Is someone who believes in one version of the Bible unbiblical ?

[rbell]

If the KJV is your favorite, great! The KJV is a wonderful translation.

But "because older is better" is not a very good reason.

If "older is better" is your reasoning, get a Geneva Bible. It's older.

Reposting for Charles...

 

[tinytim]

Another below the belt sucker punch by somebody trying to be cute!
You knew what the man meant and you try to exploit it to make yourself look good.
JERK!

This is the type of hate filled venom that KJVO's have been known for...

Hmmm... I am sure the KJV says something about calling your brother names....

I have an idea.. Let's USE the version we feel we should...

The problem is most people don't USE the Bible...
They just like to argue over it, and call people names...

Cutter, you owe him an apology.

 

[Ed Edwards]

I don't see an insult in Ed's post...this post is consistent with things he says to all sorts of folk here...

I celebrate Charles's passion for the Word. And I'm glad that the KJV serves him well. I would venture that Ed would echo my sentiments.

Amen, Brother Rbell -- Preach it! :thumbs:

And THANK YOU!

 

[HankD]

Pastor Larry makes an excellent point.
Here are 3 NT quotes from Isaiah 6:9-10
Each of the NT quotes is different from The OT source.
Each of the NT quotes is different from each other

Isaiah 6:9-10
Ye shall hear indeed, but ye shall not understand; and ye shall see indeed, but ye shall not perceive. For the heart of this people has become gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.

Matthew 13:14-15
By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

Mark 4:12
That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and [their] sins should be forgiven them.

Acts 28:26-27
Saying, Go unto this people, and say, Hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and not perceive: For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with [their] eyes, and hear with [their] ears, and understand with [their] heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

HankD

 

[ccrobinson]

Another below the belt sucker punch by somebody trying to be cute!
You knew what the man meant and you try to exploit it to make yourself look good. JERK!

Cutter, is it not possible to debate without name-calling? If you can't debate without name-calling, then perhaps you should quit debating.

Echoing tim, you owe dan e. an apology. I believe you owe Ed Edwards an apology as well.

 

[Cutter]

I apologize, Bro. Dan. I let my emotions get the better of me. For anyone else offended by my response, I apologize to you, as well.

 

[charles_creech78]

Quotes is diffrent but it means the same thing. Hank

 

[charles_creech78]

Don't worry about it Cutter it happens to all of us. Don't let people get you upset. I learned real fast on hear. Just stand in what you believe and I thank you for taking up for me. I trie not to let it get to me about someone posting against something I believe but this is a debate forum and some things can get hot. I just think about the Lord when things get that away. God bless you Cutter.

 

[dcorbett]

That is true, but when someone says my favorite version is the only valid one and anybody who reads from a different one is not reading a 'real' Bible then the person has stepped into the unbiblical.

I am KJV only, my choice, and I have stated my reasons over and over.
I don't NEED another version. I have every chunk of "meat" in this KJV Bible that I need as a maturing Christian.

What YOU do is between YOU and God. But go check out what Chick Publications has to say....

http://www.chick.com/information/bibleversions/articles/translation.asp

I think that's a good enough explanation for me.

I don't know lots of theological arguments. I do know that it works for me.

It's kinda like being a Baptist....some people really rake you over the coals when they find out you are a Baptist, mock you, joke about holy rollers and stuff. But it doesn't change me from being a Baptist.

Debbie Mc

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I have been moderating the versions forum for years, but still this thread has amazed me. Over and over posters have defended the right and privilege to choose one version of scripture as their own and over and over other posters have expressed how they are being some how picked on for their view.

Over and over posters have defended and praised the KJV and over and over others have tried to say that the KJV is being picked and attacked.

Pointing out facts to aid in studying the issue out is hardly an attack.

Study the issue for yourself, pray for direction, and then choose the version that you feel with the Holy Spirit directs you to use. How can anyone be critical of that?

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I celebrate Charles's passion for the Word. And I'm glad that the KJV serves him well. I would venture that Ed would echo my sentiments.

Amen - praise God that our brother Charles has chosen a solid, trustworthy translation! There is no fault, no error, and no sin in doing so.

 

[dan e.]

Here's what gets me....you can say that you simply prefer KJV....yet you then make remarks like this:

Dan are you telling me that some of the New bibles are not changed. I said old is better because it is closer to the true writen words of God then the New ones.

That is not true....unless you are talking about closer in time to the true written words of God!:laugh: The older ones are not "better", and the KJV is certainly changed as much as any of the translations. I can't understand how you can just make comments like that! The KJV is a TRANSLATION...and one that is not from originals either!

Let me reiterate...Charles, I think it is perfectly fine that you read KJV, and prefer it. But please....let it be for better reasons than that you don't think it is changed (it certainly has been messed with), or because you think it is "closer" to the word of God than, say....NASB, or HSCB, or ESV, or whatever.

Keep standing on the Word....not a translation.

Dan

 

[charles_creech78]

Here's what gets me....you can say that you simply prefer KJV....yet you then make remarks like this:



That is not true....unless you are talking about closer in time to the true written words of God!:laugh: The older ones are not "better", and the KJV is certainly changed as much as any of the translations. I can't understand how you can just make comments like that! The KJV is a TRANSLATION...and one that is not from originals either!

Let me reiterate...Charles, I think it is perfectly fine that you read KJV, and prefer it. But please....let it be for better reasons than that you don't think it is changed (it certainly has been messed with), or because you think it is "closer" to the word of God than, say....NASB, or HSCB, or ESV, or whatever.

Keep standing on the Word....not a translation.

Dan

Look this is the way I see it the older ones where translated to english so we can understand them only. Some of the new ones where fix because some person wanted to put it to what they thought it ment. I rather read a translated bible then to read a bible that was changed because a man thought it ment this or that. Go look up translated. (to represent or spell in the characters of another alphabet. to change from one place,state,or to another to convey to heaven without death you turn into one's own or another language). The first bibles where turn into another language and the newer one into one's own. Do you get what I am saying brother. It is hard enough to translate it but much easyer to but it as your own. Why change something that is aready good. I understand the older ones better then the new ones. Don't think that I am ignorant because I an't. And I surely do stand for the word of God for with this if I did'nt this would not be a issue to me.

 

[dan e.]

Look this is the way I see it the older ones where translated to english so we can understand them only. Some of the new ones where fix because some person wanted to put it to what they thought it ment. I rather read a translated bible then to read a bible that was changed because a man thought it ment this or that. Go look up translated. (to represent or spell in the characters of another alphabet. to change from one place,state,or to another to convey to heaven without death you turn into one's own or another language). The first bibles where turn into another language and the newer one into one's own. Do you get what I am saying brother. It is hard enough to translate it but much easyer to but it as your own. Why change something that is aready good. I understand the older ones better then the new ones.

I do understand what you are saying....and I am suggesting that you are wrong. Some of the new ones are not "fixes", as you put it. Are you familiar with the translation of the KJV? I'm not trying to say I'm an expert in its history...but I dare say that you are mistaken to believe it is somehow superior, and that newer translations are translated into what others think it means. There may be exceptions...but I'm talking about translations such as NASB, ESV, HCSB, etc. I think translations like the Message are unique, and are very interesting. But it is in a different category. I wouldn't do a Bible study from it, but enjoy the way it words some things.

I understand what the world "translate" means. In fact, many of the newer translations are more closely translated from the original languages than the KJV. Which is why I question...have you looked at the history of how the KJV was translated? What about the newer ones....do you know how they were translated? How can you be so sure they were simply translated into what someone thought they meant?

I'll repeat....keep standing on the Word....not a translation.

 

[charles_creech78]

That a translation be made of the whole Bible, as consonant as can be to the original Hebrew and Greek; and this to be set out and printed, without any marginal notes, and only to be used in all churches of England in time of divine service." 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." These men were the best biblical scholars and linguists of their day. In the preface to their completed work it is further stated that "there were many chosen, that were greater in other men's eyes than in their own, and that sought the truth rather than their own praise. Again, they came or were thought to come to the work, learned, not to learn." Other men were sought out, according to James, "so that our said intended translation may have the help and furtherance of all our principal learned men within this our kingdom." Although fifty-four men were nominated, only forty-seven were known to have taken part in the work of translation. The translators were organized into six groups, and met respectively at Westminster, Cambridge, and Oxford. Ten at Westminster were assigned Genesis through 2 Kings; seven had Romans through Jude. At Cambridge, eight worked on 1 Chronicles through Ecclesiastes, while seven others handled the Apocrypha. Oxford employed seven to translate Isaiah through Malachi; eight occupied themselves with the Gospels, Acts, and RevelationFifteen general rules were advanced for the guidance of the translators1. 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.2. The names of the Prophets, and the Holy Writers, with the other Names of the Text, to be retained, as nigh as may be, accordingly as they were vulgarly used. 3. The Old Ecclesiastical Words to be kept, viz. the Word Church not to be translated Congregation &c.
4. When a Word hath divers Significations, that to be kept which hath been most commonly used by the most of the Ancient Fathers, being agreeable to the Propriety of the Place, and the Analogy of the Faith.
5. The Division of the Chapters to be altered, either not at all, or as little as may be, if Necessity so require.
6. No Marginal Notes at all to be affixed, but only for the explanation of the Hebrew or Greek Words, which cannot without some circumlocution, so briefly and fitly be expressed in the Text.
7. Such Quotations of Places to be marginally set down as shall serve for the fit Reference of one Scripture to another.
8. Every particular Man of each Company, to take the same Chapter or Chapters, and having translated or amended them severally by himself, where he thinketh good, all to meet together, confer what they have done, and agree for their Parts what shall stand.
9. As any one Company hath dispatched any one Book in this Manner they shall send it to the rest, to be considered of seriously and judiciously, for His Majesty is very careful in this Point.
10. If any Company, upon the Review of the Book so sent, doubt or differ upon any Place, to send them Word thereof; note the Place, and withal send the Reasons, to which if they consent not, the Difference to be compounded at the general Meeting, which is to be of the chief Persons of each Company, at the end of the Work.
11. When any Place of special Obscurity is doubted of, Letters to be directed by Authority, to send to any Learned Man in the Land, for his Judgement of such a Place.
12. Letters to be sent from every Bishop to the rest of his Clergy, admonishing them of this Translation in hand; and to move and charge as many skilful in the Tongues; and having taken pains in that kind, to send his particular Observations to the Company, either at Westminster, Cambridge, or Oxford.
13. The Directors in each Company, to be the Deans of Westminster, and Chester for that Place; and the King's Professors in the Hebrew or Greek in either University.
14. These translations to be used when they agree better with the Text than the Bishops Bible: Tyndale's, Matthew's, Coverdale's, Whitchurch's, Geneva.
15. Besides the said Directors before mentioned, three or four of the most Ancient and Grave Divines, in either of the Universities, not employed in Translating, to be assigned by the vice-Chancellor, upon Conference with the rest of the Heads, to be Overseers of the Translations as well Hebrew as Greek, for the better observation of the 4th Rule above specified.
The work began to take shape in 1604 and progressed steadily. The translators expressed their early thoughts in their preface as:
"Truly (good Christian Reader) we never thought from the beginning, that we should need to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one,...but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principal good one, not justly to be excepted against, that hath been our endeavor."
They had at their disposal all the previous English translations to which they did not disdain:
"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...or Queen Elizabeth's of ever renowned 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."
And, as the translators themselves also acknowledged, 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, Termellius, and Beza.

Four years were spent on the preliminary translation by the six groups. The translators were exacting and particular in their work, as related in their prefaces.
Neither did we disdain to revise that which we had done, and to bring back to the anvil that which we had hammered: but having and using as great helps as were needful, and fearing no reproach for slowness, nor coveting praise for expedition, we have at the length, through the good hand of the Lord upon us, brought the work to that pass that you see.
The conferences of each of the six being ended, nine months were spent at Stationers' Hall in London for review and revision of the work by two men each from the Westminster, Cambridge, and Oxford companies. The final revision was then completed by Myles Smith and Thomas Bilson, with a preface supplied by Smith.
The completed work was issued in 1611, the complete title page reading:
"THE HOLY BIBLE, Conteyning the Old Testament, and the New: Newly Translated out of the Originall tongues: & with the former Translations diligently compared and revised, by his Majesties Special Commandment. Appointed to be read in Churches. Imprinted at London by Robert Barker, Printer to the Kings most Excellent Majestie. ANNO DOM. 1611."
The New Testament had a separate title page, the whole of it reading:
"THE NEWE Testament of our Lord and Saviour JESUS CHRIST. Newly Translated out of the Originall Greeke: and with the former Translations diligently compared and revised, by his Majesties speciall Commandment. IMPRINTED at London by Robert Barker, Printer to the Kings most Excellent Majestie. ANNO DOM. 1611. Cum Privilegio."
The King James Bible was, in its first editions, even larger than the Great Bible. It was printed in black letter with small italicized Roman type to represent those words not in the original languages.
A dedicatory epistle to King James, which also enhanced the completed work, recalled the King's desire that "there should be one more exact Translation of the Holy Scriptures into the English tongue." The translators expressed that they were "poor instruments to make GOD'S holy Truth to be yet more and more known" while at the same time recognizing that "Popish persons" sought to keep the people "in ignorance and darkness."
The Authorized Version, as it came to be called, went through several editions and revisions. Two notable editions were that of 1629, the first ever printed at Cambridge, and that of 1638, also at Cambridge, which was assisted by John Bois and Samuel Ward, two of the original translators. In 1657, the Parliament considered another revision, but it came to naught. The most important editions were those of the 1762 Cambridge revision by Thomas Paris, and the 1769 Oxford revision by Benjamin Blayney. One of the earliest concrdances was A Concordance to the Bible of the Last Translation, by John Down-ham, affixed to a printing of 1632.
The Authorized Version eclipsed all previous versions of the Bible. The Geneva Bible was last printed in 1644, but the notes continued to be published with the King James text. Subsequent versions of the Bible were likewise eclipsed, for the Authorized Version was the Bible until the advent of the Revised Version and ensuing modern translations. It is still accepted as such by its defenders, and recognized as so by its detractors. Alexander Geddes (d. 1802), a Roman Catholic priest, who in 1792 issued the first colume of his own translation of the Bible, accordingly paid tribute to the Bible of his time:
"The highest eulogiums have been made on the translation of James the First, both by our own writers and by foreigners. And, indeed, if accuracy, fidelity, and the strictest attention to the letter of the text, be supposed to constitute the qualities of an excellent version, this of all versions,

 

[charles_creech78]

.

1456 A.D. Gutenberg produced the first printed Bible in Latin. Printing revolutionized the way books were made. From now on books could be published in great numbers and at a lower cost.
1514 A.D. The Greek New Testament was printed for the first time by Erasmus. He based his Greek New Testament from only five Greek manuscripts, the oldest of which dated only as far back as the twelfth century. With minor revisions, Erasmus' Greek New Testament came to be known as the Textus Receptus or the "received texts."
1522 A. D. Polyglot Bible was published. The Old Testament was in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and Latin and the New Testament in Latin and Greek. Erasmus used the Polyglot to revise later editions of his New Testament. Tyndale made use of the Polyglot in his translation on the Old Testament into English which he did not complete because he was martyred in 1534.
1611 A.D. The King James Version into English from the original Hebrew and Greek. The King James translators of the New Testament used the Textus Receptus as the basis for their translations.
1968 A.D. The United Bible Societies 4th Edition of the Greek New Testament. This Greek New Testament made use of the oldest Greek manuscripts which date from 175 A.D. This was the Greek New Testament text from which the NASV and the NIV were translated.
1971 A.D. The New American Standard Version (NASV) was published. It makes use of the wealth of much older Hebrew and Greek manuscripts now available that weren't available at the time of the translation of the KJV. Its wording and sentence structure closely follow the Greek in more of a word for word style.
1983 A.D. The New International Version (NIV) was published. It also made use of the oldest manuscript evidence. It is more of a "thought-for-thought" translation and reads more easily than the NASV.
As an example of the contrast between word-for-word and thought-for-thought translations, notice below the translation of the Greek word "hagios-holy"
NASV Hebrews 9:25. "...the high priest enters the holy place year by year with blood not his own."
NIV Hebrews 9:25. "...the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own."
The NIV supplies "understood" information about the Day of Atonement, namely that the high priest's duties took place in the compartment of the temple known specifically as the Most Holy Place. Note that the NASV simply says "holy place" reflecting the more literal translation of "hagios

 

[charles_creech78]

The following is a list of the oldest Hebrew manuscripts of the Old Testament that are still in existence.

The Dead Sea Scrolls: date from 200 B.C. - 70 A.D. and contain the entire book of Isaiah and portions of every other Old Testament book but Esther.
Geniza Fragments: portions the Old Testament in Hebrew and Aramaic, discovered in 1947 in an old synagogue in Cairo, Egypt, which date from about 400 A.D.
Ben Asher Manuscripts: five or six generations of this family made copies of the Old Testament using the Masoretic Hebrew text, from 700-950 A.D. The following are examples of the Hebrew Masoretic text-type.
Aleppo Codex: contains the complete Old Testament and is dated around 950 A.D. Unfortunately over one quarter of this Codex was destroyed in anti-Jewish riots in 1947.
Codex Leningradensis: The complete Old Testament in Hebrew copied by the last member of the Ben Asher family in A.D. 1008.
The Old Testament was translated very early into Aramaic and Greek.

400 B.C. The Old Testament began to be translated into Aramaic. This translation is called the Aramaic Targums. This translation helped the Jewish people, who began to speak Aramaic from the time of their captivity in Babylon, to understand the Old Testament in the language that they commonly spoke. In the first century Palestine of Jesus' day, Aramaic was still the commonly spoken language. For example maranatha: "Our Lord has come," 1 Corinthians 16:22 is an example of an Aramaic word that is used in the New Testament.
250 B.C. The Old Testament was translated into Greek. This translation is known as the Septuagint. It is sometimes designated "LXX" (which is Roman numeral for "70") because it was believed that 70 to 72 translators worked to translate the Hebrew Old Testament in Greek. The Septuagint was often used by New Testament writers when they quoted from the Old Testament. The LXX was translation of the Old Testament that was used by the early Church.

1. The following is a list of the oldest Greek LXX translations of the Old Testament that are still in existence.
Chester Beatty Papyri: Contains nine Old Testament Books in the Greek Septuagint and dates between 100-400 A.D.
Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus each contain almost the entire Old Testament of the Greek Septuagint and they both date around 350 A.D.

45- 95 A.D. The New Testament was written in Greek. The Pauline Epistles, the Gospel of Mark, the Gospel of Luke, and the book of Acts are all dated from 45-63 A.D. The Gospel of John and the Revelation may have been written as late as 95 A.D.There are over 5,600 early Greek Manuscripts of the New Testament that are still in existence. The oldest manuscripts were written on papyrus and the later manuscripts were written on leather called parchment

125 A.D. The New Testament manuscript which dates most closely to the original autograph was copied around 125 A.D, within 35 years of the original. It is designated "p 52" and contains a small portion of John 18. (The "p" stands for papyrus.)
200 A.D. Bodmer p 66 a papyrus manuscript which contains a large part of the Gospel of John.
200 A.D. Chester Beatty Biblical papyrus p 46 contains the Pauline Epistles and Hebrews.
225 A.D. Bodmer Papyrus p 75 contains the Gospels of Luke and John.
250-300 A.D. Chester Beatty Biblical papyrus p 45 contains portions of the four Gospels and Acts.
350 A.D. Codex Sinaiticus contains the entire New Testament and almost the entire Old Testament in Greek. It was discovered by a German scholar Tisendorf in 1856 at an Orthodox monastery at Mt. Sinai.
350 A.D. Codex Vaticanus: {B} is an almost complete New Testament. It was cataloged as being in the Vatican Library since 1475.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

1. The following is a list of the oldest Greek LXX translations of the Old Testament that are still in existence.
Chester Beatty Papyri: Contains nine Old Testament Books in the Greek Septuagint and dates between 100-400 A.D.
Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus each contain almost the entire Old Testament of the Greek Septuagint and they both date around 350 A.D.

45- 95 A.D. The New Testament was written in Greek. The Pauline Epistles, the Gospel of Mark, the Gospel of Luke, and the book of Acts are all dated from 45-63 A.D. The Gospel of John and the Revelation may have been written as late as 95 A.D.There are over 5,600 early Greek Manuscripts of the New Testament that are still in existence. The oldest manuscripts were written on papyrus and the later manuscripts were written on leather called parchment
125 A.D. The New Testament manuscript which dates most closely to the original autograph was copied around 125 A.D, within 35 years of the original. It is designated "p 52" and contains a small portion of John 18. (The "p" stands for papyrus.)
200 A.D. Bodmer p 66 a papyrus manuscript which contains a large part of the Gospel of John.
200 A.D. Chester Beatty Biblical papyrus p 46 contains the Pauline Epistles and Hebrews.
225 A.D. Bodmer Papyrus p 75 contains the Gospels of Luke and John.
250-300 A.D. Chester Beatty Biblical papyrus p 45 contains portions of the four Gospels and Acts.
350 A.D. Codex Sinaiticus contains the entire New Testament and almost the entire Old Testament in Greek. It was discovered by a German scholar Tisendorf in 1856 at an Orthodox monastery at Mt. Sinai.
350 A.D. Codex Vaticanus: {B} is an almost complete New Testament. It was cataloged as being in the Vatican Library since 1475.

Lucky me - I have seen a lot of the Beatty mss. They are in a free museum in Dublin

 

[charles_creech78]

Any more hard filling Dan. Like I said don't count me ignorant.

 

[dan e.]

:laugh:


So how does all of that show that the KJV is closer to the word of God, or the newer translations have been changed according to what others think it means?