KJV Only Folks: What Bible translations should non-English speakers use?

[Amy.G]

Now, if "sarx" means "sinful nature" as the NIV translates in Romans 7:5, then the NIV is saying Jesus had a sin nature, although only folks who know the Greek would realize this.

The KJB consistently translates "sarx" as "flesh" in both Romans and 1 John. It does not say, or imply that Jesus had a sin nature.

No not at all. Let's go back to Strong's.

sarx
probably from the base of 4563; flesh (as stripped of the skin), i.e. (strictly) the meat of an animal (as food), or (by extension) the body (as opposed to the soul (or spirit), or as the symbol of what is external, or as the means of kindred), or (by implication) human nature (with its frailties (physically or morally) and passions), or (specially), a human being (as such):--carnal(-ly, + -ly minded), flesh(-ly).

If you restrict sarx to only flesh/skin and bones, then we would have to say that when are in the spirit, we don't have any flesh or bones anymore.
Context, context, context. To be "in the flesh" also means to be carnally minded or to have a sinful nature.

 

[Winman]

Before we move on to more "corruptions", what do you say about the versions I quoted? Wycliffe's in particular. Is it corrupt?

I am not familiar enough with that version to point out any differences, but over the years I have seen many differences between the KJB and many of the MVs like the NIV, the ESV, or the RSV.

I have never spent any time reading or comparing Wycliffe's, so I can't comment on it.

And I don't want to move on to more corruptions. Not that I can't, but it never seems to make a difference, even when you point out major differences, most who hold to the MVs simply blow them off. It is not my job to lead someone through the scriptures. The differences are there, and there are many. Anyone who spends a fair amount of time in scripture will easily spot them. That is how I came to study this issue many years ago, I read several versions and immediately noticed they were very different and often gave different understandings. They are not the same, and anybody who says otherwise is very uninformed.

 

[Winman]

No not at all. Let's go back to Strong's.

sarx
probably from the base of 4563; flesh (as stripped of the skin), i.e. (strictly) the meat of an animal (as food), or (by extension) the body (as opposed to the soul (or spirit), or as the symbol of what is external, or as the means of kindred), or (by implication) human nature (with its frailties (physically or morally) and passions), or (specially), a human being (as such):--carnal(-ly, + -ly minded), flesh(-ly).

If you restrict sarx to only flesh/skin and bones, then we would have to say that when are in the spirit, we don't have any flesh or bones anymore.
Context, context, context. To be "in the flesh" also means to be carnally minded or to have a sinful nature.

Amy, the NIV is inconsistent. If they are going to translate sarx to say sinful nature in Romans 7:5, then they should also translate sarx to say sinful nature in 1 John 4:2-3. The same word can't mean two different things.

The KJB simply says flesh. We are born flesh and so was Jesus. The KJB does not teach Original Sin, but the NIV does. The NIV also teaches Total Inability, because it says we are "controlled" by the sinful nature. The KJB (or ESV) do not say that.

These are just some of the many differences. A person who reads the NIV is of course going to believe in both Original Sin and Total Inability if they read Romans 7:5, but this verse does not teach that.

But then the NIV is very careful not to translate sarx as sinful nature in 1 John 4. Very disingenuous. Of course, they are depending on the fact that most people don't have a clue and won't know the difference. People are being fed the author's presuppositions and are not even aware of it. I call that corrupt.

This is why folks believe so many false doctrines.

 

[Amy.G]

I am not familiar enough with that version to point out any differences, but over the years I have seen many differences between the KJB and many of the MVs like the NIV, the ESV, or the RSV.

You should be familiar with it as it is part of the glorious history of the English bible!

Yes, there are differences in translations. There are even differences in the various updatings of the KJV! That does not make them corrupt.

I have never spent any time reading or comparing Wycliffe's, so I can't comment on it.

You should. You should study where our English bibles come from and the many people who gave their lives to get the bible in the hands of the people.

And I don't want to move on to more corruptions. Not that I can't, but it never seems to make a difference, even when you point out major differences, most who hold to the MVs simply blow them off. It is not my job to lead someone through the scriptures.

It is your job though to prove your accusations.

I have not blown off anything. I've responded reasonably and intelligently, using proven, basic study tools that any bible student can understand. In fact the software that I use for all my copy and pastes is KJV only. :laugh:
It's called Sword Searcher.

The differences are there, and there are many. Anyone who spends a fair amount of time in scripture will easily spot them. That is how I came to study this issue many years ago, I read several versions and immediately noticed they were very different and often gave different understandings. They are not the same, and anybody who says otherwise is very uninformed.

Yes, there are differences, but that doesn't mean they are wrong. In order to prove they are wrong, you must compare them to the original languages, not other translations. That is simply common sense.


I love the KJV. I read from it everyday. But to claim ALL other translations are corrupt is wrong and slanderous.

 

[Winman]

You should be familiar with it as it is part of the glorious history of the English bible!

Yes, there are differences in translations. There are even differences in the various updatings of the KJV! That does not make them corrupt.


You should. You should study where our English bibles come from and the many people who gave their lives to get the bible in the hands of the people.



It is your job though to prove your accusations.

I have not blown off anything. I've responded reasonably and intelligently, using proven, basic study tools that any bible student can understand. In fact the software that I use for all my copy and pastes is KJV only. :laugh:
It's called Sword Searcher.





Yes, there are differences, but that doesn't mean they are wrong. In order to prove they are wrong, you must compare them to the original languages, not other translations. That is simply common sense.


I love the KJV. I read from it everyday. But to claim ALL other translations are corrupt is wrong and slanderous.

I do not have to study every version. I studied years ago how the KJB and MVs came to be and was satisfied the KJB was the accurate version in English.

And you are something else. I remember it was you that posted that one MV you read made you believe it was a sin to get angry for any reason whatsoever, and it was the KJB that showed you that interpretation is error.

You absolutely got a different understanding from one of the MVs. Now today you have reversed your stance.

Amy, there are dozens of sites that show the differences between the KJB and MVs and how many differences affect doctrine. I am not going to waste my time pointing out these major differences when you simply ignore them. If you are sincerely interested in this, you can easily look this up online. It was far more difficult for me when I studied this issue over 30 years ago.

You are indeed blowing off what I have showed you. The inconsistent translation of the word "sarx" in the NIV is a MAJOR difference that affects doctrine.

 

[Amy.G]

And you are something else. I remember it was you that posted that one MV you read made you believe it was a sin to get angry for any reason whatsoever, and it was the KJB that showed you that interpretation is error.

Well, I will give you that one. I never claimed to be right all the time. But I cannot claim that all MV's are corrupt. That is just going too far. As I said, I love the KJV and read from it everyday.

 

[John of Japan]

I think the crux of the argument from those who have honestly evaluated this is that the NKJV often makes translational choices of undisputed passages in the same way what is more like some of the other more modern translation.

This could be as simple as translating 'fetcht a compass' as 'took a circular route.'

I agree completely.

In my translation work I have compared the TR Greek texts of Scrivener and Stephanus with the NKJV in almost all of the NT, and there are virtually no places (if any) where the NKJV departs from the TR. In almost every case (if not all) where the KJV and NKJV disagree (and there are surprisingly few if we eliminate the updates from thou to you, etc.), the difference is a translation choice, not a text difference.

I find that very few radical KJVO advocates understand the difference between textual problems and translation problems. You might remember my infamous exchange with H. D. Williams of the Dean Burgon Society right here on the BB. In his book on translation the man really misses in this area in Ch. 10, where he gives illustrations of translating mistakes and messes up badly all through the chapter, with example 2 being strictly a textual difference.

 

[Winman]

Well, I will give you that one. I never claimed to be right all the time. But I cannot claim that all MV's are corrupt. That is just going too far. As I said, I love the KJV and read from it everyday.

Except that the version you read made you feel guilty for getting angry, even when it was justified. That is wrong doctrine.

 

[Amy.G]

Except that the version you read made you feel guilty for getting angry, even when it was justified. That is wrong doctrine.

But one MV reads the same as the KJV.

Matt 5:22 But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. (NKJV)

Can you show where the NKJV has wrong doctrine?

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

This thread is no longer discussing what foreign translations to use if one holds to KJVO doctrine. I am as guilty as anyone for my part in dragging it off topic, but since it is there it is also closed.