I too am looking for truth. However, I am very unlikely to accept the KJV as "The only Word of God" for the reasoning give thus far. I would like to ask a couple more questions to those KJV readers.
"Since we both agree there is two different schools of text"
I am aware of 4 different families of text.
"They cant both be the preserved Word of God. It would be like taking two John Grisham books, say The Client and A Time To Kill... and saying that they are the same book. Hey, they have the same author... the story lines both take place in the South... they are the same book!"
I am sorry, but I can't agree with this at all. I have read most of the major differences between the translations. They both tell the same story. This argument doesn't make any sense to me. Please tell me why they both can't be the word of God. Also, what do you mean when you say the word of God? Please explain.
Also, back to what somebody else said earlier. It was mentioned by them that they believed that the Alexandrain texts were skewed by gnostics. However, after looking through the differences between the translations, I do not see the Alexandrian texts favoring gnostic ideology at all. Could you please explain your research in this area further?
Your friend Kedric
| 2006/9/22 4:48||Profile|
Hey Paul... I was saved in a Charismatic Church that used the NIV. It's the Bible I "read" the first 5 years of my Christian life. I said "read" because in retrospect I spent the first 5 years letting people and teachers tell me what the Bible said instead of reading it for myself. Once I began to read it, I rejected most of the doctrines of the Charismatic Movement. As time went on I started hearing about the KJV controversy, and my best friend was a proponent of the KJV. So I spent 2 years reading everything I could on the topic, and from both sides. At the end of the day I emerged with a KJV.
So I absolutely agree that there is truth in the NIV. But I believe it has been tampered with and corrupted. But because of the truth contained in it, people can and are saved by it. But I feel that if we are truly interested in truth, then we all must address this issue.
I'm [b]not[/b] one of those folks who believes that people who read the NIV are not saved, or in some way 2nd class Christians. Not at all.
| 2006/9/22 10:42|
Kedric... in the interest of time I wont answer your questions today, ok? If you done real study into this issue then you already know the answers anyway. They are basic to the entire issue.
| 2006/9/22 10:45|
PaulWest, wow, I've been deeply blessed by your posts. It very much streched me spiritually.
Dom, I"m reading that book right now!! About Spuregon. Woo hoo!
Kedric, I know exactually where your coming from. I feel the same way. But when I say exactually what you said. I get the response "If you change the words, you change the meanings. Different words have different meanings and implications." And I still don't think that is a solid enough response.
For example, I telemarket. (Sigh, leaving soon though! Yea!!!) Anywho, we say. "Did you rebuttle them?" Or "Did you give them a good quality responce back?" rebuttle and responce are the same thing. Very similar and I don't see a 'major' difference to say, one word is better than the other. The point comes across and that's really all that matters (at least to me)
Krispy, "So I absolutely agree that there is truth in the NIV. But I believe it has been tampered with and corrupted." I totally agree with that!! I used the NIV and with the studies that I did, man o man, the word 'blood' was missing and many other things untop of that. I'm a NASB man!
Ha. Thanks for the blessings guys!!
| 2006/9/22 12:28||Profile|
Hi Krispy,.I agree with what you say about the KJV. What a masterpiece.The other versions pale in comparison to this translation. I have found the web site http://www.deanburgonsociety.org/ very interesting and informative on the KJV issue.I believe one can be saved with the minimal of biblical knowledge .The bible also puts a limit on itself by stating that its purpose is .
..All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works
The bible also states that
So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.
The points I want to make is that the version you read wont save you, and that the bible has a power of its own irrespective of the talking head quoting it.
However, the integrity of God is at stake as he has promised to preserve his word forever.If he cannot preserve his word then he is a liar and he cannot save mankind.So the question is..has he done this? I believe he has and the KJV in the English language is proof of this.
A kilogram is a kilogram,a pound a pound.We have one ruler,,the KJV bloodline.Why conquer and divide by using other rulers?For the record I do not worship the bible but the God it points me to.There is no knowledge outside the bible.
| 2006/9/28 16:02||Profile|
Santa Clara, CA
| Great Perspective|
This is so well stated it bears repeating, and so it is below. Here is another piece that is very helpful; [url=http://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?viewmode=flat&order=0&topic_id=10811&forum=36&post_id=&refresh=Go]Preface to the King James Version 1611[/url]
What is the "preserved Word of God" to an Albanian believer who doesn't speak a lick of English, and who doesn't know anything save the power and purity of the Word of God from his own Albanian bible?
Would someone be so arrogant and pharisaical to tell him he needs to learn English so he can understand the KJV and get the "genuine" Word? What about the millions of Chinese and Korean believers who have great fellowship and prayer and devotion without the English KJV being read and taught from their pulpits? Indeed, it's not the KJV that counts, but the manuscript from which the Word of God is translated, and the believer's faith which activates it (Hebrews 4:2) and the anointing of the Holy Spirit which illuminates it (John 14:26; I Cor. 2:14).
So, I guess the question now is: If all the Chinese and Mongolian and Punjabi and Abkhasian and Russian Bibles are translated from the same Greek and Hebrew texts the KJV was, would not these Bibles be the "preserved" Word of God as well? Of course! It would be the epitome of ignorance to think otherwise.
Now, as an advanced Russian linguist and one fluent in the intricacies of the modern slang and colloquilisms of the language, I know that there are many Russian words, idioms, phrases, and grammatical concepts that would seem quite foreign and nonsensical in English if translated directly. Most Slavic and Baltic languages have a completely different way of grammatical thinking and many English words and ideas sound utterly foolish when translated verbatim. Yet all these exotic and highly complicated and incompatible-to-English languages have produced native Bibles which, in turn, have produced saved and sanctified believers with remaining fruit, and many of these believing fellowships see moves of God equal to, and if not greater than what we see here in the West with all our empty theology, translation-squabbling and KJV glorying.
Personally, I believe God is so far beyond our translation squabbles; indeed, there is a matter so much more dire at hand! The KJV doesn't need to be deliberated, defended, downsized or demagogued - rather, it needs to be obeyed and lived! The NIV, NLT, NASB and CEV all need to be lived. I believe that through any one of these translations God can bring sweeping revival, if their adherents would only humble themselves and trust and obey what they read.
([i]edit. - I study, read, teach, and preach from the KJV. It is my preference for the Word of God in English. But I also read the Russian New Testament and experience the same majesty, joy and cleansing when I read the words of Jesus Christ in that language.[/i])
| 2006/9/28 23:50||Profile|
(I'll be 39 tomorrow!)
Abit belated but hope you had a blessed birthday :-)
| 2006/9/29 2:16|
Hello. I took a look into 1 John 3:6 and thought you would like to see what I found. I found that both the alexandrian and textus receptus have exactly the same Greek. This is my work if you are interested.
1 John 3:6
πας ο εν αυτω μενων ουχ αμαρτανει πας ο αμαρτανων ουχ εωρακεν αυτον ουδε εγνωκεν αυτον
All/Everyone/whoever the in (to) him remains/abides/stands Not sin (present active passive) All/Everyone/whoever the one who sins (present active Indicative) not - experience/behold/perceive/see (Perfect active indicative) Him nor know (Perfect active indicative) - him
My translation: Whoever remains in Him does not sin (now): The one who sins (now) has not experienced Him nor knew him.
(In the Greek there is an emphasis on the fact that they have not seen him or known him and the emphasis is showing that it is greatly affecting them now and will continue to affect them in the future.)
After looking at the translation I have found that I have no idea where the NIV gets "keeps on sinning." This is indeed a thought which the authors believed was in the Greek text. I will explain why they would add it.
There are three types of Bible translations
Literal Word for word (Tries to match straight from the Greek)
Dynamic Equivalent Thought for thought (Tries to match straight from original message and tries to fix an easier read)
Paraphrase Not a translation at all (How the authors translates the thoughts and language)
The NIV translation must be a Dynamic Equivalent translation. One in which I should stop using as my primary Bible. I want to use a literal translation that is not worried about the thought of the text but translates straight words from Greek to English.
The list of literal Bible translations that I have found is a sad list of only 9 translations. Some I have never heard of. The list of the more mainstream ones include: King James Version, American Standard Version, New American Standard Bible, New King James Version, and New American Standard Bible.
The NASB translation is the translation that most scholars and most denominations agree is the closest to the literal Greek from what I understand. It is also highly respected because of its great use of some of the oldest Greek manuscripts discovered (most discovered after KJV was published). I am not trying to bash the KJV because I agree that it is a literal translation. I also now know that despite the translation issues, there are some issues that could go deeper.
Those who search for the truth with all of their heart and soul will find it as I will soon find out the Bible translation in which God wants me to use.
I will let you know what I find.
Your friend Kedric
| 2006/10/13 7:35||Profile|
All/Everyone/whoever the in (to) him remains/abides/stands Not sin (present active passive)
I think you must mean that menO is "Present, Active, Participle". It could not, of course, be active and passive at the same time. It is the switching between the indicative and the participle which has caused the NIV to try to make its point. I am not saying they do it well but a comparison of other translations will show how they have tried to convey the truth of this verse; [url=http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/versions.pl?book=1Jo&chapter=3&verse=6&version=KJV#6]1 John 3:16[/url]
The participle is often used to convey the sense of something which is characteristic. eg John 3:16 refers not to one who 'believed' as a crises event but one who is a 'believing one'. This is achieved in John 3:16 by the use of the definite article with the present participle of the verb. 1 John 3:6 has a combination of present indicative and present participles (and two perfects). If you drift the cursor over the Greek words in [url=http://www.zhubert.com/bible?source=greek&verseref=1John+3%3A6]1John 3:6[/url] you will see, in particular the switch from the present indicative to the present participle of the verb harmartanO - to sin. (this is a great site, btw, for folks dipping in to Greek although it does use the Nestle Alland text.)
So what is the significance of this construction? The more literal equivalence version would be something like:
[color=0000ff]'the abiding one'[/color] (participle: whose characteristic is that he 'abides') [color=0000ff]in Him, sins[/color] (indicative) [color=0000ff]not.[/color] (In other words the one who is habitually abiding in Him sins not.) [color=0000ff]'the sinning one'[/color] (present participle) [color=0000ff]has not seen him, nor known him.[/color] (seen and known are both in the Perfect tense).
The Greek Present Indicative is more akin to our present continuous tense so the NIV has tried to convey that. I have put it, above, into a simple present form.
As regards Literal Equivalence and Dynamic Equivalence, no translation is 'either/or' of these positions. It is just that some translations are 'more' Literal Equivalence and some are 'more' Dynamic Equivalence.
The sense of 1 John 3:6 is... someone who is habitually abiding in Christ is not going to sin, whereas someone who is habitually sinning has neither seen nor known Christ. An individual cannot be characterised by 'abiding in Him' and 'sinning' at the same time; these two habitual or characteristic conditions are mutually exclusive.
| 2006/10/13 9:27||Profile|
Who can understand all that academia or needs to if their heart is set on God. Is not the context of His word sufficient to explain the broad picture of His desires for union with Himself? Any sincere for Him will readily see that the word abide connotes a continual action that will bring intimacy with Him. No one need to have to jump thru the hoops of participle indictives for understanding. All of that way will produce nothing more than "Academia nuts".
| 2006/10/13 10:00|