My dear brother Michael, until this past year I said similarly to you. However, I ask you to please carefully consider what this means:
Imagine if you found out that the NIV is not just [i]another translation[/i] of the same ancient texts, but is a translation of a TOTALLY DIFFERENT text?
The so-called "KJV people" are typically concerned about which of the TWO texts was used for translation, Textus Receptus or the Alexandrian text.
It is the thorough conclusion of myself and others that the [b]underlying text[/b] of the NIV, NASB, etc. is of a [i]different sort[/i] than that of the TR versions, and is permeated with subtle doctrinal differences that, with time and without the Spirit, lead false converts into most grievous and damnable heresies.
When I speak about this subject, it is with a great and sincere burden of spiritual affection. I desire no one to be drawn out by erroneous omissions and alterations of our sacred word. For this reason we persuade others to hunger after the purest sources possible.
Here is a verse-for-verse comparism of major doctrines in the NIV, NASB, and KJV:
[url=http://www.watch.pair.com/scriptures.html]Verse Comparison Chart[/url]
It is not exhaustive, but helpful.
| 2007/8/23 17:56||Profile|
As I have stated before in other KJV threads that when I first got saved at age 15 I was reading the Living Bible. When I turned 19 I felt the LORD nudge me towards the KJV (1944 edition of the Gideon bible)When I started reading that I felt thoroughly enriched in my spirit. The LB served it's purpose and I was blessed by it's contents, but the KJV was a totally different experience altogether. I looked at the Living Bible as milk and the KJV as meat.
I never knew anything about the Textus Receptus or the Alexandrian Text, I just obeyed the LORD.
I do not judge you if you are reading the NIV or any other translation. What I am concerned with is just because a verse is not written in the NIV that we should negate what the KJV says about that verse.
The other translations were never written to make the text easier to read. If that were so, why go to another text other than the Textus Receptus, why not just make the KJV more readable for our modern readers?
White Sugar and White Flour was never put on the shelf for our health, it was put there for the benefit of making money, by removing the Bran out of the flour and the molasses out of the sugar it made the product last longer on the shelf, while giving the consumer an empty product void of anything healthy.
This is how I see these other translations other than the KJV. Instead of giving the public what they need for health, they take out certain ingredients, the health benefits of the word, and has given us a product that was never made for our best interest, but only for the company that produced it.
Am I a KJV only? No!, however, all I read is the KJV. If anyone has a copy of the Geneva Bible, I sure would like to buy it from you.
| 2007/8/23 19:21|
Who said that the TR is the best text?
Check out this website and tell me what you think: http://www.kjvonly.org/
| 2007/8/24 16:42||Profile|
if TR is not a good text, that means there was no Word of God before westcott and hort was it 1881? so to assume God did not have his word before that would be absurd i think.
and the only "proof" of that alexandrian text is older is becuse catholic church says it is.... anyone want to take their word for it.
i checked hom many manuscripts that say the same thing, we have 4730 manuscripts from the bysantinska text , TR
and then we have from Vaticanus and Sinaiticus text witch they claim is from around 350 if i remember correct and the total amount of manuscripts are 31, if i remember right..... 31!
TR = 4000 manuscripts
Alexandrian = 31 manuscripts
witch one do we trust?
and as i said, the only "proof" that alexandrian text is older then TR is becuse The catholic church says it is, and was it not them who tried and kill so many that tried to give the Word to the common people?
i go for TR....
| 2007/8/24 16:53||Profile|
It's still not the original texts.
| 2007/8/24 17:01||Profile|
, i just read a swedish book that claims the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus texts differ in about 3000 places just in the four Gospels.... do you really trust those texts? aren't the TR to be preferred?
| 2007/8/24 17:04||Profile|
Two source texts? What on earth...
| 2007/8/24 17:52||Profile|
That verse comparison chart is excellent!
| 2007/8/24 19:33||Profile|
If anyone has a copy of the Geneva Bible, I sure would like to buy it from you.
I have a copy of the Geneva Bible, but I just got it and I ain't gonna give it up! ;-)
It's a great read. Hard to understand in some places, but a great read, nonetheless.
| 2007/8/24 20:12||Profile|
I think the Latin Vulgate is based on the Textus Receptus, and I don't know what claims that the Catholic Church has made about the Alexandrian texts...it seems odd though, since the Vulgate is the approved Bible (which dates back to 400 A.D. or so) I know the KJV only crowd likes to claim a catholic conspiracy (hehehe) in Anglican scholars and other Protestants endorsing modern translations, but it makes no sense.
just my .02 cents,
| 2007/8/24 20:26||Profile|