KJV and the modern versions

[antiaging]

Please take heed to this warning.

BTW, no translation is inspired. Only the originals were inspired and they are gone. God promised to preserve his word, which he has. We have over 5000 Manuscripts in which His Word is preserved. Some believe it is preserved more accurately in the Majority Text, and others in the Critical Text. That is the issue to be addressed. No translation is a perfect translation. All translations have mistakes in them, even the KJV.
Have you ever heard of a "unicorn"?

See a good bible dictionary:

unicorn--A reference to a type of Ox, in biblical times that when it turned sideways its horns were so symetrical that it looked like it had only one horn.

behemoth--hippopatamus

leviathan--crocodile

fiery flying serpent--
Fiery serpents in the bible are venomous snakes whose bite burned like fire.
There is a flying snake today which flattens itself out like a ribbon and glides from tree to tree or tree to ground like a flying squirrel.
A fiery flying serpent could have been a venomous version of the flying snake.

 

[antiaging]

Here is one of the doctrinal points from the statement of faith from the link which you cited above:
[/I]
If the King James of 1611 is the most accurate translation of the Bible, do you use it? Are you sure? Does your KJV read like this:

(Est 1:2) That in those dayes, when the King Ahasuerus sate on the throne of his kingdome, which was in Shushan the palace:

(Est 1:3) In the third yeere of his reigne, he made a feast vnto all his Princes, and his seruants, the power of Persia and Media, the Nobles and Princes of the prouinces being before him.

(Est 1:4) When he shewed the riches of his glorious kingdome, and the honour of his excellent maiestie, many dayes, euen an hundred and fourescore dayes.

(Est 1:5) And when these dayes were expired, the king made a feast vnto all the people that were present in Shushan the palace, both vnto great and small, seuen dayes, in the court of the garden of the kings palace, (Esther 1:1-5 KJV 1611)

Do you really use the 1611 KJV or is it more probable that the edition that you use the 1769, a corrected edition, four editions later and 155 years of corrections later? So the King James is not perfect, and never was, is it?

You might do well to read the actual position of the webmaster:
http://www.studytoanswer.net/whykjv.html

If someone decides to produce a "new Bible version", then they must also convince Christians that there is a NEED and a justifiable CAUSE for the new version. One of the deceitful excuses being used today for producing new versions is that the King James Bible has been revised several times since 1611, and that a new revision is needed once again. While spreading this piece of deceitful misinformation, the KJV critics hold their breath, hoping that no one will be intelligent enough to ask for specific details about these "revisions". The many revisions that have occurred since 1881 bear NO RESEMBLANCE to the various EDITIONS of the KJV prior to 1881.

There were only FOUR actual EDITIONS of the King James Bible produced after 1611: 1629, 1638, 1762, and 1769. These were not translations (like the new versions SINCE 1881), and they really weren't even "revisions".

The 1629 edition was simply an effort to correct printing errors, and two of the original King James translators assisted in the work.

The 1638 edition of the KJV also dealt with printing errors, especially words and clauses overlooked by the printers. About 72% of the textual corrections in the KJV were done by 1638, only 27 years after the first printing.

Please bear in mind the fact that printing was a very laborious task prior to 1800. Publishing a flawless work was almost impossible. Even today, with computers and advanced word processors, printing errors are still frequently made. Imagine what it was like in the 1600's!

Then, in 1762 and 1769, two final editions of the KJV were published. Both of these involved spelling changes, which became necessary as the English language became more stabilized and spelling rules were established.

There were no new translations, and there were really no new revisions published in 1629, 1638, 1762, or 1769. These were simply EDITIONS of the 1611 KJV, which corrected printing errors and spelling. Those who try to equate these editions with the modern translations are just being deceitful or stupid--or both. The many other so-called "revisions" of the KJV that occurred in 1613, 1616, 1617, and 1743 are nothing more than running changes and touch-up work at the printers. The REAL revisions and translations do not start appearing until 1881 (RV) and 1901 (ASV).
...you can simply state that you have a 1769 edition of the King James 1611 Authorized Version.
http://www.av1611.org/kjv/fight.html

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Please bear in mind the fact that printing was a very laborious task prior to 1800. Publishing a flawless work was almost impossible. Even today, with computers and advanced word processors, printing errors are still frequently made. Imagine what it was like in the 1600's!

This is one of my pet peeves and is denies the omnipotence of God. God was not powerful enough to control printers and apprentices in their typesetting, so the early editions were full of mistakes.

 

[antiaging]

You are correct partially. Any translation of the MT and the MajT are the real Word of God. However, you are also factually incorrect in at least two aspects. First, these texts are not "unaltered." There are textual variants both in the MT and the MajT. Second, translations from other texts are also the real Word of God.

They are not superior to translator's today, and 14 inspections is both likely inaccurate, as well as fewer inspections than modern translations go through.

The KJV is not a translation of an unaltered text.

You are obviously unfamiliar with the Byzantine text. First, it is a text type or a family of texts. Second, there is no unanimity among the texts. The variants are real. (BTW, this is true with the KJV. There is no unanimity, even today. They are different, and you know the saying ...)

Yes indeed, and he never promised to do it only in the KJV. He has done it through a multitude of texts and translations.

It's not hard to find at all. Tomorrow, I will make it plain when I preach from the NASB. Satan has not camouflaged the word of God. Your confusion is probably due to a lack of understanding of the issues, but it may simply be due to unbelief in the Scriptures. Your comments here lead me to believe that you simply don't understand the issues because you have sat under false teachers. Unfortunately for those men (or women), they will be judged by a higher standard (James 3:1) and will be held accountable for leading sheep such as yourself astray. Fortunately for you, you have come under the influence of teachers of the truth which gives you hope.

I was referring to the majority text:
The majority text, the manuscripts from which the textus receptus, the received text was taken. They are the majority of Greek manuscripts which agree with each other and have been accepted by bible believing christians down through the centuries. --Barry Burton from Let's Weigh The Evidence.

Conscerning any variants:
The original Peshitta is a byzantine text type that differs slightly from the textus Receptus; I read that. The reasons cited for this is that the translators had some kind of nationalistic pride and they made alterations in the text to show it.
However, it does not have the alterations of the Alexandrian texts, vaticannus and sinaiticus. This shows that the byzantine text type can be traced back to AD 150. The Alexandrian text type only goes back to the 4th century, around the time of Origen.
The few variants to the majority text can be seen as happening in a small area, like is the case with the Pashitta.--and it can be seen that it is a majority text that was deliberately altered in that small area.
The vast majority of the majority text copies found agree and are considered to be an accurate copy text of the original writings of the apostles, unaltered.
The textus receptus is taken from this majority text that comes from different places and they agree together.
Textus Receptus means received text.
The KJV, the bible, makes a reference to the received text:
Galatians 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

1. In 1604, King James announced that fifty-four Hebrew and Greek scholars had been appointed to translate a new Bible for English speaking people. The number was reduced to forty-seven by the time the work formally began in 1607.

2. Rather than working together all at one location, these men were divided into six separate groups, which worked at three separate locations. There were two at Westminster, two at Oxford, and two at Cambridge.

3. Each group was given a selected portion of Scripture to translate.

4. Each scholar made his own translation of a book, and then passed it on to be reviewed by each member of his group.

5. The whole group then went over the book together.

6. Once a group had completed a book of the Bible, they sent it to be reviewed by the other five groups.

7. All objectionable and questionable translating was marked and noted, and then it was returned to the original group for consideration.

8. A special committee was formed by selecting one leader from each group. This committee worked out all of the remaining differences and presented a finished copy for the printers in 1611.

9. This means that the King James Bible had to pass at least FOURTEEN examinations before going to press.

10. Throughout this entire process, any learned individuals of the land could be called upon for their judgment, and the churches were kept informed of the progress.
http://www.av1611.org/kjv/fight.html

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

CK4: Expecting members to abide by rules they agreed to is childish?????

HP: This is NO reflection on anything I have read posted by you or many other moderators, but as a general question, are the moderators expected to abide by the rules of this forum? What rules or practices are in place to assure that the moderators, if expected to obey the rules, follow them? What is the proper method we as members should use, to see that any such violations by the moderators are brought to the attention of the governing board (if it exists to reprimand their own fellow moderators for violations) clear violations that we witness.

Is there, or should there be, any accountability back to those of us who are members as to the actions of the board when it involves a clear violation of the rules by a moderator against fellow members?

 

[antiaging]

This is one of my pet peeves and is denies the omnipotence of God. God was not powerful enough to control printers and apprentices in their typesetting, so the early editions were full of mistakes.

It is nevertheless a big improvement over the bible being a banned book.
Roman catholicism banned the reading of the bible for a long time in the western rome controlled part of the Roman empire.
There was a time when people caught with the textus receptus or spreading it around would be killed thanks to Rome or the church of England.
Rome tried to wipe out the byzantine text because of its disagreements with their eclecitc mixes with the Alexandrian texts; they still could not wipe it out.

Here is another little poem for your amusement:

Last eve I paused beside a blacksmith's door
and heard the anvil ring the vesper chime.
Then lookin in I saw upon the floor,
Old hammers worn with beaten years of time.

How many anvils have you had, I said,
To wear and batter all these hammers, so.
Just one, he said, and then with twinkling eyes,
the anvil wears the hammers out you know.

And so I thought, The anvil of God's Word
For ages skeptic blows have beat upon.
Yet, though the noise of falling blows was heard,
The anvil is unharmed, the hammers GONE.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

CK4: This is one of my pet peeves and is denies the omnipotence of God. God was not powerful enough to control printers and apprentices in their typesetting, so the early editions were full of mistakes.

HP: Why should this be a pet peeve, and why does this in any way deny the omnipotence of God?? God was sovereign in His decision to allow man, as fallible and prone to deception and error that he is, to participate in the process of preserving His Word. It is NOT a question of God’s inabilities, but rather of His wisdom in choosing the means He did. Are you suggesting that God was not wise in allowing this responsibility to be carried out by fallible men, or are you saying that He did not incorporate fallible men in the process of preserving His Word?

If one starts asking questions as CK4 raises, they are also going to have a whole lot of other problems understanding the Sovereign hand of God as well. Shall we start with questions like, ‘If God is Sovereign and all powerful, why does He allow innocent babies to be butchered at the hands of the abortionist?’ etc. etc.

Of a truth, just because God allows error to creep in to His Word, or allows evil of all sorts and varieties to carry on seemingly non-stop, it does not suggest in any way that God is not all powerful, and could stop, if He saw it in the best interest of His Infinite Wisdom to do so, in light of His Omniscience and ability to see the end from the beginning and understand in totality His plans and purposes to be fulfilled.

No Larry, printing errors, typesetting problems, and yes deliberate errors and misuse of the sacred Word of God in no wise unsettles my firm belief in an Omniscient and Omnipotent God. Neither does it in any way disprove that such mistakes and acts of willful twisting were allowed to be made by God Himself, with purposes for such latitude granted to fallible man for reasons known only to Himself.

Even on this very list He allows for some to misuse, abuse, and misapproriate His sacred word. He does not always send fire and brimestone, but calls upon faithful men and women to contend for the truth and for the faith once delivered to the saints.

Ps 8:4 What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?" ....... and may I ask myself, 'and that Thou would see fit to use him?' Oh but thank God He does!

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

HP: Why should this be a pet peeve, and why does this in any way deny the omnipotence of God?? God was sovereign in His decision to allow man, as fallible and prone to deception and error that he is, to participate in the process of preserving His Word. It is NOT a question of God’s inabilities, but rather of His wisdom in choosing the means He did. Are you suggesting that God was not wise in allowing this responsibility to be carried out by fallible men, or are you saying that He did not incorporate fallible men in the process of preserving His Word?

If one starts asking questions as CK4 raises, they are also going to have a whole lot of other problems understanding the Sovereign hand of God as well. Shall we start with questions like, ‘If God is Sovereign and all powerful, why does He allow innocent babies to be butchered at the hands of the abortionist?’ etc. etc.

Of a truth, just because God allows error to creep in to His Word, or allows evil of all sorts and varieties to carry on seemingly non-stop, it does not suggest in any way that God is not all powerful, and could stop, if He saw it in the best interest of His Infinite Wisdom to do so, in light of His Omniscience and ability to see the end from the beginning and understand in totality His plans and purposes to be fulfilled.

No Larry, printing errors, typesetting problems, and yes deliberate errors and misuse of the sacred Word of God in no wise unsettles my firm belief in an Omniscient and Omnipotent God. Neither does it in any way disprove that such mistakes and acts of willful twisting were allowed to be made by God Himself, with purposes for such latitude granted to fallible man for reasons known only to Himself.

Even on this very list He allows for some to misuse, abuse, and misapproriate His sacred word. He does not always send fire and brimestone, but calls upon faithful men and women to contend for the truth and for the faith once delivered to the saints.

Ps 8:4 What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?" ....... and may I ask myself, 'and that Thou would see fit to use him?' Oh but thank God He does!

You misunderstand my point/ The hyper-KJV crowd claim that God inspired and protected His word through the translators, but they did not protect it from the printers. I don't believe human translation is perfect, because people make mistakes. Hod still protects His word.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

CK4: You misunderstand my point/ The hyper-KJV crowd claim that God inspired and protected His word through the translators, but they did not protect it from the printers. I don't believe human translation is perfect, because people make mistakes. God still protects His word.

HP: So would your position be that God does not protect His Word through at least some translators, or possibly that God preserves His Word through all translators, or that translators cannot or have not been adept at injecting their own bias into the Word of God via omissions, changes, etc?

If errors can be pointed to as the product of honest mistakes and or printing errors, do you feel that that somehow justifies, or places on the same level of error, all the finagling that has been done through higher criticism, obvious use of corrupted texts, designed and implemented intentionally by the devise of men for purposes known only to themselves, ………or are all changes and omissions the mere results of unintentional mistakes?

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Translation is a human effort - full stop.

Some translation are admittedly entered into with a bias (NWT for example), but the vast majority are done fully intending to present the best possible translation of God's word.

I prefer a formal equivalent translation of the traditional textual body.

This idea that God only superintended the translation of one 17th century English translation is, to my mind, patently absurd, and if He did he would have given us a truly perfect Bible by protecting it from printer errors. Otherwise we have a perfect Bible full of mistakes.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

CK4: This is one of my pet peeves and is denies the omnipotence of God. God was not powerful enough to control printers and apprentices in their typesetting, so the early editions were full of mistakes.

HP: In spite of your explanation, it does not help the insinuations your remark genders. You clearly say that what ever it is that you are addressing and regardless of why you are addressing it, it still ‘denies the Omnipotence of God.” The clear implication is that such a belief cannot be correct because to believe as such, it would deny the omnipotence of God. It further suggests that if God is Omnipotoent, as He is, He would not allow whatever it is that others might fell that CK4 is addressing, to do that. If you deny that such is your clear implication of your remarks, are you saying then that God has no hand in the translation of His Word? Let’s proceed.

CK4: Translation is a human effort - full stop.

HP: I take from this that translation is without Divine help and is solely the product of man. Is that not precisely what your stated position is? That my friend is an absurd statement to make. Would you suggest that men can stand in a pulpit and preach from this mere product of man’s efforts inspired and aided by God? Can God inspire, help and direct the preaching from this translation that is the results of human effort “full stop” but yet impotent to direct the men, or at least some men, in the very penning of the words and thoughts of the original texts?? I am not trying to place words of ideas into this post that are not your own. I am simply pointing out that you are leaving the door wide open for justified misunderstandings.

CK4: Some translation are admittedly entered into with a bias (NWT for example), but the vast majority are done fully intending to present the best possible translation of God's word.

HP: So how did you come to that conclusion? Does God help you with such discernment, or are your comments “human effort, full stop?” If you believe you have the right to make that decision in the case of one so-called translation, then why would you have any problem with others that feel the same freedom concerning any or all others for that matter? Is there a limited amount of texts that one can feel are corrupt, or are we limited to say, just one could be corrupt through obvious bias or other reasons not yet explored?

CK4: I prefer a formal equivalent translation of the traditional textual body.

HP: That is an interesting statement, not just slightly tending on the subjective side I might add. The obvious glaring question is to what comprises this “traditional textual body?” Certainly nothing that follows modern textual criticism of the late century, that is for certain.

CK4: This idea that God only superintended the translation of one 17th century English translation is, to my mind, patently absurd, and if He did he would have given us a truly perfect Bible by protecting it from printer errors. Otherwise we have a perfect Bible full of mistakes.

HP: So what now is your position? I thought it was that all translation is human effort ‘full stop?’ Why would you not be consistent in your remarks by stating that it is error to believe that God superintended to any? Why single out those that might believe that one, as opposed to others, is ‘absurd’ for believing that God superintended over any translation? Why not just say that it is absurd to believe that God superintends over any and all translations of His Word? If you would make yourself clear, others might no be so apt to misunderstand or misrepresent your ideas, and less likely to see yourself as biased against a particular view without due cause.

I have a couple of questions to ask the reader. This in no wise represents how I feel, but rather I am simply asking a question or two. Do you believe that God does NOT superintend over the translation process, ever? What, if anything, stops a Sovereign God from superintending over the translation of His Word? If a Sovereign God is permitted to do this by those on this board, could it also be possible that He might have chosen one or say a few as opposed to all or none to superintend over?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

CK4: This idea that God only superintended the translation of one 17th century English translation is, to my mind, patently absurd, and if He did he would have given us a truly perfect Bible by protecting it from printer errors. Otherwise we have a perfect Bible full of mistakes.

HP: Yet another question might be, does a Sovereign God have to execute His desire absolutely if He chooses to be involved in the superintending of a translation, or can a Sovereign God choose what will be carried out 'absolutely' while choosing other issues or things to have human input including what might be said to be 'error?' What I am asking is it an ‘all or nothing’ proposition or can God limit His superintending to allow the fingerprint of man’s efforts also involved into the process?

It might be likened, however in a somewhat crude illustration, to a professional concrete finisher creating what in his world of concrete finishing might be termed a ‘masterpiece,’ yet allows the hand of a mere child to be imprinted in the yet still malleable concrete in order to preserve the input of a child being somewhat possibly involved in the process?

 

[Ed Edwards]

Search for the first appearance of: Constantine "50 bibles" "Roman Catholic Church"

The 50 Bibles are not found in:

http://www.sdadefend.com/MINDEX-Resource Library/Our Authorized Bible Vindicated.pdf

OUR AUTHORIZED BIBLE VINDICATED
by BENJAMIN G. WILKINSON, PH.D. 1930

(I think the 1930 aught to have it, if it came from earlier than 1930???

The '50 Bibles' are found in:

http://www.herbert-w-armstrong.org/Miscellaneous/Bible Versions.pdf

I couldn't find a date. Armstrong quoted Rev. Samuel Gipp right after mentioning the 50 Bibles ordered by Const.
"Some authorities claim ... " - sorry, uncheckable source - suspect claim.

Here: 'The Minority Texts' undated at:

http://www.angelfire.com/la2/prophet1/mintext1.html

it says:
"An Understandable History Of The Bible, Rev. Samuel Gipp writes of ... of a batch of 50 Bibles ordered from Egypt by the Roman Emperor Constantine:"
I can't find an online An Understandable History Of The Bible. The statement seems to be a copy of Armstrong's work

I can't see studying this further. A Seventh Day Adventist DROPOUT, Herbert W. Armstrong, seems to have invented the "batch of 50 Bibles ordered from Egypt". But I didn't run into Armstrong's works until 1973 and don't recall the 50 Bibles from Armstrong.


1611kingjamesbible.com/codex_Vaticanus.html
// Some authorities claim that it was one of a batch of 50 Bibles ordered from Egypt by the Roman Emperor Constantine // followed by a quote of Gipp

http://www.libertyparkusafd.org/lp/Burgon/reports\The Minority Texts.htm
// Some authorities claim that it was
one of a batch of 50 Bibles ordered from Egypt by the Roman Emperor Constantine // followed by a quote of Gipp


The same text has been converted into french at:

http://www.latrompette.net/post/A011-traductions-bibliques.htm

// Quelques sommités affirment qu'il s'agit d'un exemplaire d'une série de 50 Bibles commandées de l'Égypte par l'empereur romain Constantin : d'où sa belle apparence et les peaux coûteuses utilisées pour faire les pages. // (I included the part about the pretty pages which seems to be part of the article.

I first ran across the 50 Bibles in a Comic Book:

SABOTAGE? (Chick Comics, 1979) page: 22

I couldn't find the 'source books' in 1980-1981 though I had the rich resources of the University of Oklahoma (OU) Library at my disposal. It is easier now to find stuff on the internet.

Here is the one for the '50 Bibles':

CONSTANTINE "Ramsay Mac Mullen" 112

I found several references in Google for that line

This page:
http://www.harrypottermagic.org/01eBook-Library/Real Myths False Realities.pdf

speaks of 'Real Myths and False Realities" by Dr. Carol M. Humphreys when?

and says (copied by hand from page 21):

// Therefore, when Constantine requested Eusebius to make him 50 Bibles, naturally, he chose what he had followed already, the Bible of Origin. Eusevius, who later was called Sain Jerome, or simpley Jerome, made this translation, called the Latin Vulgate. This was made up of the Greek Septuagint and Origin's New Testament, alrhough the Septuagint he used was one that had been translated back to Hebrew. //

I'll check more into the source of the '50 Bibles' story.

 

[DHK]

HP: Yet another question might be, does a Sovereign God have to execute His desire absolutely if He chooses to be involved in the superintending of a translation, or can a Sovereign God choose what will be carried out 'absolutely' while choosing other issues or things to have human input including what might be said to be 'error?' What I am asking is it an ‘all or nothing’ proposition or can God limit His superintending to allow the fingerprint of man’s efforts also involved into the process?

It might be likened, however in a somewhat crude illustration, to a professional concrete finisher creating what in his world of concrete finishing might be termed a ‘masterpiece,’ yet allows the hand of a mere child to be imprinted in the yet still malleable concrete in order to preserve the input of a child being somewhat possibly involved in the process?

No matter how hard he tries the professional concrete finisher will never make anything that is "perfect." Someone will always be able to detect a flaw somewhere. The very fact that he is a fallible man who makes fallible mistakes dictates this. We are not perfect beings. Only God is perfect.

There is no such thing (nor ever will be) as a perfect translation, or for that matter, a perfect sermon. There is no such thing as an inspired translation, or an inspired sermon, in the sense that every word comes directly from God as did the words of the Bible come from God to the Apostles. The canon of Scripture was closed by the end of the first century and God does not give inspired revelation to anyone these days. Anyone that claims he has inspired revelation from God is a heretic. The only inspired Scriptures that we had were the original manuscripts written by the prophets and apostles that have now been destroyed. Concerning just the NT, we have over 5,000 existing copies, in which the Word of God is preserved. God has preserved his Word. We still have the preserved Word of God today. But the inspired manuscripts of the Apostles are no more. There is no one that can claim inspiration. An no translation that can claim to be inspired. Meaning is always lost from one translation to another: in Bible translations, as well as in ordinary speech. There is no such thing as perfect translation when doing any translation of anything between two languages.

 

[Askjo]

Originally Posted by antiaging
This causes that most of the modern versions, like rsv, nasb, niv to be different from the King James version in about 5% of important places that pertain to Christian doctrine

.


The above statement is a falsehood.

It's just sad you believe this junk.

Agreed with Antiaging.

 

[Askjo]

Incorrect. Did you know the term "Lucifer" came into the translations through Jerome and the Latin Vulgate? Oh, and apparently you have not seen the original KJV1611 because "day starre" is written in the very side of the verse in the translators notes for alternate readings (which was in the true KJV 1611 but not in the new versions - maybe showing the later printers bias against God's Word?). There's a lot more really good reading here: http://www.kjv-only.com/isa14_12.html

Of course the attack on the brothers who translated the Bible into the NIV is quite harsh and uncalled for. Want to hear what one ACTUALLY said?

"The Hebrew for "morning star" was translated "Lucifer" in the Latin Vulgate, and the KJV then borrowed Lucifer (from the Latin) in it's rendering. Although "morning star" is the correct rendering, scholars have debated who is meant by the words (whether the king of Babylon or Satan or both). Christ, of course, is the true Morning Star. Numbers 24:17, 1 Peter 1:19, Revelation 22:16.

The link is where you learn from a wrong person.

 

[Askjo]

Calling a NIV a Perversion is Blaspheming against the Word of God.
And while it seems this is allowed down here amongst denominations that are not Baptist, those of us that are Baptist that participates in the versions forum realizes that calling any version of the Bible a perversion is a sin.

Sin? Well, if NIV removed the names of our Lord Jesus Christ in the NT 200 times, did NIV reverence Jesus? Did these NIV translators reverence Him?

 

[annsni]

Sin? Well, if NIV removed the names of our Lord Jesus Christ in the NT 200 times, did NIV reverence Jesus? Did these NIV translators reverence Him?

I don't think they did. They have "Jesus" in place of the KJVs "he" 207 times, "Jesus" in place of the KJV's "him" 90 times, "Jesus" in place of the KJV's "his" 3 times, "Jesus and his disciples" over the KJV's "they" 3 times, "Jesus" in place of the KJV's "whom" once, replaces the KJV's "Lord" with either "Jesus" "Lord Jesus" or "Jesus Christ" three times, replaces the KJV's "this" or "this man" with "Jesus" twice, and translates "Jesus" in 6 verses where the KJV doesn't even use ANY word representing Jesus at all.
(from http://www.kjv-only.com/jesusnew.html)

So maybe the KJV writers didn't reference Jesus? Looks like the NIV has "Jesus" placed about 300 more often often than the KJV.

 

[annsni]

The link is where you learn from a wrong person.

And your proof would be? If you do not take his information, here might be some more for you:

http://www.kjvonly.org/doug/kutilek_notes_on_lucifer.htm
http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cach...JV&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=13&gl=us&client=firefox-a


The information about the method of translating by an ACTUAL NIV translator is taken from NIV Accuracy Defined which can be viewed at http://www.ibs.org/niv/accuracy/NIV_AccuracyDefined.pdf

 

[Rippon]

I don't think they did. They have "Jesus" in place of the KJVs "he" 207 times, "Jesus" in place of the KJV's "him" 90 times, "Jesus" in place of the KJV's "his" 3 times, "Jesus and his disciples" over the KJV's "they" 3 times, "Jesus" in place of the KJV's "whom" once, replaces the KJV's "Lord" with either "Jesus" "Lord Jesus" or "Jesus Christ" three times, replaces the KJV's "this" or "this man" with "Jesus" twice, and translates "Jesus" in 6 verses where the KJV doesn't even use ANY word representing Jesus at all.
(from http://www.kjv-only.com/jesusnew.html)

So maybe the KJV writers didn't reference Jesus? Looks like the NIV has "Jesus" placed about 300 more often often than the KJV.

Thanks again for that helpful info Ann.Here's what D.A.Carson said in his book :The King James Version Debate :

...it is important to realize that even in the KJV,the Gospels speak of "Jesus"absolutely considerably more often than they speak of the "Lord Jesus," "Jesus Christ," or the "Lord Jesus Christ." I cannot see where the Scriptures teach that one designation is more reverent than another.I suspect such value judgments spring more from popular piety than from the Word of God.