Were there no good English Bibles before the Modern Versions ?

< I just want to know do we have a perserved word or not >

There is not one-- and only one-- biblical text in the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. For there to be one absolutely unquestionably preserved Word, this would have to be the case. Translations are 2nd hand at best.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by toolman:
I have been blasted for saying the KJV is the perserved word of God for the English speaking people. Others on this board say the newer versions are better because they come from newer MS.
So do we use whatever bible we want and say that it is the word of God or is there a perserved word of God? I'm not trying to start a war here, I just want to know do we have a perserved word or not, if so which Bible is it?
To me it's the same as to why there are so many different churches out there, because of the confussion?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Toolman,
I certainly understand your arguments and questioning of the Bibles. Let me tell you my view and you can tell me what you think. I am not disagreeing with you, but simply explaining as a brother in Christ what my beliefs are on this subject.
First, I do not believe that the new Bibles are better than the King James unless you look at some specific little items such as readability (and this is really only important for children or adults with poor reading skills of who there are a lot simply due to the fact they had to work to help feed their families--back when.). Otherwise, most adults can read the King James reasonably well.
The King James IS a very accurate Bible and the changes between it and the new MV's are very minor when looking at the original Greek/Hebrew texts even though the MV's use older texts.
I believe that God's Word is a Living Word as it is the gospel of the Living Son of God and I also believe that the Holy Spirit will be there to help Christians understand what they are reading. This is the reason that it makes no sense to many lost people. Now, if a person is under conviction to be saved, he/she will understand. I believe in every KJV, and mainstream NASB, NIV, etc. the gospel or Word of Jesus Christ comes through loud and clear and is therefore preserved.
For example, take a good parallel Bible such as The new Layman's Parallel Bible from Zondervan. First let me say to ignore the "Living Bible" as it is a paraphrase and NOT a translation. or to be blunt, one man's thoughts of what the Bible should say--he did NOT translate from Hebrew, Greek or Aramaic. Then start reading in any chapter in any book in the King James, now read it in the NASB, then read the same chapter in the NIV. Besides different terms being used that mean the same thing and a few minor things left out of the MV's (very minor) because they don't appear in the older texts and were most likely added by well-meaning Christians during copying by hand. But, whether or not this is the case, I think you will find two things. One, there is very little difference in the message and two, you will understand and your eyes will open as you read things that make more sense in the simple language, even though you may have studied those verses for years.
I think God's Word is preserved and I think it is there and regardless of translations by King James only groups you will find that it is the context of the sentence and chapter that matters because no matter how hard we try--if we translate directly from Greek to English it makes NO sense to a typical reader. For proof of this look at an intralinear Greek New-Testament and you will see that the sentences MUST be corrected to make them readable in English. A Bible translated Word for Word is actually of less value than one translated to get the message and the intent of the author converted to English.

Does this make sense? Does it help?

 

Toolman,

YOur questions have been answered time and time again. A version's "good-ness" is to be judged by its fidelity to the original language text. Therefore, any translation (in any language) that accurately reflects that original language text is a good translation. For others who believed this very point, see the Preface to the King James Version. Any translation in English that accurately reflects the original language texts is a good translation.

Do we have a preserved Word of God? Yes. The Word of God has been preserved in the multitude of manuscripts.

 

&gt;&gt;So do we use whatever bible we want and say that it is the word of God or is there a preserved word of God? I'm not trying to start a war here, I just want to know do we have a preserved word or not, if so which Bible is it?&gt;&gt;

The war has already started and we are perpetuating it.

Where is the preserved Word of God?

If it is/was the KJV1611, then, where was it before 1611? Did God abandon humankind before 1611?

The obvious answer, and the only answer, is: if it is/was anywhere on earth it has to be in the underlying Greek and Hebrew texts which have never changed (not one jot or tittle) since the day they were written.

We may speak of "scribal variants" in the copies of these original texts.
We have the same problem between the KJV1611 and the KJV1769 (which is the one in all probability that you are using).
There are hundreds of differences between these editions. They are called "printer errors".

Well, what is the difference between a "printer error" and a "scribal variant"?

None, because, in reality, they are the end result of the same problem. Human frailty.
Printers are imperfect human beings.
Scribes are imperfect human beings.

There is a "perfect" Word of God and it is in heaven.

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

Apart from the giving by God our Father, whenever His written Word passes through human hands in preservation, it is blemished as is any of the works of sinful mankind even those who are born again and whose intentions are pure.
Call it "printer error" or "scribal variant" this fact cannot be denied.
Neither can we know for certainty the intent (if any) and/or motive of the scribe or printer.

But one thing is certain, we have one more shibboleth by which we are divided.

Have we forgotten (and I include myself in my own question) that we have the ultimate Giver of the Word of God dwelling within us?

HankD

[ October 08, 2001: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by toolman:
I have been blasted for saying the KJV is the perserved word of God for the English speaking people. Others on this board say the newer versions are better because they come from newer MS. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Actually, newer version take into account older mss.

Toolman, what is your definition of the term "Word of God"? Accurately answering this question is absolutely critical to avoiding the error of thinking there must be one perfectly preserved set of words.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>So do we use whatever bible we want and say that it is the word of God or is there a perserved word of God? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
We do have the preserved Word of God. We do not have the originals which were directly inspired by God Himself. If knowing the Word of God is dependent on knowing the exact words of the originals then we can never know it.

God's Word is His revelation of Himself to mankind. The KJV is the Word of God...as is the NASB, NKJV, LITV, etc. They all convey the Word of God in faithfulness to what the evidence tells us the originals said. The amazing thing is that no doctrine is in jeopardy. Our goal has to be to produce and use translations which most closely represent the originals in the current language (vulgar tongue) so that the doctrinal foundations cannot be eroded.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>To me it's the same as to why there are so many different churches out there, because of the confussion?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can only relate my personal experience. I only used the KJV at one time. During that period, I achieved very little spiritual maturity as I found it very difficult to study by itself. Since I started using other versions, commentaries, and interlinears scripture has become much clearer to me...and I am growing. I have also never been more confident in the Baptist distinctives than I am now since recognizing that the KJV does not contain the only possible correct translation of the Greek/Hebrew.

 

We do not have the "preserved" Word of God. Those would be the originals themselves and we do not have them.

We do have an "authoritative" Word of God in translation form. How is it that a few variant manuscripts and a few variants in translation cancel out the accuracy and authority of the word?

The problems exist when those who try to interpret the Bible insist that there can't be any outside clarification and that the interpretation must take a strictly literalist form, without consideration of the historical and cultural context of scripture. This creates a false "all or nothing" context that forces the adoption of the belief that somewhere along the way, God kept having to re-inspire translations so we would have a perfect Bible. We have a perfect word in Jesus, we have sufficiency, not perfection in the written word, the Bible.

If you look at it in comparison with any other written work of antiquity, the accuracy of the scripture is incomparable. While there are variant manuscripts and variations in translations, the fact is that the Bible is unique in that it has not only survived for 2,000 years (or more in the case of some parts) but it far exceeds the most stringent secular standards for accuracy in translation. No major doctrines of scripture are affected by any variant manuscript.

To require more is to create a situation out of which come the stress and disagreement evident here.

 

1.Can I ask what Bible did the early Engligh Christians use before the KJV1611 and then also after the 1611?
2.Was the KJV asked for by the groups of it's day because they wanted a Bible they could understand, I guess maybe a more contemporary Bible for that time?
3.If that is the case are the MV's to be contemporary for our time in the same way?

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ddavis:
1.Can I ask what Bible did the early Engligh Christians use before the KJV1611 and then also after the 1611?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The English believers prior to 1611 used many bibles, from the Wycliffe, to Tyndale, Great, Cranmer, Geneva, Bishops, Rheims. After 1611 the Geneva remained primary until the late 17th century when the AV gradually rose to the ascendency. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>2.Was the KJV asked for by the groups of it's day because they wanted a Bible they could understand, I guess maybe a more contemporary Bible for that time?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The Hampton Court Conference in January 1604, was called in response to the Millenary Petition in which the Puritans set forth their demands for reform of the Church of England. The conference was presided over by King James I and attended by the bishops and the Puritan leaders. Among the reforms discussed were changes in church government, changes in The Book of Common Prayer, and a new translation of the Bible. The King ignored all but the last request, and agreed to a new "authorized" version of the English bible "appointed to be read in churches." This was done for a two fold reason. The first was that many different, and competing, versions of the bible were causing confusion and strife in the Church of England, and second, the most used bible by the lay persons was the Geneva bible which contained notes that were very anti-Monarchy in nature. James considered the Geneva bible to be a threat to his throne. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>3.If that is the case are the MV's to be contemporary for our time in the same way?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The great explosion of English versions (somewhere over 200 as of today) is actually creating the same sort of confusion the multiple versions created in England in the early 17th century. However, an additional point has compounded the issue. Until about 1865, virtually every English bible translated from the Hebrew and Greek followed the Traditional Textform, but since 1865 most (not all) of the newer versions have abandoned the Traditional Textform in favor of the Critical Textform. This is considered by many textual scholars to be an error. Read the Introduction to "The New Testament In The Original Greek According To The Byzantine/Majority Textform" by Robinson and Pierpont for an excellent treatise on the Byzantine vice Alexandrian textform.

[ October 09, 2001: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]

 

Toolman,

Did you know that in the KJV you have not been freed from your sins by the blood of Christ? The MVs in Rev 1:5 all say that you have been freed but the KJV denies the freedom from sin that comes from the blood of Christ. The reason I like and use the MVs is because I am freed from sin by the blood of Christ.

Now you probably consider that argument ridiculous, as do I. But I put it here to show the other side of your statement. You pick a word -- nay, a translation of a word -- and build a false structure on it. You claim that you use the KJV because you believe in the blood atonement with the subtle (and perhaps unintended) implication that others do not. Said implication that we who like MVs are willing to compromise on the blood atonement just isn't true. I believe the blood atonement is indispensable to salvation. That has nothing to do with this issue.

As for Rev 1:5 there is a textual variant that is the difference between luw and luow. The eclectic texts use luw rather than luow because that is what the evidence seems to suggest. There is no material difference between the two in its meaning. To be freed from sins by his blood is certainly a part of being saved and it is misrepresentative to suggest otherwise. To claim that the MVs do not teaching washing from sin by the blood atonement is simply false.

The website you cite gives you bad information on this.

 

&lt; Not according to the ... New American Standard Version (NASV) &gt;

What is it that you ain't reading, bud?

"And according to the Law, one may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness (Hebrews 9:22, NAS)".

"And I heard a loud voice in heaven, saying, 'Now salvation and power, and the kingdom of our God and the authority of His Christ have come, for the accuser of our brothers has been thrown down, who accuses them before our God day and night. And they overcame him because of the blood of the Lamb and because of the word of their testimony, and they did not love their life even to death (Revelation 12:10-11, NAS)."

&lt; I trust the fact that God was with the men when they translated, and I believe that the manuscripts that were used were according to His will. I have not come across any evidence that will change my stand on the KJV. &gt;

Then are you an Anglican-- a part of the single body ruled by a worldly monarch which authorized the KJV? If not, why not?

 

Toolman, I too hold to the KJV. It is the word of God, Now I do not hold that there are no errors in it that comes from man. I believe we have the perfect word of God, but that perfect word is not on paper in ink but rather inside us written in blood, it is the Holy Spirit. I do not condemn the Modern Versions because I believe the KJV is the only Bible, just that the KJV shows Christ and His deity and everything about Him in a better way than any other Bible out there.
On the issue of the blood, I myself was wrong about this. I done a search on the blood and where it pertained to Christ and redemption from sin, the KJV and the NAS both show this 31 times. I did not recount the word blood where it came within the next few verses around the first one. Even the NIV lists it very close to the NAS and KJV.
What I do like about the KJV which I think makes it far surpass the others is that from it's wording and from it's beauty I feel that the translators had in mind (Christ) throughout the OT and NT as the center of emphisis. Whereas most modern versions payed more attention to the translation of the words itself and not to the message it was trying to convey, which is Christ. Here is one example Gen. 22:8, NAS " 8 And Abraham said, “God will provide for Himself the lamb for the burnt offering,"
NIV "8 Abraham answered, “God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son.”
KJV "And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering:"
The KJV clearly shows that God would ultimately be that sacrifice. In the other versions this great prohetic treasure is lost in the words.
Again, I am not condemning the others, though I once did and was wrong, I just know that the KJV shows things more clearly in the way that they are, though it may be hard to understand at times.

And Rockfort, you are wrong about the KJV being written with an angelican view in mind. It was not even so much written for the church as it was the common man.
What in it shows the angelican view you say it is so biased to?

[ October 09, 2001: Message edited by: Joey M ]

[ October 09, 2001: Message edited by: Joey M ]

[ October 09, 2001: Message edited by: Joey M ]

 

&lt; It was not even so much written for the church as it was the common man. What in it shows the angelican view you say it is so biased to? &gt;

What would the "common man," to which you refer, perceive as a bishop, for example? In the early 17th century, a bishop of the Church of England was an elegantly-clothed power-driven member of the House of Lords. If the word "overseer," or another antonym had been used in I Timothy 3, this "common man" would have seen such a person as a local worker in a local congregation, which is the truer meaning. But the preconceived notion of what a "bishop" was gave support to the power structure of the Church of England.

Similarly, this "common man" thought of baptism as a sprinkling to an infant, which the common man had received involuntarily and which his children had undergone. If the word had been translated, instead of transliterated, to its true meaning of "immerse," or "dip," that would eliminate some confusion about what was commanded of believers. But the common man only considered what was known to be "baptism" [sprinkling] in the Church of England. Furthermore, compare John 1:26 in the KJV and the NASB. The KJV, quoting John, says, "I baptize with water..." The NASB says, "I baptize in water..." Why would an Anglican Bible say "with water," instead of "in water?" Prepositions and inflections are not definite in how they can be translated, therefore the bias plays a part in the choice of words.

You are largely right. The KJV was for the 'common' man of the 'common' church and its 'common' practices. Now the question for you: Is what is common in these ways necessarily what is of God?

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> What would the "common man," to which you refer, perceive as a bishop, for example? In the early 17th century, a bishop of the Church of England was an elegantly-clothed power-driven member of the House of Lords. If the word "overseer," or another antonym had been used in I Timothy 3, this "common man" would have seen such a person as a local worker in a local congregation, which is the truer meaning. But the preconceived notion of what a "bishop" was gave support to the power structure of the Church of England. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
So I suppose you believe the NKJV, RSV, NRSV and the 1901 ASV all were written to the angilican church as well as they all have the word bishop in them in the same verses.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Similarly, this "common man" thought of baptism as a sprinkling to an infant, which the common man had received involuntarily and which his children had undergone. If the word had been translated, instead of transliterated, to its true meaning of "immerse," or "dip," that would eliminate some confusion about what was commanded of believers. But the common man only considered what was known to be "baptism" [sprinkling] in the Church of England. Furthermore, compare John 1:26 in the KJV and the NASB. The KJV, quoting John, says, "I baptize with water..." The NASB says, "I baptize in water..." Why would an Anglican Bible say "with water," instead of "in water?" Prepositions and inflections are not definite in how they can be translated, therefore the bias plays a part in the choice of words. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Again I guess you hold that the 1901 ASV, NASV, NIV, NKJV, RSV, and the NRSV are all Bibles for the angilican church as well as they have the word baptism in them in most of the same verses. These are just a few of the Bibles&lt; I did not look in many of the other translations.
If your going to condemn the KJV for this then all these should be condemned as well.

 

And talk about making doctrine unclear, what about the RSV and NRSV rendering Isa. 7:14 "young woman" rather than virgin. I have heard the lame argument that the Hebrew word (abmnb { al-maw’})can be rendered either way, and I agree, but in the context of the verse, what kind of a sign is a young woman with child? That happens everyday. However a virgin with child doesn't.
And what about these other versions rendering Joseph Jesus' father. It is correctly rendered in the KJV Joseph and His mother, because God is the father not Joseph. Therefore deminishing the case of the virgin birth. And I know you can see the virgin birth in other places in these Bibles, but why cause doubt anywhere?

[ October 10, 2001: Message edited by: Joey M ]

[ October 10, 2001: Message edited by: Joey M ]

 

It always amuses me when someone who calls himself a Baptist, attends a Baptist church and posts on the Baptist Board, and believes in, and practices believers baptism, criticizes the King James Bible for using the word baptize, then suggests the word is an error because it should have been translated "dip" or "immerse."

Just a little study would clear up this confusion. First of all, in 1611, the word "immerse" did not mean the same as it does today, but meant to "merge with" rather than "submerge in." See the Oxford English Dictionary to confirm this well known fact.

Secondly, the word "dip" occurs in the bible in Luke 16:24, and is translated from the Greek word "bapto" not "baptizo." Even Strong's concordance gets this one right: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>911 baptw bapto bap’-to, not to be confused with 907, baptizo. The clearest example that shows the meaning of baptizo is a text from the Greek poet and physician Nicander, who lived about 200 B.C. It is a recipe for making pickles and is helpful because it uses both words. Nicander says that in order to make a pickle, the vegetable should first be ‘dipped’ (bapto) into boiling water and then ‘baptised’ (baptizo) in the vinegar solution. Both verbs concern the immersing of vegetables in a solution. But the first is temporary. The second, the act of baptising the vegetable, produces a permanent change.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Desperation to discredit the bible results in a lot of silliness, doesn't it!