KJV and the modern versions

[Ed Edwards]

The Gospel of Ed 14:32 (EOV = Ed's Own Bible)
Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall get creamed on BB.

Rom 14:19 (KJV1611 Edition):
Let vs therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edifie an other.

1Co 10:23 (KJV1611 Edition):
All things are lawfull for me, but all things are not expedient: All things are lawfull for mee, but all things edifie not.

1Th 5:11-13 (KJV1611 Edition):
Wherefore, comfort your selues together, and edifie one another, euen as also ye doe.
12 And we beseech you, brethren, to know them which labour among you, and are ouer you in the Lord, and admonish you:
13 And to esteeme them very highly in loue for their workes sake, and be at peace among your selues.


Yet we cannot agree together to study diligently the Word of God determined to agree about it.

 

[D28guy]

I am really only interested in using copies of the scriptures that are somewhat "traditional", for lack of a better word.

All of the *extremely* different sounding versions that seek to radically update it into "modern" ways of talking leave me completely cold. Thats not to say they dont have Gods annointing on them, because they do, but they just dont work for me.

I personally prefer either the New King James or the New American Standard versions, with the NKJ being my favorite.

I NEVER use the old King James. ("Thus sayeth", "thus speaketh", etc)

And if I am ever in a situation where the old "King Jameseth" is all that is available, and I need to read from it, I actually automatically...without even thinking about it...translate it into the New King James while reading. :laugh:


Mike

 

[Rippon]

I am really only interested in using copies of the scriptures that are somewhat "traditional", for lack of a better word.


I personally prefer either the New King James or the New American Standard versions, with the NKJ being my favorite.

And if I am ever in a situation where the old "King Jameseth" is all that is available, and I need to read from it, I actually automatically...without even thinking about it...translate it into the New King James while reading.

Sometimes the NKJ needs translating too.In that case I simply filter it through the lens of Today's New International Version.

I'll give some examples of phrases found in the "N"= NKJ and then "T" = TNIV below.

Jeremiah 2:25

N : For I have loved aliens

T : I love foreign gods

Jeremiah 2:36

N : Why do you gad about

T : Why do you go about

Luke 16:9

N : make friends for yourselves by unrighteous mammon

T : use worldly wealth to gain friends for yourselves

Romans 15:1

N : the scruples of the weak

T : the failings of the weak

1 Thessalonians 1:9

N : what manner of entry we had to you

T : what happened when we visited you

2 Peter 1:11

N : for so an entrance will be supplied to you abundantly

T : and you will receive a rich welcome

2 Peter 2:10

N : they are not afraid to speak evil of dignitaries

T : they are not afraid to heap abuse on celestial beings

1 John 4:9

N : His only begotten Son

T : his one and only Son

[ Of course many more references could be cited where the word "begotten" is used in the NKJ yet the meaning is obscure to many who recite it dutifully.]

So certainly the NKJ is an improvement over the KJV.But the former is in dire need of an update even with TR as the base text for the New Testament.( I realize I gave some Old Testament examples in this post.)

The NKJ is too dated in its awkward English.It's really similiar to the ESV in that respect.

 

[Pastor Larry]

HP: We are still back to how do we know what texts are the most accurate thence inspired?

But that's different than a translation question, which was the original question, if I recall correctly.

HP: Are you pointing us in a circle?

No, just not repeating myself.

HP: It may be a little piece of a very large pie, but a little leaven leaveneth the whole pie.

I don't think you make pies with leaven.

Tell us Pastor, how does it prove that getting the oldest available manuscripts are closer to the source of truth?

It doesn't. There is no proof (as I said). It is probability, and the probability is that fewer copies means less chance of error in copying. It is the same principle you practice when you hear something from someone, and try to go to the source to find out if it is true or not.

It is a well known fact that the best manuscripts are often the most used and more often than not destroyed by such use. It is another possibility held by some well known scholars, that the originals of the best manuscripts were in fact destroyed after copies were made and after they had fallen into disrepair, while corrupted manuscripts that were not used could have well survived longer, thus appearing to be older.

But that has never been proven. It is well known that some manuscripts that don't exist never existed. To argue that they don't exist because they were used so much is, quite frankly, a nonsensical argument in terms of proof. That's like saying I can prove I have a $100 bill in my pocket by showing you that it's not there now. The evidence for the prior existence of something cannot be its non-existence now.

Older surviving manuscripts have no weight simply by their age as being closer to the originals.

Of course they do.

The fact is that no matter what side of this issue you fall on, it is often the theories of man that we are laying our faith in when it comes to deciding who is correct.

To some degree, yes.

When I see the divisiveness and confusion wrought upon the church as a direct result of the proliferation of translations and versions, it is not hard for me to decide on a solid translation that has guided the church for centuries.

In my ministry, by far the greatest confusion about the Bible is the result of the KJVO crowd who constantly attack the word of God and put doubt in people's minds about whether or not they have the word of God. That is, in some cases, destroying the faith of God's little ones.

Thank God for the KJV.

Absolutely.

A bible for the common man that one does not have to ask for permission to use, copy or distribute.

The KJV is not really a Bible for the common man anymore, since no one I know (common or uncommon) speaks that language. YOu don't have to ask permission to use or distribute any Bible. You simply have to buy one and read it and give it away. Copying is different matter, but one that hardly testifies to which is a better translation. You can use, copy, and distribute the ASV without permission as well.

Have you ever wondered why the drug companies despise health foods so much, and why they don’t try and market the natural ones that are known to be effective?

No.

You don’t suppose that the same reasons might apply in some manner in the world of printing and advocating modern versions of the Scriptures do you?

No.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

ED: Yet we cannot agree together to study diligently the Word of God determined to agree about it.

HP: Tell me Ed how 'serious study of the Word of God' can take place when we cannot even decide what is and what is not the Word of God, whether or not it is inspired of God or the mere additions by men? Take this important verse for instance. Ro 8:1 ¶ There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Now I would like for you to give me a definitive answer as to whether or not there is no condemnation to those who are said to be in Christ Jesus, or whether or not it only applies to those that walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit? I do not desire to know the opinions of men, I want the Word of God on the matter. If you are in doubt, don't take me down any rabbit trails. Give me a straight answer.

I will tell you on the authority of God''s Word, without a shadow of a doubt, that only those that walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit are devoid of condemnation in their lives. That is the Word of God in spite of all the naysayers and those that foment confusion in the minds of the listener with their modern translations that infuse doubt.

Pastor Larry, give us God's final Word on this passage. If you don't have enough faith to do it, just say so.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Pastor Larry, give us God's final Word on this passage. If you don't have enough faith to do it, just say so.

I wasn't aware there was any confusion. Are you confused about this verse?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Pastor Larry: I wasn't aware there was any confusion. Are you confused about this verse?

HP: I believe from my response the listener can tell that I have no confusion as to what saith the Word of God. Why do you avoid the straight forward question? I have a hard time believing that you are that uninformed or naïve.

 

[Pastor Larry]

I believe from my response the listener can tell that I have no confusion as to what saith the Word of God. Why do you avoid the straight forward question? I have a hard time believing that you are that uninformed or naïve.

I don't think I am uninformed or naive on this topic for the most part (though there is much I do not know I am sure). But having said that, I didn't avoid the question. I am not even sure what the question is in terms of translation or text. There is no real debate about that verse or its meaning so far as I can tell. The only debate is about whether or not we should interpolate two phrases from v. 4. The general consensus is that we should not since there is no explanation for their subtraction if original, but there is an explanation for their existence as addition. Again, this is something that you would need to be familiar with the arguments to understand.

Generally speaking, the reading is most likely to be accurate that gives rise to the other readings. So in this case, if the longer reading were original would it likely have been deleted by a scribe? No. Conversely, would it likely have been added? Yes. So the probability is that the shorter reading is more likely to be accurate. In either case, the teaching of the passage is the same. It does not affect doctrine.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Rippon:
"Sometimes the NKJ needs translating too.In that case I simply filter it through the lens of Today's New International Version.

I'll give some examples of phrases found in the "N"= NKJ and then "T" = TNIV below."


GE:
I phoned my wife to help me with the spelling; but she was in a meeting -- couldn't speak to me. So please, correct my spelling, but here's what I wanted to say:

'Sometimes the NKJ needs translating too.In that case I simply filter it through the lens of Today's New International Version.

I'll give some examples of phrases found in the "N"= NKJ --- Mr Jyckal; and then "T" = TNIV below. --- Mr Hyde.' --- See post 151.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

HP:
"
Quote:
ED: Yet we cannot agree together to study diligently the Word of God determined to agree about it.


HP: Tell me Ed how 'serious study of the Word of God' can take place when we cannot even decide what is and what is not the Word of God, whether or not it is inspired of God or the mere additions by men? Take this important verse for instance. Ro 8:1 ¶ There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Now I would like for you to give me a definitive answer as to whether or not there is no condemnation to those who are said to be in Christ Jesus, or whether or not it only applies to those that walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit? I do not desire to know the opinions of men, I want the Word of God on the matter. If you are in doubt, don't take me down any rabbit trails. Give me a straight answer."

GE:
I think it was Alfonso (Merchant of Venice??) who said: "Much ado about nothing!"
Alfonso, you take the laurels!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Rippon:
"Sometimes the NKJ needs translating too.In that case I simply filter it through the lens of Today's New International Version.

I'll give some examples of phrases found in the "N"= NKJ and then "T" = TNIV below."


GE:
I phoned my wife to help me with the spelling; but she was in a meeting -- couldn't speak to me. So please, correct my spelling, but here's what I wanted to say:

'Sometimes the NKJ needs translating too.In that case I simply filter it through the lens of Today's New International Version.

I'll give some examples of phrases found in the "N"= NKJ --- Mr Jyckal; and then "T" = TNIV below. --- Mr Hyde.'

Got it! That best of all dictionaries, Collins 1979, Jekyll and Hyde ....

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

PL: I don't think I am uninformed or naive on this topic for the most part....
It does not affect doctrine.

HP: An amazing anwer I would say! You certainly have a way with words when it comes to the avoidance of giving a straight forward answer. For you to say that either way the doctrine is not affected is about as naïve as one could imagine. It does in fact, clearly and without question, have an affect on the doctrine one derives from that verse.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Heavenly Pilgrim: // Take this important verse for instance. Ro 8:1 ¶ There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. //

I humbly request that you help me find that verse among my copies of the Word of God. Here are some copies of Roman 8:1 that I have:

Here is a parallel electronic Bible I got from e-sword.com

Rom 8:1 (GB)
Now then there is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Iesus, which walke not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Rom 8:1 (KJV-1611)
There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Iesus, who walke not after the flesh, but after the spirit.

Rom 8:1 (KJV+Strong's numbers)
There is therefore686 now3568 no3762 condemnation2631 to them3588 which are in1722 Christ5547 Jesus,2424 who walk4043 not3361 after2596 the flesh,4561 but235 after2596 the Spirit.4151

These three Bibles are somewhat unclear about which 'Spirit' or 'spirit' to walk after. What is your (the one who desires to respond) opinion? It is my opinion that the KJV1611 Edition is WRONG to put 'spirit' when the Word of God said 'Spirit'. Somebody caught that mistaken error by the KJV1769 time and put 'Spirit' back in. I an many other others say that the KJV1611 had the wrong word there in Romans 8:1. What is your (the one who desires to respond) opinion?


1. Do you (the one who desires to respond) believe that one can be 'in Christ' 'after the flesh' EXCLUSIVE OR 'in Christ' 'after the Spirit'?

2. Do you believe that one can be 'in Christ' 'after the flesh' INCLUSIVE OR 'in Christ' 'after the Spirit'?

3. Do you believe that one can be 'in Christ' 'after the flesh' AND 'in Christ' 'after the Spirit'?

Depending on which one one believes this means, one will get their doctrine here. (Some say: Depending on your doctrine, you can figure out what this means.) I personally believe that #3 is the only correct answer. I believe that this verse is to the one 'in Christ'. So the only debatable part is if the one who follows Jesus is 'after the Spirit' or not 'after the Spirit'. I believe that if I (a Messanic) can do things 'after the Spirit' or NOT 'after the Spirit'. The individual saint cannot be condemned for doing that which is 'after the Spirit'; can be condemned on this earthly 'hitch' for that which is 'after the flesh'. For example, I smoked for 40 years as a Christian and have dehabilating COPD (look it up in Google) - I now am 'after the Spirit' regarding smoking tobacco. I was condemned for my 'after the flesh' and suffer the consequences of it. I was never condemned for what I did 'after the Spirit'.

By contrast some will say this which contradicts half the Bible:
THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT IS IN ERROR:
if you do 'after the flesh' then you can loose your salvation.
THE PRECEEDING STATEMENT IS FALSE.

THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT IS TRUE:

 

[annsni]

HP: Tell me Ed how 'serious study of the Word of God' can take place when we cannot even decide what is and what is not the Word of God, whether or not it is inspired of God or the mere additions by men? Take this important verse for instance. Ro 8:1 ¶ There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Now I would like for you to give me a definitive answer as to whether or not there is no condemnation to those who are said to be in Christ Jesus, or whether or not it only applies to those that walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit? I do not desire to know the opinions of men, I want the Word of God on the matter. If you are in doubt, don't take me down any rabbit trails. Give me a straight answer.

I will tell you on the authority of God''s Word, without a shadow of a doubt, that only those that walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit are devoid of condemnation in their lives. That is the Word of God in spite of all the naysayers and those that foment confusion in the minds of the listener with their modern translations that infuse doubt.

Pastor Larry, give us God's final Word on this passage. If you don't have enough faith to do it, just say so.

Well, I can speak to this I think. I have the second part of the verse in both my NIV and my ESV. However, it properly notates that it's only in some manuscripts. One of the translators of the NIV explains their decision in this matter:

"Since the earliest Greek manuscripts do not have this reading, most scholars that a later copyist inserted it here from verse 4, where it belongs because of solid support in all the manuscripts and ancient witnesses."

It is important to note that the Bible was not written with verse or chapter deliniations. It was not even written in sentences. Read the entire passage in ANY translation and you will get the truth.

Here is the passage in my ESV (bolding mine):

1There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.[a] 2For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. 3For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin,[c] he condemned sin in the flesh, 4in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. 5For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. 6For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. 7For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. 8Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

a) Romans 8:1 Some manuscripts add who walk not according to the flesh (but according to the Spirit)
b) Romans 8:2 Some manuscripts me
c) Romans 8:3 Or and as a sin offering

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Ed, being a peacemaker is not simply declaring peace at all cost. At times it involves coming to grips with the reality of stark contradictions and contending fro truth. Failure to address glaring contradictions will never lead to lasting peace. It will always lead to confusion and uncertainty in the end.

 

[Pastor Larry]

An amazing anwer I would say! You certainly have a way with words when it comes to the avoidance of giving a straight forward answer. For you to say that either way the doctrine is not affected is about as naïve as one could imagine. It does in fact, clearly and without question, have an affect on the doctrine one derives from that verse.

I gave a straightforward answer. I believe the shorter reading is better, based on the evidence. And doctrine is not affected. The doctrine if clearly in vv. 1-16. To say the doctrine is affected is to ignore the fact that Paul didn't write in verses but in paragraphs. It would be like separating my first sentence from the rest of this post, and pretending that my meaning was affected because I didn't say it all in the first verse.

Can't you see the nonsense of that? That belies a fundamental misunderstanding of bibliology. No one in the first century would have come up with your view of this verse because they didn't have verses. We need to learn to ignore the numbers except for finding our place and look at the doctrine as a whole.

 

[Pastor Larry]

At times it involves coming to grips with the reality of stark contradictions and contending fro truth. Failure to address glaring contradictions will never lead to lasting peace. It will always lead to confusion and uncertainty in the end.

I wish you would take this to heart. Your failure to address the glaring contradictions between your view and the Bible is creating confusion and uncertainty not only for yourself but also for those who hear you. And that is very dangerous not only for them, but for those who are affected by your comments here. You are leading others astray and creating doubt and unbelief in them as well. You should take that more seriously.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Ed Edwards:
"These three Bibles are somewhat unclear about which 'Spirit' or 'spirit' to walk after. What is your (the one who desires to respond) opinion? It is my opinion that the KJV1611 Edition is WRONG to put 'spirit' when the Word of God said 'Spirit'. Somebody caught that mistaken error by the KJV1769 time and put 'Spirit' back in. I an many other others say that the KJV1611 had the wrong word there in Romans 8:1. What is your (the one who desires to respond) opinion?"

GE:
There is nothing wrong with 'spirit', for it is assumed the 'spirit' of the regenerate or reborn man --- who was born of the Spirit, with a capital letter, the 'Holy Spirit'. NOW, that man thus born again by the Spirit, 'walks' or 'acts' or 'lives' according to that new principle of divine life within him, and he "walks after the spirit". Note, I wrote 'divine', not 'Divine' --- same thing.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Follow Steaver's new thread, 'Born of God'.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Pastor Larry: Your......

HP: Your personal attack is clearly noted. Try honoring the rules of this forum by setting aside such unkind and unsupported personal attacks, and instead take a specific issue you feel that I am in error and are misleading others on, verify that it is true concerning my beliefs, and then set forth clear evidence to the contrary as one should do in any reasonable debate.