous anger.

So many today see God as love. He is love, but He is thrice holy and uses His people many times to deliver hard messages.

Like it, or not.

[Sparrow]

Why We Use the King James Version

As a pastor, I write this for the people in our church. On occasion, I have been asked why we, in our church, use the outdated King James Version. To answer that, we must touch on some complex and technical subjects. I, accordingly, have attempted to simplify the manner to a degree that most can understand.

In Proverbs 22:28 the Bible says to "Remove not the ancient landmarks which thy fathers have set." A landmark is a surveyor's term and refers to a benchmark or property marker. Today, in most jurisdictions, it is against the law to move or alter a survey landmark.

Christianity has its foundations in an authorizing and governing document. That document is the Bible. Any attorney will understand the critical nature of altering an authorizing and governing document. Because the Bible is in every sense the final and absolute foundation of what we as Christians believe and practice, it only is prudent that we be concerned that the foundation is sure and the benchmark has not been altered.

For almost two millennia the church of Jesus Christ accepted a set of Greek and Hebrew texts that were received by virtually all gospel preaching, Bible believing churches of whatever group. This text was called the Received Text (or Textus Receptus in Latin). Down through the centuries biblical scholars and church leaders had assembled the existing Greek and Hebrew manuscripts of the Bible. From that compilation, the vast majority were in virtual agreement. These formed the basis of the Received Text.

In the year 1611 A.D., King James I of England was influenced to provide a common Bible for the English speaking world. Hence, he authorized a translation of the Bible into English that came to be known as the Authorized Version or as it is more commonly known, the King James Version. King James selected a committee of Greek and Hebrew scholars from the Church of England. These men were "low church" individuals with ties to the Puritans and later the Pilgrims who emigrated to America. They worked from the text of the Greek and Hebrew testaments that had been received" or accepted by virtually all branches of gospel preaching, Bible believing Christians from the apostolic era to that time. Their product, the King James Version of the Bible, has been, until just recently, the universal standard for Bible believing Christians of the English speaking world.

Enter Textual Criticism

Textual criticism is an academic discipline in which scholars study existing Greek and Hebrew biblical manuscripts. Prior to the advent of the moveable type printing press in 1455 by Gutenberg, all copies of the Bible were hand copied by scribes and were called manuscripts. Because they were individually produced by human hands, they were prone to mistakes in manual copying.

Textual critics study the various extant (existing) manuscripts and note any discrepancies that may have occurred between different copies. Then, by comparing them, a majority consensus is established. Should a misspelled word be found, or should a word have been accidentally added or omitted from a given manuscript, the textual critic endeavors to by consensus establish the correct reading.

A major theory of textual criticism is that some later manuscripts were copied from earlier ones, therefore, the earlier manuscripts are presumed to be a more accurate source of the Scriptures. (The presumption is that scribal errors would accumulate in later copies). Hence, textual critics give much more credence to early manuscripts than to later copies even if the later be greater in number.

The problem with this theory is that the early church had great reverence and respect for their "accepted" or "received" manuscripts of the Scriptures. Accordingly, when a given copy of the Scriptures became tattered and worn, it was carefully copied and then burned Hence, there are virtually no copies of me earliest manuscripts used by the churches.

However, there is evidence that certain cults and sects within early Christians followed the opposite practice. They preserved their manuscripts regardless of condition. Therefore, the crucial premise of textual criticism - that the oldest manuscripts are always to be preferred to more recent copies is critically flawed.

Manuscripts Aleph and B

ln the latter half of the 19th century when textual criticism perhaps was at its zenith, two ancient manuscripts were found in the Mediterranean world that would come to revolutionize the work of the textual critics. A manuscript was "found" in a Roman Catholic monastery at the foot of Mt. Sinai in the Sinai desert. It came to be known as Manuscript Aleph and it also was known as Codex Sinaticus ("codex" being a Latin word for a bound volume).

About the same time another ancient manuscript was "found" in the library of the Vatican. It became known as Manuscript B or Codex Vaticanus. Both of these manuscripts were determined to have come from the 4th century A.D. and are considered the oldest basically complete copies of the New Testament to exist. Hence, they were considered by the textual critics to be the mother lode of ancient Bible manuscripts.

It is noteworthy that both of these manuscripts were "found" in Roman Catholic libraries. (The Roman Catholic Church historically has never given great credence to the Scripture or its teachings). Moreover, the Codex Sinaticus had been produced by scribes of the Alexandrian sect in early church history. The Alexandrians were a heretical cult similar to the modern Jehovah Witnesses. They held major doctrinal deviations pertaining to the person of Jesus Christ. Notwithstanding the questionable source of Codex Sinaticus, it became the premiere source for future textual criticism.

Drs. Westcott and Hort

Two British textual critics championed these newly found manuscripts. Their names were Dr. B. F. Westcott and Dr. F. J. A. Hort. They represented a branch of the Church of England which was enamored with the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church. Westcott and Hort in their writings showed a keen friendliness to Roman Catholic theology, occult spiritism and German Rationalism otherwise known as modernism. They, by no stretch of the imagination, could he considered fundamentalists s the term was later coined and used. Rather, if they lived today, their theology and philosophy (as evidenced by their writings) would be called liberal, humanistic, sacramental and even have occult overtones.

Drs. Hort and Westcott together collated and Text o f the New Testament. The "new" Greek text was in contrast with and in distinction to the text mat had been received by virtually all Bible believing . churches for the preceding 19 centuries. In the last 100 years it has been re-edited by Nestle, Aland and others, and today is generally referred in as the critical text. 11 represents less than 1% of existing manuscripts.

From this critical text and its direct predecessor, the Westcott and Hort Text, virtually all modern translations and versions of the Bible have been translated into English.

WE BELIEVE THAT THE CRITICAL TEXT IS CORRUPT! Not only are its origins and associations suspect, the actual text itself is full of deletions and dilutions of the time honored Scripture received by translations based upon the critical text have diluted reference to the blood of Jesus Christ (e.g. Romans 3:25, Colossians 1:14, Revelation 1:11, Luke 22:20 et al), the Deity of Christ (e g Jude 4, Revelation 1:11). the inspiration of the Scriptures (e.g. 11 Timothy 3:16), and salvation by faith (e.g. John 3:36) to mention a few. Space does not allow us to list the numerous instances of serious dilution or deletions of major doctrinal truth in modern versions, but it is lengthy. There are thousands of textual changes

If a survey benchmark has been moved or altered, all surveying after that point will be distorted. And because the critical text is in our view corrupt. any version of the Bible translated from it is suspect.

Modern Versions

The venerable King James Version of the Bible is not copyrighted. It is considered a public domain publication of the Word of God. However, virtually all modern versions are copyrighted. As any author or publisher knows, a copyright is for protection of commercial rights. It means that no one else may market their Bible without paying the publisher or at the least receiving written permission to do so. Does not the Apostle Peter refer to some in the last days "making merchandise of you" regarding the things of God (II Peter 2:3)?

Moreover, a number of the modem versions (based upon the critical text) have used less than precise methods for translation. Some have used a literary device known as "dynamic equivalence". This is a fancy term that essentially means some translators have taken the liberty to come up with what they think are modern equivalents for specific words in the manuscript text rather than precisely translating the specific words of the text. In effect, this is a running commentary on the part of the translators, injecting into the translation what they think a given passage means, rather than rendering a precise translation of what the scriptural writers actually wrote. There is nothing wrong with Bible commentaries. However, to insert personal bias under the guise of translation is not only Iess than a faithful rendering of the text, it is deceptive.

In at least one case, a popular version bas bad the honesty to indicate m its subtitle mat it is a paraphrase. Unfortunately, unwary minds often look at such a Bible paraphrase as the Bible nevertheless. Some versions have used vulgar and crude terms m their translations They have seemed oblivious to the unique purity of purpose of the Scripture.

As mentioned above, cardinal New Testament doctrine such as the shed blood of Jesus Christ, the Deity of Christ and the inspiration of Scripture is routinely diluted m recent translations based upon -me critical text. That should give pause for concern!

The Godly Heritage of the KJV

In viewing the distortions, deletions, corruptions, dilutions, changes and questionable associations of the critical text and its resultant modernist translations, we will stick to the venerable King lames Version of the Bible that our forebearers so faithfully used. It is an ancient landmark

Down through the centuries, it has been the Bible used for every major revival to sweep across portions of the English speaking world. It was the Bible of tbe Pilgrim forefathers of this nation. And. it has been God blessed wherever it bas been used. It is based upon the ancient text which bas been, until just recently, the universally accepted text of the Scriptures from the time of the apostles.

Modern versions bave been marketed extensively as being easier to read than the archaic, old fashioned KJV Bible. However, recent computerized document analysis programs have objectively revealed that the King James Version of the Bible is in far easier to read than the NIV or the NASB. The Fleisch-Kincaid research firm has, through computerized analysis, sbown that the KJV vocabulary has fewer syllables per word than the NIV or the NASB. Furthertmore, the KJV has less complex sentences than the NIV or NASB. In reality, the KJV is easier to read than its modern counterparts in the manner of vocabulary and syntax.

There is undisputed eloquence and beauty in the King James Version. Moreover, the English language was at its zenith in the early 17th century for poetic beauty and eloquence. Interestingly, one of the major criticisms of the King James Version is actually a strength. People unacquainted with proper English complain about the use of "thee" and "thou" etc. in the King James text.

However, as anyone who knows linguistics will attest, many languages have at one time had a common level which was spoken on the street and a higher or formal level that was used in reference to royalty and God. The usage of "thee" and "thou" etc. in old English is a form of higher English that no longer is commonly used. It originally was used in formal situations where deference and respect to nobility, royalty and Deity were appropriate.

Unfortunately, our contemporary American English usage of "you" and "yours" etc. makes no allowance for such deference and brings all of our Ianguage back to the lower level. The King James Version respectfully and appropriately refers to God and other notables as "tbee" or "thou" in accordance with their due respect. Most modern language translations have diluted that deference.

Dr.Frank Logsdon

Dr. Frank Logsdon was the Co-founder of the New American Standard Bible (NASB). He since has renounced any connection to it.

"I must under God renounce every attachment to the New American Standard Version. I'm afraid I'm in trouble with the Lord . . . We laid the groundwork; I wrote the format; I helped interview some of the translators; I sat with the translator; I wrote the preface . . . I'm in trouble; I can't refute these arguments; it's wrong, terribly wrong . . . The deletions are absolutely frightening . . . there are so many . . . Are we so naive that we do not suspect Satanic deception in all of this?

Upon investigation, I wrote my dear friend, Mr. Lockman, (editor's note: Mr. Lockman was the benefactor through which the NASB was published) explaining that I was forced to renounce all attachment to the NASV (editor's note: this is the same as the NASB).

You can say that the Authorized Version (KJV) is absolutely correct. How correct? 100% correct . . ."

Dr. Frank Logsdon

We have determined not to remove the ancient landmark in a matter so crucial as the foundation of our faith . . . the Word of God. And what withal the deletions, dilutions, and questionable origins of the modern versions, we will stick to the King James Version!

(C) Northstar Ministries, 1994 1820 W. Morgan Street Duluth, MN 55811

By: John Calvin Hall

[url]
http://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/hall-whykjv.html[/url]

[Abiding in His Word]

Are we better off today with all these translations—or worse? What are the real differences?

Except for the NKJV, virtually all modern translations are following the most ancient MSS. So, the textual basis (though different in a few particulars) is largely the same. And even here, no cardinal doctrine is at stake in any of these textual differences. God has preserved his word in such a way that a person could get saved reading the KJV, Tyndale, Bishops', RSV, NIV, REB or NET.

As for the translation, there are three different flavors: accurate, readable, elegant. Each Christian should own at least one of each flavor. I recommend RSV, ESV, and NASB for accurate, NIV for readable, and REB for elegance. Or, what tries to combine all of these, the NET. And for study, the NET Bible is by far the best.

Does all this cause confusion? Have we somehow lost the sure Word of God? No, not at all. The reality is that the certainty that the King James Bible provided for 270 years could only happen if the church and state combined forces, as they did in 1611 England. But things are different now, especially in America. I don't think we really want the U.S. Senate telling us what Bible we should have in our churches!

For the first 1500 years of the church's existence, we had only handwritten MSS. But the church was able to survive with that. And those MSS differed more than the modern translations do today! It is only with the invention of the printing press that we have been able to embrace the myth of certainty about all the particulars of the wording of the Bible. Even though there are significant differences in the wording and style of these new Bibles, they all proclaim the same message.

Final conclusion:

Even with the proliferation of Bibles today, Christians are reading their Bibles less and less. I believe the evangelical church has only 50 years of life left. 50 years left of evangelicalism because of marginalization of the Word of God. We need another Reformation! The enemy of the gospel now is not religious hierarchy but moral anarchy, not tradition but entertainment. The enemy of the gospel is Protestantism run amock; it is an anti-intellectual, anti-knowledge, feel-good faith that has no content and no convictions. Part of the communal repentance that is needed is a repentance about the text. And even more importantly, there must be a repentance with regard to Christ our Lord. Just as the Bible has been marginalized, Jesus Christ has been ‘buddy-ized.' His transcendence and majesty are only winked at, as we turn him into the genie in the bottle, beseeching God for more conveniences, more luxury, less hassle, and a life without worries or lack of comfort. He no longer wears the face that the apostles recognized. Or, as Erasmus remarked, "When you read the Greek New Testament, you can see the face of Jesus more clearly than if you were one of his disciples"! A bit of hyperbole, but the point is worth underscoring: The God we worship today no longer resembles the God of the Bible. Unless we return to him through a reading and digesting of the scriptures—through a commitment to the text, the evangelical church will become irrelevant, useless, dead.

http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=1825

The History of the English Bible:
http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=1791

[JABova]

Final conclusion:

... The enemy of the gospel now is not religious hierarchy but moral anarchy, not tradition but entertainment. The enemy of the gospel is Protestantism run amock; it is an anti-intellectual, anti-knowledge, feel-good faith that has no content and no convictions....

This stood out like a sore thumb! This hits the nail on the head!!

As I read the entire 'Final conclusion' all I could think about was Jesus' letter to the Laodicean's:

I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot; I wish that you were cold or hot. So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth. Revelation 3:15-16 (NASV)

-Joe

[Sparrow]

Final conclusion:

Even with the proliferation of Bibles today, Christians are reading their Bibles less and less. I believe the evangelical church has only 50 years of life left. 50 years left of evangelicalism because of marginalization of the Word of God. We need another Reformation! The enemy of the gospel now is not religious hierarchy but moral anarchy, not tradition but entertainment. The enemy of the gospel is Protestantism run amock; it is an anti-intellectual, anti-knowledge, feel-good faith that has no content and no convictions. Part of the communal repentance that is needed is a repentance about the text. And even more importantly, there must be a repentance with regard to Christ our Lord. Just as the Bible has been marginalized, Jesus Christ has been ‘buddy-ized.' His transcendence and majesty are only winked at, as we turn him into the genie in the bottle, beseeching God for more conveniences, more luxury, less hassle, and a life without worries or lack of comfort. He no longer wears the face that the apostles recognized. Or, as Erasmus remarked, "When you read the Greek New Testament, you can see the face of Jesus more clearly than if you were one of his disciples"! A bit of hyperbole, but the point is worth underscoring: The God we worship today no longer resembles the God of the Bible. Unless we return to him through a reading and digesting of the scriptures—through a commitment to the text, the evangelical church will become irrelevant, useless, dead.

Hmmm...part of that quote sounds EXACTLY what Rick Warren is saying.

http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/rickwarren-judgenot.html

TRUE REPENTANCE and CHANGED LIVES come when God's *WORD* is RESPECTED and PUT FORTH.

[Sparrow]

"Abiding in His Word"]Are we better off today with all these translations—or worse? What are the real differences?

I propose that this "leaven" has leavened the whole "lump". These New Age versions have made the Body of Christ very sick.

Consider this tract from Liberty Gospel Tracts entitled,

"Two Deadly Viruses - HIV and NIV"

http://www.libertygospeltracts.com/tracts/hivniv/hivniv.htm

You will see their comparisons eerily similar.

Except for the NKJV, virtually all modern translations are following the most ancient MSS. So, the textual basis (though different in a few particulars) is largely the same. And even here, no cardinal doctrine is at stake in any of these textual differences. God has preserved his word in such a way that a person could get saved reading the KJV, Tyndale, Bishops', RSV, NIV, REB or NET.

I am sorry. This is a lie.

As for the translation, there are three different flavors: accurate, readable, elegant. Each Christian should own at least one of each flavor. I recommend RSV, ESV, and NASB for accurate, NIV for readable, and REB for elegance. Or, what tries to combine all of these, the NET. And for study, the NET Bible is by far the best.

God's Word is not a smorgasboard that you can pick and choose from.


Is this issue of Bible Versions simply a matter of choice ?

I highly recommend a sermon on the subject of "choice" (as I believe it also pertains to this issue.)

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=3120702046

When man is given a choice, he will choose Barabbas every time. Barabbas was an insurrectionist and ironically Jesus was charged for the crime of insurrection.

But had YOU been in the crowd and chosen Jesus that day to be released, then you would have been going against God's Will for Christ to suffer and die.

Therefore "choice" has no place in our salvation. God chose us and GAVE us HIS Word, so therefore, the issue over bible versions is not based upon CHOICE.

Does all this cause confusion? Have we somehow lost the sure Word of God? No, not at all. The reality is that the certainty that the King James Bible provided for 270 years could only happen if the church and state combined forces, as they did in 1611 England. But things are different now, especially in America. I don't think we really want the U.S. Senate telling us what Bible we should have in our churches!

Try following in your bible version in church when another Christian is asked to read aloud, and I will leave the answer to whether it causes confusion or not to you. ON the the ludricrousness of the statements comparing defending God's Word as it has been preserved for us and the forced polices of the Church of England leaves me wondering if I should laugh or cry at the sheer ignorance of such a statement.

To say it is a GROSS misrepresentation of the issue at hand is an understatement.

It also demonstrates that you don't know your history very well [if you wrote this, Abiding].

I will present the HISTORICAL record and the FACT that the Geneva Bible which directly preceded the AV 1611 was born out of the blood of the Saints.

But because I will appeal to the followers of this thread to read the tract and listen to the sermon presented [and I don't want to "overload" them], I will post a new "reply" to further expound TRUTH on this subject.

For the first 1500 years of the church's existence, we had only handwritten MSS. But the church was able to survive with that. And those MSS differed more than the modern translations do today! It is only with the invention of the printing press that we have been able to embrace the myth of certainty about all the particulars of the wording of the Bible. Even though there are significant differences in the wording and style of these new Bibles, they all proclaim the same message.

Again, I will continue in my next post.

[Sparrow]

http://logosresourcepages.org/idx_geneva.htm

Introduction to the Geneva Bible
Also Known as
The Pilgrim's Bible
Dr. William H. Noah and Dr. David L. Brown
Copyright 2001 & 2005

* Overview

Despite being virtually unknown today, the Geneva Bible is most revolutionary of all English Bibles. It was born out of persecution and takes its name from the initial city of publication. When Mary I, also known as "Bloody Mary," took the throne in 1553, English Bibles were made illegal and heavy persecution broke-out against Protestants and proponents of English Scripture. Hundreds fled England and many of these exiles settled in Geneva, Switzerland, where they produced a new English Bible—the Geneva Bible.

Please, Keep in mind the Forum rule for copyrighted material.

Rules for Copyrighted Material

When posting copyrighted material, please keep the articles, commentaries or whatever is posted to only a few sentences and a link. You can summarize in your own words if you like. This rule does not apply to things published before 1923 or official Government Websites (And, of course, it doesn't apply to my commentaries). Also, no posting from subscription Websites.

Herb

******************************************

AND FROM.....


http://www.biblebelievers.com/Vance5.html


THE AV 1611: Purified Seven Times
By Dr. Laurence M. Vance

Vance Publications, P.O. Box 11781, Pensacola, FL 32524, USA. Phone: (850) 474-1626. Vance Publications also specializes in finding out-of-print books. Please direct any questions or comments for the author to Vance Publications. Placed on the Internet by permission of the author. Dr. Laurence M. Vance's e-mail address is: vancepub@juno.com

"The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times." (Psalm 12:6)

As any student of English Bible history knows, the Authorized Version of 1611 was not the first Bible to be translated into English. But even though hundreds of complete Bibles, New Testaments, and Scripture portions have been translated into English since 1611, it is obvious that the Authorized Version is the last English Bible; that is, the last English Bible that God "authorized."

Because the Authorized Version is the "last" English Bible, and because its defenders believe it to contain the very words of God, various schemes have been contrived to make the English Bibles up to and including the Authorized Version fit the description in Psalm 12:6 of the words of the Lord being "purified seven times." The problem is that the Authorized Version is not the seventh English Bible -- it is the tenth one.

Although there were some attempts during the Old and Middle English period to translate portions of the Bible into English, the first complete Bible or New Testament in English did not appear until the fourteenth century.

John Wycliffe (c.1320-1384) is credited with being the first to translate the entire Bible into English. It is to be remembered that no Greek or Hebrew texts, versions, or editions were yet fabricated. Wycliffe did his translating primarily from the only Bible then in use: the Latin Vulgate. He is often called the "Morning Star of the Reformation" for his opposition to ecclesiastical abuses and the Papacy. Wycliffe's New Testament translation was completed in 1380, and the entire Bible in 1382.

William Tyndale (c. 1494-1536) has the distinction of being the first to translate the New Testament from Greek into English. He early distinguished himself as a scholar both at Cambridge and Oxford, and was fluent in several languages. Tyndale soon advanced both his desire and his demise, as seen in his reply to a critic: "I defy the pope and all his laws; if God spare my life, ere many years I will cause the boy that driveth the plough in England to know more of the Scriptures than thou doest." The Bible was still forbidden in the vernacular, so after settling in London for several months while attempting to gain approval for his translation efforts, Tyndale concluded: "Not only that there was no room in my lord of Londons palace to translate the New Testament, but also that there was no place to do it in all England, as experience doth now openly declare."

Accordingly, Tyndale left England in 1524 and completed his translation of the New Testament in Germany. The moving factor in his translation of the New Testament was that he "perceived by experience, how that it was impossible to establish the lay people in any truth, except the scripture were plainly laid before their eyes in their mother tongue, that they might see the process, order and meaning of the text." The printing of his New Testament was completed in Worms and smuggled into England, where it was an instant success. Tyndale then turned his attention to the Old Testament. He never finished it, however, for on May 21, 1535, Tyndale was treacherously kidnaped and imprisoned in Belgium. On October 6, 1536, he was tried as a heretic and condemned to death. He was strangled and burned, but not before he uttered the immortal prayer of "Lord, open the King of England's eyes."

Although Tyndale's English Bible was the first to be translated directly from the original languages, it was just the New Testament. It was Myles Coverdale (1488-1569) who was the first to publish a complete English Bible. In 1533, King Henry VIII established the Church of England, and, in 1534, the Upper House of Convocation of Canterbury petitioned King Henry to decree "that the holy scripture should be translated into the vulgar English tongue by certain good learned men, to be nominated by His Majesty, and should be delivered to the people for their instruction." Thomas Cromwell (1485-1540) and Archbishop Cranmer (1489-1556) were likewise convinced of the desirability of having the Bible translated into English. Coverdale's Bible was printed in October of 1535. He based his work on the Zurich Bible of Zwingli, the Vulgate, the Latin text of Paginius, Luther's Bible, and the previous work of William Tyndale, especially in the New Testament.

Although Coverdale's second edition of 1537 contained the license of the king, the first Bible to obtain such license was published earlier the same year. The Matthew Bible was more of a revision than a translation. Thomas Matthew was just a pseudonym for John Rogers (c. 1500-1555), a friend of Tyndale, to whom he had turned over his unpublished manuscripts on the translation of the Old Testament. Rogers used Tyndale's New Testament and the completed parts of his Old Testament. For the rest of the Bible, he relied on Coverdale. The whole of this material was slightly revised and accompanied by introductions and chapter summaries. Cranmer commented in a letter to Cromwell that he liked it "better than any other translation heretofore made." And so it happened that Tyndale's translation, which was proscribed just a few years earlier, was circulating with the King's permission and authority both in the Coverdale and Matthew Bibles.

Although the Coverdale and Matthew Bibles were "set forth with the King's most gracious license," the Great Bible was the first "authorized" Bible. Cromwell delegated to Myles Coverdale the work of revising the Matthew Bible and its controversial notes. In 1538, an injunction by Cromwell directed the clergy to provide "one book of the bible of the largest volume in English, and the same set up in some convenient place within the said church that ye have care of, whereas your parishioners may most commodiously resort to the same and read it." The completed Bible appeared in April of 1539. Although called the Great Bible because of its large size, it was referred to by several other designations as well. It was called the Cromwell Bible, since he did the most to prepare for its publication. It was also termed the Cranmer Bible, after the often reprinted preface by Cranmer beginning with the 1540 second edition. Several editions were printed by Whitechurch, and hence it was also labeled the Whitechurch Bible. In accordance with Cromwell's injunction, copies of the Great Bible were placed in every church. This led to it being called the Chained Bible, since it was chained in "some convenient place within the said church."

At the same time as Coverdale was preparing the Great Bible, Richard Taverner (1505-1577) undertook an independent revision of Matthew's Bible. It appeared under the title of: "The Most Sacred Bible whiche is the holy scripture, conteyning the old and new testament, translated into English, and newly recognized with great diligence after most faythful exemplars by Rychard Taverner." He was a competent Greek scholar and made some slight changes in the text and notes of the Matthew Bible. His work was eclipsed by the Great Bible and had but minor influence on later translations.

During the reign of the Catholic queen, Mary Tudor (1553-1558), many English Reformers, among them Myles Coverdale, fled to Geneva. It was here in 1557 that William Whittingham (1524-1579), the brother-in-law of John Calvin, and successor of John Knox at the English church in Geneva, translated the New Testament in what was to become the Geneva Bible. When Elizabeth, the sister of Mary, assumed the throne in 1558, many exiles returned to England. But Whittingham and some others remained in Geneva and continued to work on a more comprehensive and complete revision of the entire Bible that superseded the 1557 New Testament -- the Geneva Bible of 1560.

The superiority of the Geneva Bible over the Great Bible was readily apparent. It was the notes, however, that made it unacceptable for official use in England. Archbishop Matthew Parker soon took steps to make a revision of the Great Bible that would replace both it and the Geneva Bible. The Bible was divided into parts and distributed to scholars for revision. Parker served as the editor and most of his revisors were bishops, hence the Bishops' Bible. The first Bible to be translated by a committee, it was published in 1568.

The Douay-Rheims Bible was the first Roman Catholic translation of the Bible in English. When English Romanists fled England for the Continent under the reign of Elizabeth, many settled in France. In 1568, an English college was established by William Allen (1532-1594) at Douay. The college moved for a time to Rheims in 1578 under Richard Bristow (1538-1581). It was here that Gregory Martin (d. 1582) began translating the Bible into English from the Latin Vulgate. This was precipitated by Allen's recognition that Catholics had an unfair disadvantage compared with Bible-reading Protestants because of their use of Latin and the fact that "all the English versions are most corrupt." The Catholic New Testament was finished in 1582, but the complete Old Testament did not appear until 1610.

After the death of Elizabeth in 1603, James I, who was at that time James VI of Scotland, became the king of England. One of the first things done by the new king was the calling of the Hampton Court Conference in January of 1604 "for the hearing, and for the determining, things pretended to be amiss in the church." Here were assembled bishops, clergyman, and professors, along with four Puritan divines, to consider the complaints of the Puritans. Although Bible revision was not on the agenda, the Puritan president of Corpus Christi College, John Reynolds, "moved his Majesty, that there might be a new translation of the Bible, because those which were allowed in the reigns of Henry the eighth, and Edward the sixth, were corrupt and not answerable to the truth of the Original."

The next step was the actual selection of the men who were to perform the work. In July of 1604, James wrote to Bishop Bancroft that he had "appointed certain learned men, to the number of four and fifty, for the translating of the Bible." Although fifty-four men were nominated, only forty-seven were known to have taken part in the work of translation. The completed Bible, known as the King James Version or the Authorized Version, was issued in 1611, and remains the Bible read, preached, believed, and acknowledged as the authority by all Bible believers today.

Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale, Matthew, Great, Taverner, Geneva, Bishops', Douay-Rheims, and King James -- ten English Bibles. As mentioned previously, various schemes have been contrived to make the English Bibles up to and including the Authorized Version fit the description in Psalm 12:6 of the words of the Lord being "purified seven times." The problem with this noble goal is that it entails the elimination of three versions. But which three? Wycliffe's Bible is sometimes omitted because it was translated from the Latin instead of the original Hebrew and Greek. Tyndale's Bible is sometimes omitted because it was not a complete Bible -- just a New Testament and portions of the Old Testament. Coverdale's and Matthew's Bibles could conceivably be omitted because they rely so much on Tyndale. Taverner's Bible is sometimes omitted because it was a revision of Matthew's Bible and had little influence on later English versions. The Geneva Bible could conceivably be omitted because King James considered it to be the worst of the English versions. The Douay-Rheims, because it is a Roman Catholic version, is always omitted from the list.

This leaves the Great Bible, the Bishops' Bible, and the King James Bible -- three out of the ten. It appears that Bible believers have manipulated the history of the English Bible to prove a bogus theory.

Or have they?

The answer is yes and no. As will presently be proved, the theory is not bogus at all -- even if some zealous brethren have been careless in the way they went about proving it.

The definitive list of Bibles that makes the Authorized Version the seventh Bible, thus fitting the description in Psalm 12:6 of the words of the Lord being "purified seven times," is not to be found in the opinions of the many writers on the history of the English Bible. To the contrary, the definitive list is to be found in the often-overlooked details concerning the translating of the Authorized Version.

To begin with, the translators of the Authorized Version did acknowledge that they had a multitude of sources from which to draw from: "Neither did we think much to consult the Translators or Commentators, Chaldee, Hebrew, Syrian, Greek, or Latin, no nor the Spanish, French, Italian, or Dutch." The Greek editions of Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza were all accessible, as were the Complutensian and Antwerp Polyglots, and the Latin translations of Pagninus, Tremellius, and Beza. What we want, however, is a reference to English Bibles.

The translators also acknowledged that they had at their disposal all the previous English translations of the sixteenth century: "We are so far off from condemning any of their labors that travailed before us in this kind, either in this land or beyond sea, either in King Henry's time, or King Edward's (if there were any translation, or correction of a translation in his time) or Queen Elizabeth's of everrenowned memory, that we acknowledge them to have been raised up of God, for the building and furnishing of his Church, and that they deserve to be had of us and of posterity in everlasting remembrance." Although this statement of the translators refers to English Bibles, it is not specific as to exactly which versions.

The information we need is to be found, not in the translators' "The Epistle Dedicatory" or their "The Translators to the Reader," but in the "Rules to be Observed in the Translation of the Bible." These general rules, fifteen in number, were advanced for the guidance of the translators. The first and fourteenth, because they directly relate to the subject at hand, are here given in full: "1. The ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called the Bishops Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the Truth of the original will permit." "14. These translations to be used when they agree better with the Text than the Bishops Bible: Tindoll's, Matthews, Coverdale's, Whitchurch's, Geneva."

And thus we have our answer. The seven English versions that make the English Bibles up to and including the Authorized Version fit the description in Psalm 12:6 of the words of the Lord being "purified seven times" are Tyndale's, Matthew's, Coverdale's, the Great Bible (printed by Whitechurch), the Geneva Bible, the Bishops' Bible, and the King James Bible.

The Wycliffe, Taverner, and Douay-Rheims Bibles, whatever merits any of them may have, are not part of the purified line God "authorized," of which the King James Authorized Version is God's last one -- purified seven times.


Back to the Biblebelievers.com

[AndCanItBe]

Except for the NKJV, virtually all modern translations are following the most ancient MSS. So, the textual basis (though different in a few particulars) is largely the same. And even here, no cardinal doctrine is at stake in any of these textual differences. God has preserved his word in such a way that a person could get saved reading the KJV, Tyndale, Bishops', RSV, NIV, REB or NET.

I am sorry. This is a lie.

Romans 10

8But what does it say? "The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,"that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming: 9That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. 11As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame." 12For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."

Are saying that a person who reads these words from the NIV and does what they say isn't saved because it didn't come from the KJV?

[JABova]

Final conclusion:

Even with the proliferation of Bibles today, Christians are reading their Bibles less and less. I believe the evangelical church has only 50 years of life left. 50 years left of evangelicalism because of marginalization of the Word of God. We need another Reformation! The enemy of the gospel now is not religious hierarchy but moral anarchy, not tradition but entertainment. The enemy of the gospel is Protestantism run amock; it is an anti-intellectual, anti-knowledge, feel-good faith that has no content and no convictions. Part of the communal repentance that is needed is a repentance about the text. And even more importantly, there must be a repentance with regard to Christ our Lord. Just as the Bible has been marginalized, Jesus Christ has been ‘buddy-ized.' His transcendence and majesty are only winked at, as we turn him into the genie in the bottle, beseeching God for more conveniences, more luxury, less hassle, and a life without worries or lack of comfort. He no longer wears the face that the apostles recognized. Or, as Erasmus remarked, "When you read the Greek New Testament, you can see the face of Jesus more clearly than if you were one of his disciples"! A bit of hyperbole, but the point is worth underscoring: The God we worship today no longer resembles the God of the Bible. Unless we return to him through a reading and digesting of the scriptures—through a commitment to the text, the evangelical church will become irrelevant, useless, dead.

Hmmm...part of that quote sounds EXACTLY what Rick Warren is saying.

http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/rickwarren-judgenot.html

TRUE REPENTANCE and CHANGED LIVES come when God's *WORD* is RESPECTED and PUT FORTH.

Sparrow, I read the article that you cited, and here is exactly what it said about Rick Warren’s reformation:

Warren’s New Reformation is not about beliefs or creeds or doctrinal purity; it is rather about “the purpose of the church.”

That is not at all what the author of the “Final Conclusion” quote you cited above was trying to say. Clearly he was trying to say the reformation need to be focused on getting back to the Word of God, NOT “the purpose of the church”. From all I have read, the Purpose Driven Live is anything but getting back to the Word of God.

…
Consider this tract from Liberty Gospel Tracts entitled,

"Two Deadly Viruses - HIV and NIV"

http://www.libertygospeltracts.com/tracts/hivniv/hivniv.htm

You will see their comparisons eerily similar.

Sorry Sparrow, but they are condemning the copyright of the NIV publishers, but they themselves are selling tracks (which I believe are totally ineffective), some with very distasteful content. This quote is not from a tract, but from part of their site where you can ask a question:

Bible Answers To Your Questions
(1062 bytes) If you have a question you would like answered from the Bible, please fill out the form below.

Note For Women: If you are married, we must biblically direct you to your husband first. I Corinthians 14:35 deals with women having questions in church, and instructs them to ask their husbands at home. If your husband does not know the answer, you might encourage him to write to us here. The Bible also instructs the older women to teach the younger women, in Titus 2:3,4. If you write to us with a question, we will pass it along to one of our ladies here, who will help you to find the answer from the Bible.

This is not church and I believe their attitude would do more to send people away from Christianity. I know that after reading that I certainly would not purchase anything from them or give credence to any of their material. Who made them the judge?

Additionally, all they do is bash the NIV without any textual criticism in that tract. This sounds like a tactic used by an atheistic movement called the theory of evolution. I sincerely question their motives. While I don’t think they intend to be malicious, is it possible that by discrediting the most popular translation of the Bible they intend to discredit real Christians and try even more to marginalize the Body of Christ? No disrespect intended here, and I do not want to judge their motives (that judgment is reserved by the Lord for Himself), but we have to face the fact that Satan’s attacks are coming from every direction and some of them are very difficult to spot.

Now if this quote goes with you comment below:

Except for the NKJV, virtually all modern translations are following the most ancient MSS. So, the textual basis (though different in a few particulars) is largely the same. And even here, no cardinal doctrine is at stake in any of these textual differences. God has preserved his word in such a way that a person could get saved reading the KJV, Tyndale, Bishops', RSV, NIV, REB or NET.

.I am sorry. This is a lie.

I am living proof that it is not a lie! I have already stated twice in this thread that it was in fact a non KJV version of the Bible that brought me to repentance and salvation. And it was not even a translation, it was a parapharase of all things! Using a wide brush is a dangerous practice.

As for the translation, there are three different flavors: accurate, readable, elegant. Each Christian should own at least one of each flavor. I recommend RSV, ESV, and NASB for accurate, NIV for readable, and REB for elegance. Or, what tries to combine all of these, the NET. And for study, the NET Bible is by far the best.

God's Word is not a smorgasboard that you can pick and choose from.

Okay, lets get technical here; none of the Bibles or even the ancient texts we have today are technically EXACTLY what God transmitted to the prophets. The original texts are lost. Personally, I don’t think any of us is in a position to state categorically that we know anything for certain regarding all the words in the scripture. We can only know the substance of the message, and that is because we have lots of references to compare against each other and more importantly, we have the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Only the Wisdom of God through the Holy Spirit even permits us to under stand what God is telling us. If you doubt this, carefully consider the Creation/Evolution debate and you will see that it is pretty much only the Scientists that are Christian can see how totally flawed and scientifically impossible is the theory of evolution. Yet the rest of the world has swallowed it hook, line, and sinker.

Finally

God chose us and GAVE us HIS Word, so therefore, the issue over bible versions is not based upon CHOICE.

God’s Word is a living Word. It is not the words themselves written on the paper. The sum of parts is greater than the whole. God’s Word is sharper than any two edged sword. There is no way that the Lord would permit his work to become perverted to the degree argued by those who support the KJV only doctrine. IT IS a doctrine, and that doctrine is not scriptural. Consider that many people throughout history have trued to both destroy God Word and his people, and what God did was to turn around their efforts and to cause them to expand the penetration of the Gospel beyond belief. Read my signature scripture. It says that it is HIS Word, not ours, that it will accomplish His Will, not ours. I put my faith and trust in Him, and he takes care to be sure that I have His word, regardless of the translation.

Ok, I’m done.

-Joe

[Salty Skipper]

I am living proof that it is not a lie! I have already stated twice in this thread that it was in fact a non KJV version of the Bible that brought me to repentance and salvation. And it was not even a translation, it was a parapharase of all things! Using a wide brush is a dangerous practice.

and Joe!!!

[Rte66]

Only the Wisdom of God through the Holy Spirit even permits us to under stand what God is telling us.

Joe, I agree with your posts wholeheartedly...Bless You!

Angie

[stand4truth]

Just a thought.... The martyrs that were burned at the stake, eaten by lions, and tortured beyond belief, all died to pass down what? They did not deny their faith, nor did they give up the Word of God. Check out what BIBLE these martyrs died for. I believe their lives proof what BIBLE I should be reading and passing on to my kids. These great men and woman did not die protecting the "other translations," therefore, I should hold ONE in high regard, not because "I am better" or "righteous", but because some godly martyr died so that I can read what God wrote.

There have been many facts and opinions stated in this thread. I believe if a Christian is truly seeking God's face on this subject, he will be shown the truth. Some Christians have hurt the cause of Christ because of this topic. I believe Satan tries to mimic every thing that Christ does. Satan has ever since he fell.

This topic has been an argument for a very long time. This thread could go on and on. What have we done for our Saviour today? Have we told Him that we love Him? Have we set at His feet long enough today? Have we reached that neighbor for Christ? Have we showed compassion today? Have we begged God for that lost friend? Have we longed to hear more from the Savior's still small voice? Have we rejoiced today when remembering loved ones that are now in Heaven? Our we passing down the truths to our kids, so that their generation can know God? Did we take time to thank the Lord Jesus Christ for all the wondrous things He does? Did we marvel at His power and majesty? I would like to see more threads about the above. I want to stay beside my Savior just a little longer.

When we as believers have a foundation that is built on the SOLID ROCK, all the above becomes easier. When the foundation is built on Christ alone, than it is hard to be tossed to and fro. When our foundation is unmovable, than it is easy to hear the still small voice. It is not easy to hear the still small voice, when we allow ten different translations to guide our way in this Christian life. Our path than becomes unclear and unsure.

I go back to the beginning, as I remember that martyr who is saying his last words to his family, before they kill him. He tells his family stay true to what he is dying for. Never let it go. Pass it on to every one you meet. I will not die in vain. God's Word will live on. It does live on, because it is ALIVE today.

I know you all mean well. May you let God's love for you shine forth. Try to be a blessing to other believers around you. Let your light shine!!!

[dshemjo]

Check out what BIBLE these martyrs died for.

Help us out a little here. Who was martyred for holding a particular translation of the Bible above others? Perhaps there were some, but when I think of myrtyrs, I think of those like Steven and James in Acts who gave their lives for the name of Jesus Christ, not for the name of a certain translation of his Word.

[Sparrow]

JABova,

I am too busy today to spend all day here. There are PLENTY of Scriptural factual articles I have already presented here. If one wants to know the truth of this issue, God will reveal it.

As for the accusation that Liberty Gospel Tracts sell their tracts. That is an unfair comparison. EVERY ministry sells their tracts. They are printed on them for FREE distribution ONLY. And you are also false about there not existing a tract. I have right on my computer desk the actual tract. I looked it up to be able to post it here.

God's WORD says it is NOT BOUND. Copyright on the literal WORDS of God is different than one that belongs to the Public Domain and always has.

You also said,

I am living proof that it is not a lie! I have already stated twice in this thread that it was in fact a non KJV version of the Bible that brought me to repentance and salvation. And it was not even a translation, it was a parapharase of all things! Using a wide brush is a dangerous practice.

I beg to disagree with you. It was GOD Who brought you to repentance. He can use anything to speak to those He has foreordained for Salvation. I have heard of God using Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ to bring people to Him. That does not make the Passion orthodox; for it is occultic and unbiblical.

God used Sheila Walsh on the 700 Club to get to my heart. But I do not endorse the Dominionist views and false prophecies of Pat Robertson, nor the Contemplative views Sheila Walsh is going into. So that is a non argument. We are not discussing what God CAN use. He used Baalim's ***.

Okay, lets get technical here; none of the Bibles or even the ancient texts we have today are technically EXACTLY what God transmitted to the prophets. The original texts are lost

And what did the Scribes do? You are calling God a LIAR. Ps. 12 and Prov. 30:5 says that GOD DID preserve HIS WORD, and that it is PURE.

So either they are lost; or God is a LIAR. I choose to believe GOD.

[stand4truth]

dshemjo

If you are truly interested in finding out more about the martyrs, check out David Cloud's book Rome and The Bible. http://www.wayoflife.org
He walks through the history of the Bible through the centuries and Rome's persecutions against it.

You are right, Stephen and the others did die for their faith. I am just stating that there has been a Bible that has been attacked. The book I was talking about, shows those who tried to burn it. God's Word can never be taken away completely.

Psalm 119:89 For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.

[Hippiechic]

Sparrow... I have stayed out of this until now, but seriously you need to watch it. Be careful of pointing fingers at others salvations and saying what God can and cannot use. I grew up KJV, took a KJV class, went to KJV conferences every year. But when the speaker got up and said that no one could be saved out of any other version and gave scriptures that were so unbelievably taken out of context that it left no basis at all for what he said. I was shocked and so were a lot of people. I can give example after example of people who were saved from reading other versions: Douay-Rheims, The Message, NIV, NLT, NKJV, and a host of others. You can call it a watered down gospel or whatever you want to call it, but it's in there. It's still convicting because the Spirit is still present in this world working using what's available. Unfortunately, it is KJV bangers who take things to this extreme that are keeping a lot of people out of churches, away from God, and even from getting saved at all. It's not of God. Go ahead and choose to be KJV only... or choose to use other versions... but do not point fingers at others salvations. That is the job of the Spirit of God.

Forgive me for seeming a bit angry... I tried to tone it down a bit...

[ruotsher]

I just got a Geneva 1599 Bible.....this is a version prior to the KJV. I think it's pretty cool!

anybody else have one?

[mark s]

I just got a Geneva 1599 Bible.....this is a version prior to the KJV. I think it's pretty cool!

anybody else have one?

I have it on my computer. I think its cool too!

[Sparrow]

Sparrow... I have stayed out of this until now, but seriously you need to watch it. Be careful of pointing fingers at others salvations and saying what God can and cannot use. I grew up KJV, took a KJV class, went to KJV conferences every year. But when the speaker got up and said that no one could be saved out of any other version and gave scriptures that were so unbelievably taken out of context that it left no basis at all for what he said. I was shocked and so were a lot of people. I can give example after example of people who were saved from reading other versions: Douay-Rheims, The Message, NIV, NLT, NKJV, and a host of others. You can call it a watered down gospel or whatever you want to call it, but it's in there. It's still convicting because the Spirit is still present in this world working using what's available. Unfortunately, it is KJV bangers who take things to this extreme that are keeping a lot of people out of churches, away from God, and even from getting saved at all. It's not of God. Go ahead and choose to be KJV only... or choose to use other versions... but do not point fingers at others salvations. That is the job of the Spirit of God.

Forgive me for seeming a bit angry... I tried to tone it down a bit...

I never said that God could not use any version to bring someone under conviction. Look back at my words, Hippiechic, before accusing.

I said I believe that the AV 1611 [and until recently, the Geneva Bible, which I also have] is the only TRUE inerrant, infallible, inspired WORD of God.

As I said in another post, God can use ANYTHING and ANYONE He so desires to bring them to an awareness of their lost state.

I know someone who said that God used the movie "Oh God!" [with George Burns] to show them their need for the Savior and speak directly into their lives. Yet, I highly doubt anyone here would say that "Oh, God!" was inspired by God.

When we are first saved, if we were to be shown all of our sins at once, we would not be able to handle it.

As we grow, we graduate from what we "know" of God and mature from milk to meat.

The understanding and conviction through prayer, and private study was born in my wilderness time with God. I was never "taught" it in church.

Your pastor acquaintance was wrong. And your stereotyping of people convicted of this issue is just as wrong as he was.

Mary

[daffodyllady]

Well... What a thread!

Frankly, I havent arrived at a conclusion about this. I can see the argument on both sides.

However, if anything would convince me to one side or the other, it would not be the superior argumentation of one side against the other.

It would be the haughty attitude of the ones who act like they know better than those who disagree with them.

Frankly, I am very turned off by the arrogance of the KJV-only-ers. This leads me to tend towards the other side.

And... it makes me think... why was I born to speak english? If I were only Chinese or South Pacific... the issue would be moot.

What arrogance, to think that the English language (MINE) would be the one chosen by God for special preservation of His Word to the whole world!

Yeah, I suppose I am beginning to lean in one direction here... Thanks for helping to clarify things for me, KJV-only-ers!

[brandon]

Sparrow you are incorrect in your assertion that the KJV comes from the Geneva bible. The KJV comes from the Geneva bible's principle competitor, the Bishop's Bible.

The KJV has been purposely mistranslated to propagate a ruling class in the local body of Christ. It's not typos, it's purposeful perversion to change the Christ-focused model of leadership into a ruling class of bishops and keep the state church ideals intact.

As for the Textus Receptus, there are so many varying versions of this text that Erasmus compiled through as many sources as possible, including the Vulgate.

http://www.tentmaker.org/Biblematters/K ... ersion.htm

Erasmus published a third edition in 1522. In this, he corrected more typographical errors and added a parallel Latin translation. The 1522 edition is notable for its rendering of 1 John 5:7-8. In his original compilation, this passage conformed to the majority of manuscripts and read, "there are three witnesses in heaven, the Spirit and the water and the blood." Reportedly, this greatly offended some influential Catholics, who considered the text to be anti-Trinitarian. Erasmus was challenged to explain why he had not conformed this passage to the Catholic reading of "there are three witnesses in heaven the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit." The scholar replied that he hadn't included that in the text because he wasn't aware of any Greek manuscript with that wording.

Apparently, some Catholics considered this something of a promise to include the Catholic wording if anyone could show him a Greek manuscript that included it. Roman Catholic officialdom has never been short on cunning or imagination. In 1520, an Oxford scribe made a Greek manuscript, known as Codex 61, that contained the Catholic reading. Erasmus responded by changing the text of the next edition of his Greek New Testament.

So, did that scribe at Oxford counterfeit the manuscript just to force Erasmus' hand? It could be successfully argued that he did not, if there were other, older, Greek manuscripts that included the same wording. Do such manuscripts exist? If they do, no one has been able to come up with one. Oh, there are a few manuscripts that include the Codex 61 reading of 1 John 5:7-8, but none of them can be shown to go back farther than the 16th century.

Edited for love.

[Sparrow]

One can say or put forth any accusation on a website citing one link over another. This is a good article on the nature of the Word of God in general. I find it to be accurate -- backed up with Scripture.


The Bible's Two Testaments Contrasted (Chart)

The Bible's author. (1) The Bible has about 40 human authors, who wrote during a period spanning 1,600 years. (2) The Bible has one divine Author--God. The Bible makes this claim (2 Ti. 3:16; 2 Pe. 1:20-21). Many evidences support this claim: The unity of the Bible; the indestructibility of the Bible; the harmony of the Bible; the universal appeal of the Bible; the perennial value of the Bible; the fulfilled prophecies of the Bible; and the findings of archaeology concerning the Bible; etc.; all demonstrate the Bible to be of divine origin.

Way of Life Literature. Copyright 1997-2001.

http://www.wayoflife.org/ency/textency/ency0033.htm[/url]

Please, Keep in mind the Forum rule for copyrighted material.

Rules for Copyrighted Material

When posting copyrighted material, please keep the articles, commentaries or whatever is posted to only a few sentences and a link. You can summarize in your own words if you like. This rule does not apply to things published before 1923 or official Government Websites (And, of course, it doesn't apply to my commentaries). Also, no posting from subscription Websites.

Herb

[Sparrow]

(From the same article)


The problem of the modern versions

THE PROBLEM OF CORRUPTION. The following is from Jack Moorman's Modern Bibles--the Dark Secret, published in 1992 by the Fundamental Evangelistic Association. Moorman was a missionary to South Africa for many years; today he works in England. He has written many books in defense of the Received Text and the KJV. His book Forever Settled is used as a textbook in some Bible colleges.

Way of Life Literature. Copyright 1997-2001.

To read more, go to:

http://www.wayoflife.org/ency/textency/ency0033.htm[/url]

[daffodyllady]

[does not read long cut and paste articles]

[Sparrow]

[does not read long cut and paste articles]

My question to you is "Why do you not read and study about an issue that is so important to God?"

I would say that this is the main problem with the Body of Christ today. They are not humble enough to spend long hours in the wilderness in prayer and study to seek the Truth.

Print it out. My husband does not like to read online, but printed out, (even though he doesn't like to read), he has no trouble grasping the finer points of history and God's Word.

There is an assault on God's Word today. It is therefore necessary to learn what Scripture has to say about this as it happened also in the days of the Apostles.

[AndCanItBe]

Please review our rules for copyrighted material located here,

and of course, everyone please remember rule #1.

1. Our number one rule is from our Lord Himself. We are to love each other, no matter how deeply we may disagree. If we can't even handle each other, how are we going to handle persecution? So, if it can't be said in love, don't say it.

[Sparrow]

My apologies for copying so much of the article. It is actually an enclopedia entry on this website, but I didn't copy the whole thing ....just sections that were maybe a bit long.

I know that many are pressed for time today. I know this firsthand as I have been taking care of a young infant and my daughter's sick dog which required two - 10 mile round trips to pick it up and take it to the vet. [They thought it had an obstruction].

The spiritual warfare puts much stress on our lives. But I feel that study of God's Word is never a waste of time.

I think "debating" it here, unfortunately is.

Yet, the same people who decry long articles and say they don't read them, will spend hours "fellowshipping" here.

I notice that my articles never get commented on, nor anything else I have to say for that fact.

maybe that's my "cue".

The subject fascinates me as I believe that MUCH done in the way of "Christianity" as a religion is false and apostate.

Guess everyone will have to seek the Lord for themselves. I am thoroughly convinced and convicted.

The Word is all there in the articles, and the case very convincing, perhaps that is why the complaint of the length?

The Word says the heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked.

Again, my apologies for not following your rules.

[AndCanItBe]

I know this firsthand as I have been taking care of a young infant and my daughter's sick dog which required two - 10 mile round trips to pick it up and take it to the vet. [They thought it had an obstruction].

Praying for you, Sparrow!

[Sparrow]

*Edited to keep thread on track.

[daffodyllady]

Well, Sparrow, (and I love your name, as He sees every sparrow!)
I don't read long articles, because I zone out on them. My brain works better in a conversation-type of atmosphere.

I have researched this topic. But I simply have come to a different conclusion than you have. Is that ok with you? Can you leave it at that?

I used to argue topics like this hard and long. But God has worked on me about that.

The Word says that only by pride cometh contention. And I had to admit to God that I was more than a little proud of every post I made in the spirit of contention. "That'll show 'em!" I thought.

I know you feel deeply about this subject. To you it is about as basic as the doctrine of grace is to a Baptist.

But, as I said, I have come to a different conclusion than you have, on this. Can you still accept me as a sister in the Lord? Or do you feel you have an unction from God to force-feed me what you think is truth on this subject?

Can you respect me as a person enough to allow me to think for myself and to believe a little differently than you about this, without labeling me?

Love you, Sparrow.

[Sparrow]

Well, Sparrow, (and I love your name, as He sees every sparrow!)

Hi daffodillady,

First of all, I haven't been on lately, so I apologize for the delay.

God actually gave me that name and ministry, and has confirmed it through my relationship with Him and others on more than one occasion since 1997. But thanks! Just explaining how I got it. There is quite a testimony behind about how He gave me my name.

I don't read long articles, because I zone out on them. My brain works better in a conversation-type of atmosphere.

I have found through experience that most like to "dialogue" Scripture. I read and study because I love the Word. Most who hold to KJV are great lovers of the Word of God over relationships with other Christians. That is why they are not afraid to defend it. I will readily admit that perhaps 13 years of homeschooling makes the scholar in me come out. I have been lied to most of my life when it came to spiritual matters and matters of Salvation. That is why I tend to seek God in the wilderness for the truth. Many times, God has taken me there to teach me one on one. Case in point....We attended a charismatic non-denominational church whose pastor was adament in teaching the Gap theory to my children. At the time, I was dealing with some major health issues, and busy enough just keeping up with what God had called me to [homeschool]. I had always believed God created the heavens and the earth, but I had the influence of a public school education and the years of indoctrination of evolution. He was very adept in using Scripture to prove "Lucifer's flood" etc.

I was led of the Lord to go someplace quiet [our local library] and take my bible and the printed handout that the pastor had given our teenage daughter, with the Scriptures he had put to support his teaching.

God spoke to my heart and told me that I was a teacher,and that I taught grammar to our children. He asked me what the article "the" constituted. I answered Him, "One". He then gave me John 14:6, "Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the life."

He then imparted to me in His Still Small Voice, "There is only ONE truth''. There is no such thing as a "theory". There is the truth and the lie."

As I opened up my bible and read in context what was printed out from the prophets that he had used to support the gap theory, I realized that the verses were taken out of context.

I use this example, to let you know that it is not pride that makes me defend the KJV. God led me by the same rule as above to this place in my walk with Him.

I have researched this topic. But I simply have come to a different conclusion than you have. Is that ok with you? Can you leave it at that?

Believe me when I say that I am the last person to believe that I have the power to change any other human being. That is the Holy Spirit's work. Mine is only to go "tell", and if we are being honest here, the articles I have presented are very factual, historical, and use Scripture as our guide. This category is titled, "General Bible Study and Debate".

I have already stated before that I don't believe that God's Word is up for debate. Correct factual historical facts should not be "up for debate". That is the essence of the articles I have submitted. Actually, I did not know this category existed on FP discussion forum, until I posted this issue in the Apostasy section, and it was transferred here. I still consider the issue as one of apostacy. But as far as "it being okay with me"? I am not the one you must please or give an account to [as do I]. As far as "leaving it at that". Again, that is your's personally to come to conclusion on based upon what God has said about preservation and corruption of His Word.

I used to argue topics like this hard and long. But God has worked on me about that.

Again, I do not believe that giving a biblical defense of the issue is arguing. Jude says we are to contend for the faith.

3Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.


earnestly contend

ἐπαγωνίζεσθαι

From epi and agonizomai; to struggle for -- earnestly contend for

see GREEK epi

see GREEK agonizomai

ἐπαγωνίζεσθαι (epagōnizesthai) − 1 Occurrence


I have lived with probably the most contentious and difficult personalities that anyone has ever lived with before. I know the meaning of the words "HARD" and "PRIDE" and been tried in this area all of my life. However, God told Ezekiel that when it came to Israel that God would make his forehead as hard as flint., and that he was not to be dismayed at their looks. Because the House of Israel was a rebellious house. Today, there are Christians who are hardened against sound doctrine. I read an interesting commentary this morning on this very subject and feel I should also share the link to it here.
[url]
http://www.apprising.org/archives/2008/ ... iving.html[/url]

In much the same way, I must obey Christ and "earnestly contend" for the faith once delivered unto the saints. Notice, again, the article "the". There is only "one faith".

But, as I said, I have come to a different conclusion than you have, on this. Can you still accept me as a sister in the Lord? Or do you feel you have an unction from God to force-feed me what you think is truth on this subject?

A sister in the Lord, "yes". A teacher, "no". I would not submit to you if you were in authority to me if you had had the information made available to you that I have put forth here.

Can you respect me as a person enough to allow me to think for myself and to believe a little differently than you about this, without labeling me?

Respect is reserved for God and His Word. Love is the biblical command. I don't recall "labeling" anyone. A hardened heart toward the Word of God [and I didn't say you had one], is easily discerned by how one reacts to the Word of God. Both the Apostle Paul and the Apostle Peter had much to say about those who would corrupt the Word of God.

Acts 20: 29For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.

30Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

31Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.

2 Pet. 3: 15And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

16As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

We can rightly discern that Todd Bentley is a false teacher, but what about those who have sat on translating committees?


I love you as well, that is why I must speak the truth.

Sparrow

[burien1]

Sparrow,
I`ve read everything posted here and you have presented an excellent case. It`s a lot of material, but well worth the time to read for those that come to debates with an open mind. Thanks for sharing.

YSIC

[crmann]

Hello folks...

Much has been said already here...

Keep in mind that the Word of God is not in the words themselves, but the Spirit of the Word...

I constantly come upon errors in the KJV in my studies. And errors upon which entire doctrines have been built. There is no perfect version. No, none at all..

Just remember this......

Scripture tells us that we are to rely on the Holy Spirit's illumination to gain insights into the meaning and application of Scripture (John 16:12-15; 1 Corinthians 2:9-11).

It is the Holy Spirit's work to throw light upon the Word of God so that the believer can assent to the meaning intended and act on it.

The Holy Spirit, as the "Spirit of truth" (John 16:13), guides us so that "we may understand what God has freely given us" (1 Corinthians 2:12).
This is quite logical: full comprehension of the Word of God is impossible without prayerful dependence on the Spirit of God, for He who inspired the Word (2 Peter 1:21) is also its supreme interpreter.
Illumination is necessary because man's mind has been darkened through sin (Romans 1:21), preventing him from properly understanding God's Word.

Human beings cannot understand God's Word apart from God's divine enablement (Ephesians 4:18).

This aspect of the Holy Spirit's ministry operates within the sphere of man's rational capacity, which God Himself gave man (cf. Genesis 2-3).

Illumination comes to the 'minds' of God's people - not to some nonrational faculty like our 'emotions' or our 'feelings' [like a 'burning in the bosom'].

To know God's revelation means to use our minds.
This makes knowledge something we can share with others, something we can talk about.

God's Word is in words with ordinary rational content.
The ministry of the Holy Spirit in interpretation does not mean interpreters can ignore common sense and logic.

Since the Holy Spirit is "the Spirit of truth" (John 14:17; 15:26; 16:13), He does not teach concepts that fail to meet the tests of truth.

In other words, "the Holy Spirit does not guide into interpretations that contradict each other or fail to have logical, internal consistency."
It must also be kept in mind that the function of the Holy Spirit is not to communicate to the minds of people any doctrine or meaning of Scripture that is not contained already in Scripture itself.

The Holy Spirit makes men "wise up to what is written, not beyond it."

Indeed, "the function of the Spirit is not to communicate new truth or to instruct in matters unknown, but to illuminate what is revealed in Scripture."

And in summary, what good is a translation if the majority of the lost in the English speaking world cannot read and understand what is written? The King James' language is a foreign language which was written in 1611.

Pick up any book written just one hundred years ago, and the average reader today has difficulty reading it..

[Be still]

I just bought the New Living Translation and wow! I can't put it down. It's such a beautiful easy read.

[crmann]

One more thing....

God is not the author of confusion... Without a doubt, the KJO controversy has certainly caused confusion and divided God's people.. which can only be of Satan.

The Old Timer

[Sparrow]

There is no perfect version. No, none at all..

Well, then how can one trust God to keep His promise to keep His Word if there is not a perfect Word for us today?

Could you please explain what these verses mean to you, if it is just the spirit we are to obey?


Psalm 12: 6The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

7Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.


Ps. 30: 5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.

God is not the author of confusion... Without a doubt, the KJO controversy has certainly caused confusion and divided God's people.. which can only be of Satan.

I have a question for you, Old Timer. Have you ever sat in a public worship service where there were readers for several portions of Scripture?

I attended a Christmas service once where more than one of the congregation was asked to stand up and read [from their bible] a portion of Scripture. There were at least three different versions used [none were KJV, as KJV used today is almost "taboo"]. That is total confusion. There was no following along in my KJV.

In history, the KJV was the ONLY translation available. When one referred to the Bible, it was commonly accepted and known that the KJV was what they were referring to.

This is what I believe....my doctrinal belief concerning the Bible.


The Holy Scriptures, composed of the thirty-nine books of the Old Testament and the twenty-seven books of the New testament, are the verbally inspired words and Revelation of God. The Bible is inerrant, infallible - God breathed. The initial miracle of divine inspiration of the original autographs also extends to the divine preservation of a pure text to this day. We have, therefore, the very words of God preserved through the Hebrew Masoretic Text and the Greek Textus Receptus. IN the English language, the Authorized Version is this text (Ps. 12:6-7, 19:7-11; 2 Tim. 3:16,17; 2 Peter 1:16-21; Luke 24:13-28, John 16:12-16; Isaiah 40:8; Psalm 138:2).

[Abiding in His Word]

Could you please explain what these verses mean to you, if it is just the spirit we are to obey?

Hi Sparrow,

Maybe I can be of some help in explaining the "spirit" of scriptures with two verses in particular.

Let's look at this one:

The steps of a good man are ordered by the LORD: and he delighteth in his way. Psalm 37:23 KJV

The steps of a man are established by the LORD, And He delights in his way. Psalm 37:23 NASB

The word "good" in my KJV is in italics which means that the word "good" was not in the original but was inserted by translators for clarity. But does it clarify? Or does it imply that only the steps of the good are ordered by the Lord? And are the steps of only "men" ordered by the Lord or are the steps of "women" also ordered by the Lord?

If we read this in the spirit of the Word, we might read this verse as the Good News Bible translates it:

The LORD guides us in the way we should go and protects those who please him. Psalm 37:23 GNB

---------------------------

Confess your faults (G3900) one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much. James 5:16 KJV

Therefore, confess your sins (G3900) to one another, and pray for one another so that you may be healed. The effective prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much. James 5:16 NASB

The word translated "faults" by the translators of the KJV is the same word translated as "sin" in this verse:

In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins (G3900) according to the riches of his grace Eph 1:7 KJV

So at one point the same word is translated faults, another sins, and in another version, trespasses. All from the same word, G3900.

If we read this verse in the spirit of the Word, we might understand it like this:

So admit your "shortcomings/sideslips to each other, and pray for each other so that you will be healed. Prayers offered by those who have God's approval are effective.

Whether you read shortcomings, sideslips, faults, trespasses, or sins, the principle is the same - pray for one another when you "miss the mark."
The effective prayer of both men and women is powerful.

I hope this clarifies somewhat how we can read scripture in the spirit of the Word.

[Sparrow]

Hi Abiding,
I appreciate your response, but I wasn't exactly asking what was meant by interpreting the "spirit" of verses. I was asking Old Timer what the Scriptures actually said. It is pretty clear according to Psalm 12:6-7 and Proverbs 30:5.




But when one wants to read Scripture/ and interpret it according to the spirit, we can make it say whatever we want.

Jesus (nor Paul for that fact) ever told us we were only to interpret Scripture according to the "spirit".

Jesus said,

....."the scripture cannot be broken". (John 10:35)

Mat. 4: 4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

2 Tim. 2: 15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.


I don't know about all of you, but I take that to mean we are to take the Word of God literally. Every word of it.

Jesus also said in John 16 ---

13Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth:

The book of 1 John confirms this truth.

1 Jn. 5: 7For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

Ps. 119: 89For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.

I take that to mean that God intends for us to take Scripture literally. Biblical Hermeneutics traditionally has us study the Scriptures according to the text , in context, and grammar, syntax, verb tenses, etc.

That does not mean that it gives the Christian liberty to interpret God's Word according to what one thinks God meant by it.



Abiding, you said,

And are the steps of only "men" ordered by the Lord or are the steps of "women" also ordered by the Lord?

1397. geber (gheh'-ber)

1398 >>
From gabar; properly, a valiant man or warrior; generally, a person simply -- every one, man, X mighty.

see HEBREW gabar

I am a woman and I have no problem with God, nor this text. When one sees "man" in Scripture, God is talking about mankind.

[JABova]

Sparrow, your passion is deep, and I really believe we need passion to be really on fire for the Lord. But some of your logic here evades me:

But when one wants to read Scripture/ and interpret it according to the spirit, we can make it say whatever we want.

I think we need to define who the spirit is here. If you are referring to man’s spirit, I agree completely, but if it is the Holy Spirit, then we can not make It say what we want. This is non sequitur. The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of truth.

Jesus (nor Paul for that fact) ever told us we were only to interpret Scripture according to the "spirit".

I read in John 16:12-15:

"I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.
"But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come.
"He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you.
"All things that the Father has are Mine; therefore I said that He takes of Mine and will disclose it to you. - John 16:12-15 (NASV)
Or
I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.
Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.
All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you. John 16:12-15 (KJV)

Clearly, Jesus is telling us that the Spirit of truth, which can be interpreted as the Holy Spirit will lead the Disciples to all understanding. I believe that this promise applies to ALL Christians. Jesus was no respecter of individuals.

Jesus said,

....."the scripture cannot be broken". (John 10:35)

Yes, absolutely. Jesus came to fulfill the Old Testament. He quoted from it, and I suspect he did it in both Hebrew and Aramaic, but I cannot prove that. He was not talking about the preservation of the individual letters that the Hebrew scribes concerned themselves with, He was talking about the revelation. And yes, the Hebrew scribes did try to painstakingly copy the various books precisely, but this was strictly to the Jews, at that time the Gentiles (who’s common language God broke deliberately) were not part of the Old Covenant with the Law and the Prophets. Jesus was also not talking about the New Testament, it had not even been written yet. He was specifically talking about the Law and His imminent fulfillment of the Law.

The book of 1 John confirms this truth.

1 Jn. 5: 7For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

Ps. 119: 89For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.

I take that to mean that God intends for us to take Scripture literally. Biblical Hermeneutics traditionally has us study the Scriptures according to the text , in context, and grammar, syntax, verb tenses, etc.

That does not mean that it gives the Christian liberty to interpret God's Word according to what one thinks God meant by it.

Here again I agree with you completely but the Word as specified in red is Jesus Christ himself, not the KJV. This immediately brought to mind the second commandment.

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Exodus 20:4 (KJV)

Now some may call this a stretch, but some may interpret what we are saying is that the printed word itself in the form of the KJV has been in some way elevated to that of equality with the Word. The KJV is only mans interpretation, it is not the original Hebrew, Greek or Aramaic, nor do I see written in the KJV or any translation that the thou shall use the KJV and the KJV only to preach the message to the whole world. This is where I really struggle with the KJV only position. The Lord commanded us to go into all the world, we cannot expect them to learn to read English, let alone King’s English, we need to translate the Word as best we can into their language, even English. And the simple fact that we are even debating this shows division in the Body of Christ. I don’t believe that this is what the Lord intended.

In His Love

-Joe

[Abiding in His Word]

But when one wants to read Scripture/ and interpret it according to the spirit, we can make it say whatever we want.

I gave you several verses where the "literal, plain" reading didn't quite convey the intended meaning. But searching through several versions did, in fact, convey a clearer intended meaning.

Jesus (nor Paul for that fact) ever told us we were only to interpret Scripture according to the "spirit".

Perhaps a clarification is needed here. I'm not meaning "spirit" as the "gist" of a passage. I'm meaning the intent of the passage as the 1st century Jews and Christians would have heard and understood it.

Jesus said,

....."the scripture cannot be broken". (John 10:35)

Mat. 4: 4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

Agreed. His Word will not be made null and void and will accomplish that for which it is sent forth.

If I see a "STOP" sign at the corner of the street - the clear, plain understanding of that sign is

a) Do not proceed until coming to a standstill
b) Bring your vehicle to a complete halt
c) Do not go through this sign without stopping first
d) The sign is here for your safety - look both ways before proceeding

Same sign with the same word with it's meaning described several different ways with the same result.

2 Tim. 2: 15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

I believe if you do a little research on this verse, you will find that it's intended message and more accurate meaning of the word "study" is "be diligent" or "be earnest" in showing yourself approved to God.

I don't know about all of you, but I take that to mean we are to take the Word of God literally. Every word of it.

Sparrow, you must know that your brothers and sisters on this board love the Word of God just as much as you do. That's why we're here discussing it 24/7.

You surely must agree that over a period of thousands of years, the meanings of some words have changed and no longer convey the intended meaning. I give you just one example:

Lev 2:4 And if thou bring an oblation of a meat offering baken in the oven, it shall be unleavened cakes of fine flour mingled with oil, or unleavened wafers anointed with oil. KJV

That word can be more than a bit misleading today, because "meat" means something very different to us than it did to those who translated his word as such in the KJV. They weren't wrong, because "meat" meant "food" many years ago. But the verse is really speaking about a "grain" offering in today's language. See what I mean?

y. Biblical Hermeneutics traditionally has us study the Scriptures according to the text , in context, and grammar, syntax, verb tenses, etc.

That does not mean that it gives the Christian liberty to interpret God's Word according to what one thinks God meant by it.

I agree completely. That's why I mentioned several examples where the text, context, grammar, etc. was not translated to convey the the correct meaning.

And are the steps of only "men" ordered by the Lord or are the steps of "women" also ordered by the Lord?


1397. geber (gheh'-ber)

1398 >>
From gabar; properly, a valiant man or warrior; generally, a person simply -- every one, man, X mighty.

see HEBREW gabar

I am a woman and I have no problem with God, nor this text. When one sees "man" in Scripture, God is talking about mankind.

I understood what "geber" meant, Sparrow. But it can be a bit misleading to translate a word that doesn't convey it's true intent to those reading in 2008. That was my point. I was only trying to give an example of verses where words in newer translations often use words better understood in this century. Just as "meat" does not convey "grain" today.

[Sparrow]

Hi Joe,
I think there is much confusion and circular reasoning on this subject by those who do not understand that the KJV is the ENGLISH language of the Hebrew Masoretic Text and the Greek Textus Receptus. So it is the original Hebrew and Greek -- contrary to what you said below

The KJV is only mans interpretation, it is not the original Hebrew, Greek or Aramaic, nor do I see written in the KJV or any translation that the thou shall use the KJV and the KJV only to preach the message to the whole world. This is where I really struggle with the KJV only position. The Lord commanded us to go into all the world, we cannot expect them to learn to read English, let alone King’s English, we need to translate the Word as best we can into their language, even English. And the simple fact that we are even debating this shows division in the Body of Christ. I don’t believe that this is what the Lord intended.

So your assessment above is not quite the issue here. (with exception to the age-old argument that other English versions are easier to understand and or / translated into foreign languages). Is this an accurate statement, though?

An English scholar came out with a report on the KJV six years prior to the Revised Standard Version coming out (making way for all the newer versions to follow).

This is what he said concerning the KJV. The article is entitled:



SCHOLAR SAID KING JAMES BIBLE
IS EASY TO READ
[url]

http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/scholarsaid-kjveasy.html[/url]

The following was sent to us by Pastor David Earnhart, Fundamental Baptist Church, Escondido, California:

Some years ago I came across a little book entitled The Art of Plain Talk in a thrift shop in Rochester, Minnesota. (I have found some great treasures in thrift shops!) I bought it because I was interested in “Plain Talk,” or having people understand what I say. Being a preacher, I thought that would be a good idea. But the real value of the book has been some information on how easy to read and understand the King James Version of the Bible really is.

The author of the book, Dr. Rudolf Flesch, became famous a few years later, in the mid 50's, for the book, Why Johnny Can't Read. The date listed for The Art of Plain Talk is 1946, published by Harper and Brothers, New York. His basic theme is teaching the reader how to write in a way that is easy to understand. He finally produces a scale by which to measure language, all the way from Very Easy to Very Difficult. He analyzes Article VII of the Lend-Lease Agreement, the cornerstone of postwar international trade. It rates a number completely off the scale, twice the number for 'Very Difficult'!

The Bible (King James Version) is referenced several times in this little book (210 pages), always as an example of clear and readable English. On a chart which rates the average number of affixes per 100 words, Very Easy is 22 or less, and Very Difficult is 54 or more. Dr. Flesch says, “Again, for the time being, the average-reader standard of 37 is most important for you to know. THE BEST EXAMPLE OF VERY EASY PROSE (ABOUT 20 AFFIXES PER 100 WORDS) IS THE KING JAMES VERSION OF THE BIBLE; literary writing tends to be Fairly Difficult; scientific prose is Very Difficult. This book has on the average 33 affixes per 100 words.”

When I first read that statement, probably over 20 years ago, I said to myself, “Aha! So the Bible is not hard to read! And here's evidence from a scholar of English!” You have probably already noticed the date of his book, 1946. That is six years before the Revised Standard Version came out, and all the recent years of selling modern versions began. That means Dr. Flesch had no possible interest in that battle when he wrote that “the best example of Very Easy prose... is the King James Version of the Bible...” Yet the very basic appeal to the public in all the marketing of new versions has been, “The King James Version is too hard to understand.”

The real problem of understanding is more likely to be found in Dr. Flesch's other book mentioned before, Why Johnny Can't Read! The reading ability of the average American has been hotly debated for many years. I heard a discussion on a local talk radio program just last week about teaching reading by phonics, or by the “whole language” method (mandated here in California). The proponent of “whole language” made it clear that the issues were far too complex for the average person, and it would be best to leave such things to the experts! He reminded me of the “scholars” who suggest the same thing about Bible versions!

The other issue involved in understanding the Bible is simply this: to find the Truth, you must first decide to obey it, whatever it is. We fail to understand the Bible, not because it is hard to understand, but because it is hard to obey! And our own perverse nature then makes up excuses, even blaming the Bible itself, rather than admit our own disobedience. If the problem were really the difficult King James Version, then by now, with all these easy versions around, the quality of Christianity would be much improved! If that has happened, I haven't noticed it yet where I live.

Joe said,

And the simple fact that we are even debating this shows division in the Body of Christ. I don’t believe that this is what the Lord intended.

Luke 12:51Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:

So it looks like the Lord DID intend to bring division [even among His own].

Eze. 34: 20Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD unto them; Behold, I, even I, will judge between the fat cattle and between the lean cattle.

21Because ye have thrust with side and with shoulder, and pushed all the diseased with your horns, till ye have scattered them abroad;

22Therefore will I save my flock, and they shall no more be a prey; and I will judge between cattle and cattle.


1 Cor. 6: 1Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints?

2Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?

3Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?

4If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church.


1 Cor. 11: 19For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.

Heresies is Strong's #139. hairesis (hah'-ee-res-is)


from haireomai; properly, a choice, i.e. (specially) a party or (abstractly) disunion

heresy (which is the Greek word itself), sect.

[JABova]

Sorry Sparrow I completely disagree here:

I think there is much confusion and circular reasoning on this subject by those who do not understand that the KJV is the ENGLISH language of the Hebrew Masoretic Text and the Greek Textus Receptus. So it is the original Hebrew and Greek -- contrary to what you said below

There is no circular reasoning in the understanding that the KJV is one translation (not even a transliteration). It is not the original Hebrew and Greek, they are different languages, using different sets of cyphers and grammatical constructs. Hebrew does not even use punctuation. Circular reasoning comes about when we have an apriori position and attempt to prove that position based on our arguments. The KJV may be one version of english, but does not reflect the english languge that we use today. If you look up many of the difficult words in the KJV you will find that the are described as archaic in the dictionary. This does not invalidate their meaning, it just implies that if you want someone (like me) to understand what you are writing, you need to choose different word.

Now for that scholar, no disrespect intended, but for me the KJV is still more difficult to understand than may other versions and I've been reading it (along with other translations) for almost 30 years now. I generally take the position of a scholar with a grain of salt.

I also take real issue with this paragraph:

The real problem of understanding is more likely to be found in Dr. Flesch's other book mentioned before, Why Johnny Can't Read! The reading ability of the average American has been hotly debated for many years. I heard a discussion on a local talk radio program just last week about teaching reading by phonics, or by the “whole language” method (mandated here in California). The proponent of “whole language” made it clear that the issues were far too complex for the average person, and it would be best to leave such things to the experts! He reminded me of the “scholars” who suggest the same thing about Bible versions!

This sound much like the arrogant tone I encounter when I debate evolutionists. They tend to resort to ad hominem arguments when they cannot prove their point otherwise. If we need scholars to interpret the scripture for us then we are in deep trouble.

-Joe

[Abiding in His Word]

If we need scholars to interpret the scripture for us then we are in deep trouble.