[ Home | Eschatology | Bible Studies | Classics | Articles | Sermons | Apologetics | Search | F.A.Q. ]

Author Topic: Why Use The KJV Translation?  (Read 15469 times)

SamoanOnion

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 8
  • Gender: Male
  • Smiley Pimp
    • 4 HIS Glory
Re: Why Use The KJV Translation?
« Reply #15 on: December 20, 2003, 05:33:37 AM »
whats up Frank,

maybe you need to reread my replies as well, but no way am I trivializing the word or what it represents, what I am trivializing is the fact that only one translation is legit, which I believe is false.  by no means in any of my replies did I say that the Bible itself is trivial, but what I did say that it is one of the tools that completes our fellowship with Him.

and I'm sorry you feel that way brandplucked, but there are tons of people out there who are using these "distorted" translations and are bearing plenty fruit for His kingdom and reaping the rewards of His grace through the very same translations your attempting to discredit, me being one of them.

~I'm Out~
4 HIS Glory
~CS Out~

Colleen

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 116
  • Gender: Female
  • I will make you free indeed
Re: Why Use The KJV Translation?
« Reply #16 on: December 20, 2003, 10:10:51 AM »
there are tons of people out there who are using these "distorted" translations and are bearing plenty fruit for His kingdom and reaping the rewards of His grace through the very same translations your attempting to discredit, me being one of them.

No offense to you, but that's debatable. Just because there are people who claim to be christians, doesn't always mean that they are. I know many people who call themselves christian, but their works don't bear that out. And translations like the ever popular NIV discredit themselves by their unfaithfulness. The NKJV is not nearly as bad, but not as bad still doesn't make it good. It only serves to confuse the issue.

Why have 30 different translations? Just because people want them? That's not a wise policy. I am not a "King James Only" advocate, so don't put me in that camp, but I also do not believe that all these translations are a good and helpful thing. I think they are part of a new order of christians who have this attitude that you seem to have about God. And from what I hear, it can only get worse.

I also believe that from your response, you indeed "are" trivializing the accuracy of the word of God. I don't see how anyone could take what you said any other way. Which is basically that it's not really very important that the translation be an accurate one, since distorted ones bear plenty of fruit for his kingdom. If that's not what you meant, it is in essence what you said.

brandplucked

  • Guest
Re: Why Use The KJV Translation?
« Reply #17 on: December 22, 2003, 06:39:29 AM »
This is a continuation of the topic concerning the "science of textual criticism". Please see Part One if you have not already read it.

Romans 5:1-2 "...we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: By whom also we have access BY FAITH into this grace wherein we stand..."

"By faith" is found in the Majority of all texts as well as Sinaiticus, and also in the NASB, NIV, and ESV. However Vaticanus omits "by faith" and so do the RSV and the NRSV.

Romans 8:2 "For the law of the Spirit of live hath made ME free from the law of sin and death." "made ME free" is the reading in the Majority of texts, as well as A, C, D. "made ME free" is found in the NKJV, NIV, RV, ASV, and the RSV. But Vaticanus and Sinaiticus say "has made YOU free" and this is the reading of the NASB, NRSV and ESV.

Romans 15:19 "Through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the SPIRIT OF GOD...I have fully preached the gospel of Christ."

Textually speaking, this is a very interesting verse in that it reveals a great deal about the mindset of the men behind the multitude of conflicting modern versions. The reading of "the Spirit OF GOD" is that of the Majority of all texts, including Sinaiticus and P46, which is about 200 years older than Vaticanus. "Spirit of GOD" (pneumatos theou) is found in Tyndale, Geneva, KJB, NKJV, and Lamsa's translation of the Syriac Peshitta. The modern versions of the NRSV, ESV, ISV, and the upcoming Holman Christian Standard all read "Spirit of GOD", just as the King James Bible.

When Westcott and Hort first came out with their totally revised Greek text in the 1881 Revised Version, their text read: "power of the HOLY SPIRIT" (pneumatos hagiou) and so read the Revised Version, ASV, and the RSV of 1952.

I have in my possession three different Nestle-Aland Greek texts, which is basically the Westcott-Hort text that underlies most modern versions since 1881. All three of these are different here in Romans 15:19. The one from 1934 (4th edition) says: HOLY Spirit. The one dated 1962 changed this to simply "the SPIRIT", thus omitting "Holy" and "God". This reading comes from only one manuscript and that is Vaticanus. The NASB and the NIV both follow only one Greek manuscript here and read: "through the power of the SPIRIT".

Then sometime between the 1962 edition and the 1993 edition, the Nestle-Aland text changed for the third time and now reads: "the Spirit OF GOD", as has the King James Bible for almost 400 years now. We can clearly see here the constantly changing opinions of the noted scholars behind the modern versions.

Here is a brief chart showing the conflicting readings of just this one phrase.

"power of the SPIRIT OF GOD" - KJB, NKJV, NRSV, ESV, ISV, Holman

"power of the HOLY SPIRIT" - RV, ASV, RSV

"power of the SPIRIT" - NASB, NIV

Romans 16:24 "THE GRACE OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST BE WITH YOU ALL. AMEN."

This entire verse is found in the Majority of all texts, as well as the Old Latin, the Syriac, and all English Bibles from Wycliffe to Tyndale and the Geneva Bible. Vaticanus and Sinaiticus omit this entire verse and so do the RV, RSV, NIV, and ESV. However though the NASB omitted the verse from 1960 to 1972, in 1977 and again in 1995 the NASB now includes the verse in its text and so does the 2003 Holman Christian Standard Version, but the ISV does not. So I guess we can all confidently rest in the findings of our present day noted scholars, huh?

brandplucked

  • Guest
Re: Why Use The KJV Translation?
« Reply #18 on: December 22, 2003, 06:44:44 AM »
Frank>>>If the inspired words of the bible are really a  non-issue as you claim, then why does God warn that those who add or take away from it will come under his judgment? Why does he say that not one jot or tittle shall fail? Obviously the inspired words are not trivial to him. Obviously, translations do matter."


Good point, Frank, may God be pleased to give us a reverence and that we might tremble at His word, as Isaiah 66:2 says.

Will K

brandplucked

  • Guest
Re: Why Use The KJV Translation?
« Reply #19 on: December 22, 2003, 06:55:29 AM »
Hi Colleen, I agree with most of what you said.

"Why have 30 different translations? Just because people want them? That's not a wise policy. I am not a "King James Only" advocate, so don't put me in that camp, but I also do not believe that all these translations are a good and helpful thing."

I was just wondering, though, why you are not a KJB onlyist.  I know God can use other versions to bring people to Himself; I do not dispute this.  But it seems to me that if any Christian is an inerrantist, - that is, if he believes we have the complete, inerrant, preserved words of God, that he must believe that only the King James Bible qualifies.  The NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, etc. all depart many times from the Hebrew texts; they all contain false doctrines to one degree or another (the nkjv too), and they conflict with each other in the meanings of hundreds of verses.

I have been studying this issue for several years now and comparing the versions myself, so I am not just repeating something I read from some site.

Here is just one little example of many, and this isn't even about doctrine (though I know of many examples that do deal with doctrine).

In Exodus 26:14

 "Thou shalt make a covering for the tent of ram's skins dyed red, and a covering of BADGER'S skins".  The NKJV, Geneva, Darby, Young’s, Webster's, KJB 21, Third Millenium Bible, Rotherham's Emphatic Bible, and the Spanish all agree with the KJB. The NASB says the covering would be "of PORPOISE skins" while the NIV has "sea cows".  The RSV and the 2001 ESV both have "GOATSKINS".  While wandering around in the wilderness for 40 years, badger's skins might be troublesome to get, but how many "porpoises" (NASB) or "sea cows" (NIV) do you think they could have scrounged up?

Will K

SamoanOnion

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 8
  • Gender: Male
  • Smiley Pimp
    • 4 HIS Glory
Re: Why Use The KJV Translation?
« Reply #20 on: December 22, 2003, 11:56:22 PM »
ok, since it doesnt seem like anyone is getting what I'm trying to say, I'll restate it one more time, but this time with the words of others, because if we were to go off of what your implying about these other translations, then you need to call all of these other ministries and/or authors and tell them that they're "false prophets" and misleading people.  and please before you get all in a huff and spit out a reply, read them as a whole and don't use bits and pieces of the articles, because by no means am I putting down the KJV, all I am saying is that the other translations have there place as well, I agree, some of the others maybe a bit shady, but to qualify all of them as such, I don't think so, how do you know which one,

WHOLE LOTTA PRAYER, FAITH, and some research, maybe these articles shed a bit more light on why not all translations are bad...

http://billygraham.org/qna/qna.asp?i=499
http://billygraham.org/qna/qna.asp?i=3550
http://billygraham.org/qna/qna.asp?i=2900
http://www.equip.org/free/CP1006.pdf
http://www.crosswalk.com/family/1179579.html
http://www.crosswalk.com/news/religiontoday/1202411.html

Quote
so don't put me in that camp

and no Colleen, im not putting you in that camp, you did that yourself, maybe you need to reread my replies as well.  what I did say is that they're many people out there bearing much fruit (key words coming) for His kingdom, which means good fruit, "Christian fruit", things of His will.  if it wasn't for His kingdom, that would make it bad, which would be talking about those fake "Christians" that you were referring too, but I said (key word coming again) His kingdom.  the bible says that you will know a presons heart by the fruits of there labor or fruit that they bear, or did I get that out of one of those "distorted" translations. ???

no I didn't get offended, because I've had people come at me with worse on my own forum, but if your gonna try and assume what I'm saying, then please use my replies as a whole instead of bits and pieces to make you feel better.

and like said before, looks like we're going to agree to disagree, but one thing I hope we can all get out of our many different translations is that the finished work of Christ on the cross is the only way to salvation and with that being said, I'll see you there.

4 HIS Glory
~CS Out~

Colleen

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 116
  • Gender: Female
  • I will make you free indeed
Re: Why Use The KJV Translation?
« Reply #21 on: December 23, 2003, 09:03:16 AM »
ok, since it doesnt seem like anyone is getting what I'm trying to say, I'll restate it one more time,

It always strikes me as odd that when someone disagrees with what others say, somehow we're not getting what they are saying. We get what you are saying. We just don't agree with it. OK! We do not agree with your philosophy on the different versions of the bible. It's as simple as that.


Quote
if we were to go off of what your implying about these other translations, then you need to call all of these other ministries and/or authors and tell them that they're "false prophets" and misleading people.

Oh Please! I was discussing what is the best bible version, spare me the false prophets line.


Quote
I agree, some of the others maybe a bit shady, but to qualify all of them as such, I don't think so, how do you know which one,

I never qualified all versions of the bible as shaddy. If you are going to write to me, kindly don't put words into my mouth, and separate me from any others who have posted to you.


Quote
http://billygraham

You do know that this is a "Biblical forum," occupied by people who believe the bible, don't you? You'll not find a lot of support for the doctrines of Billy Graham here. But your links may explain your ideas about what is acceptable to do to the bible.


Quote
Quote
so don't put me in that camp

and no Colleen, im not putting you in that camp, you did that yourself,

Are you dull of hearing? I already told you once, I am not a KJO (King James Only) advocate. I shouldn't have to keep repeating it. So don't write and tell me I am, because it makes you sound dull.


Colleen

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 116
  • Gender: Female
  • I will make you free indeed
Re: Why Use The KJV Translation?
« Reply #22 on: December 23, 2003, 09:15:57 AM »
Hi Colleen, I agree with most of what you said.
I was just wondering, though, why you are not a KJB onlyist.  I know God can use other versions to bring people to Himself; I do not dispute this.  But it seems to me that if any Christian is an inerrantist, - that is, if he believes we have the complete, inerrant, preserved words of God, that he must believe that only the King James Bible qualifies.

Will K


Hellio Will,
  I disagree. I am a inerrantist, but I don't believe that translators are inerrant. I believe that the Hebrew and the Greek manuscripts from which the translators worked, and which we still have today that we can do checks by, are inerrant. The King James version is actually a different version from these originals. But I don't say it is false because it is a different version from the Greek, or from the Hebrew. Likewise, translated into Spanish, it's another version still. But it remains the bible.

Having said that, I dispair over all these other unnecessary english versions because beside from being unfaithful to the originals in many ways, they are a stumblingblock.

 

brandplucked

  • Guest
Re: Why Use The KJV Translation?
« Reply #23 on: December 23, 2003, 06:27:48 PM »
Hi Colleen, I'm curious about something. You said:


" I am a inerrantist, but I don't believe that translators are inerrant. I believe that the Hebrew and the Greek manuscripts from which the translators worked, and which we still have today that we can do checks by, are inerrant."


Colleen, I imagine you are aware that there are several different Hebrew texts, and at least 30 different Greek texts out there.  So, even leaving the Greek texts aside for the moment, which Hebrew text do you believe is inerrant, and that you would in no instance change?

I hope you realize that when you speak of "the originals", there is no such animal in existence.  There are no originals.

So, if there any text, be it Hebrew or Greek, or any language version that you consider to be the inerrant, complete, infallible words of God?  If so, what is it called?  What is the name of this text or version?  Forgive me if I am wrong about this, but I suspect the only inerrant bible version you have is a mystical one that exists in your own mind.

You also said: "The King James version is actually a different version from these originals."

This statement seems to imply that you have access to the originals, and based on this knowledge, you judge and compare the KJB and find it to be different.  So, where did you get these "original readings"?  Can I also get a copy somewhere?

Please correct me if I am wrong about this.

 Thanks.

Will Kinney

brandplucked

  • Guest
Re: Why Use The KJV Translation?
« Reply #24 on: December 23, 2003, 06:31:11 PM »
1 Corinthians 4:17 "...Timotheus...shall bring you into remembrance of my ways which be in CHRIST, as I teach every where in every church."

Here the word "Christ" stands alone in the Majority and Vaticanus. So read the NKJV, NASB, RSV, and ESV. However Sinaiticus add the word 'Jesus' and so the NIV, NRSV, ISV and Holman say: "my ways which are in CHRIST JESUS."

We will see a whole lot more of this type of thing in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ because Sinaiticus and Vaticanus both differ from each other numerous times. In fact, already in 1 Corinthians Vaticanus omits "Christ" in 1:7 and 10, while Sinaiticus includes it. In 2:16 Vaticanus reads "the mind of THE LORD", while Sinaiticus has "the mind of CHRIST." In 5:4 "In the name of our Lord Jesus CHRIST", Vaticanus omits "Christ" and so do most modern versions, but "Christ" is found in the Majority, Sinaiticus and the oldest one we have which is P46.

1 Corinthians 5:5 "that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord JESUS." Here the word "Jesus" again is in the Majority and Sinaiticus, and so read the KJB, NASB, RV and ASV. However Vaticanus omits the word "Jesus" and so do the NIV, NRSV, ESV and the ISV.

1 Corinthians 10:9 "Neither let us tempt CHRIST, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents."

This verse is typical of the tossed to and fro by every wave methods of modern scholarship. CHRIST is the reading of the Majority of texts, as well as P46 which predates Sin/Vat by 150 years. The RV, ASV, NASB, NIV follow Sinaiticus and Vaticanus here and say: "Neither let us tempt THE LORD" (RV). The Nestle-Aland text originally read "the Lord" but more recent editions have gone back to reading "Christ". In fact, the NRSV, ESV and Holman now read as the KJB with "neither let us tempt CHRIST", but the ISV still reads " the Lord".

1 Corinthians 13:3 This is another head slapper. "And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body TO BE BURNED, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing."

The reading of "give my body TO BE BURNED" is in the Majority text, C, D, Syriac Peshitta, Old Latin, Armenian, and Ethiopic ancient versions. The Nestle-Aland text originally read "to be burned" and so also read the RV, ASV, RSV, NASB, NIV, Holman and ESV. However Sinaiticus and Vaticanus read: "though I give my body THAT I MAY BOAST,...it profits me nothing." The latest Nestle-Aland Greek texts have changed once again and now have "that I may boast" and so read the NRSV and the ISV.

If you think the Vaticanus manuscript is the best to follow here, you should take note of the fact that in 13:5, just two verses later, instead of reading "charity...seeketh not her own", Vaticanus reads: "charity does not seek that which is NOT her own". As for Sinaiticus, among many other blunders, in 1 Cor. 15:51 instead of saying: "We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed" Sinaiticus actually says: "we shall sleep but we shall not all be changed." These are the "oldest and most reliable manuscripts" the modern sholars are so fond of.

Second Corinthians

2 Corinthians 4:6 "For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of JESUS Christ."

The word JESUS is found in the Majority of all texts, as well as Sinaiticus and P46. "the face of JESUS Christ" is found in the NKJV, RV, ASV, NRSV, ESV, ISV, and the Holman Standard. However Vaticanus omits the word "Jesus" and has only "Christ" and so read the NASB, NIV and the RSV. Again, the Nestle-Aland text continues to change. It used to omit the word "Jesus" but not they have put it back in their texts.

Galatians 1:15 "But when it pleased GOD, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace,"

Here the word GOD (THEOS) is in the majority of all texts as well as Sinaiticus. "When it pleased GOD" is the reading of the NKJV, NIV, RV, ASV, NRSV, ISV, and the Holman Standard. Vaticanus, however, omits the word "God" and so the NASB from 1960 till 1977 read: "When HE was pleased...". But then in 1995 the NASB changed their version once again and it now reads "When God was pleased." For some strange reason, the ESV and the RSV still read "He" instead of "God". Again, the Nestle-Aland text used to say "He" but once again they changed it so that now the word "God" appears in their newer editions.

Galatians 4:28 "Now WE, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise." The word WE is in the majority of all texts as well as Sinaiticus, A, and C, and is the reading of the NKJV, Revised Version, American Standard Version, and the RSV. However, Vaticanus says YOU instead of WE, and so read the NIV, NASB, and the ESV.

There are several familiar verses where the names of our Saviour have been omitted from most modern versions. For instance, in Galatians 6:15 we read: "For IN CHRIST JESUS neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature."

The words "Christ Jesus" are in the majority of all texts, as well as Sinaiticus, A, C, and the Syriac Peshitta. They are found in the NKJV, Young's, Tyndale, Geneva Bible, Third Millenium Bible and several others. But because Vaticanus omits the words "Christ Jesus" the NASB, NIV, ESV, RSV omit them.

Galatians 6:17 says: "For I bear in my body the marks of the LORD Jesus" and this is the majority reading. Even Sinaiticus says "the Lord Jesus Christ", but Vaticanus omits the word "Lord" and so the RSV, NASB, NIV merely say: "I bear in my body the marks of Jesus."

Gameboy

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 37
  • Gender: Male
  • "A merry heart doeth good like a medicine" Pr17:22
Re: Why Use The KJV Translation?
« Reply #25 on: July 30, 2004, 09:22:34 AM »

I noticed a phenomenon in this forum. Why does everyone here, or nearly everyone, use the KJV? Most places, articles and forums I read or go to usually use the NIV.

Peng Bao

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 165
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why Use The KJV Translation?
« Reply #26 on: July 31, 2004, 09:36:55 AM »
Quote
I noticed a phenomenon in this forum. Why does everyone here, or nearly everyone, use the KJV? Most places, articles and forums I read or go to usually use the NIV.

Since no one addressed this, I'll try. I do believe that it is because the majority of people who frequent this forum are truly "bible believers" and so they are tuned in to do the right thing rather than the popular thing. The NIV is the popular version, but its popularity is based on its modernistic, unfaithfulness to the original copies. That's why you often hear people say, "I like the NIV because it's written in a way that's so much easier to understand." While the KJV is the more faithful version that some who are biased call "hard to understand". The bible is not written to be easy to understand, but neither is the KJV unreadable or hard to understand as is charged.

 Beside that, we like the consistency where we're not confusing a lot of new christians by quoting a lot of different translations. You might want to study up on the translations issue with an open mind. You will find that the NIV does damage to God's word.

Anne

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 122
  • Grow With God
Re: Why Use The KJV Translation?
« Reply #27 on: August 02, 2004, 06:48:55 AM »
The NIV is not up to snuff and this is a more spiritually cerebral crowd which is well informed about the errors of the NIV. Other places just don't really care so long as it's easy to understand. Do you know the background of the translation issue?

Wanda

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 114
  • Gender: Female
  • I'm a llama!
Re: Why Use The KJV Translation?
« Reply #28 on: August 09, 2004, 04:41:40 AM »

I noticed a phenomenon in this forum. Why does everyone here, or nearly everyone, use the KJV? Most places, articles and forums I read or go to usually use the NIV.


I can only speak for myself. I use it because it's the bible that I was raised up with from a child, and so it's the one I'm most familiar with and trust as the bible of our forefathers. When I was in Church, the pastor and most of the congregation used the niv, but I always used the kjv. So as we say in this neck of the woods, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."

jd@

  • Guest
Re: Why Use The KJV Translation?
« Reply #29 on: August 09, 2004, 08:51:06 AM »
But what if it is broke?

See, take Romans 8:26...

" Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered."

Doesn't that bother you?  We should refer to the Holy Spirit as a 'he', not an 'it'!

 


[ Home | Eschatology | Bible Studies | Classics | Articles | Sermons | Apologetics | Search | F.A.Q. ]