SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : KJV..........

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 Next Page )
PosterThread
Combat_Chuck
Member



Joined: 2006/1/27
Posts: 202


 Re:

Quote:

PaulWest wrote:
Quote:
The KJV is an excellent translation with some severe weaknesses



Phil,

Could you please tell me what these "severe weaknesses" are? I am not an authoritarian on Bible versions; I have a copy of about every modern version you can think of (my favorite paraphrase is probably JB Phillips), but after reading and examining all of them, the Holy Spirit has always led me back to the Authorised 1611 KJV with the Textus Receptus parrallel for my serious study and meditation. I know the KJV in itself is a revision of the Bishop's bible. And the reason I shelved my NASV and NKJV is because of the many omissions from the KJV and the Textus Receptus.

I respect your knowledge! Like I said, Bible versions are not my forte. Since I've come to rely so strongly on the KJV, I'd like to know of the "severe" weaknesses it has (does the 1550 Stephens Greek have the same weaknesses?) and what versions I can use to offset them.

Much blessings to you, brother!

Brother Paul


I also want to know about the severe weaknesses. :-)


_________________
Combat Chuck

 2006/7/24 16:43Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
Could you please tell me what these "severe weaknesses" are?


The Jacobean era was the forerunner to Englands Civil War. King James was determined to maintain monarchical authority and commissioned a Bible which maintained the 'status quo'. The concepts of authority and hierarchy which are found throughout the KJV are consequences of this. King James insisted that earlier choices by people like Tyndale were reversed to maintain this policy. He insisted on the use of 'church' rather than congregation which has been a stumbling block ever since. King James wanted 'ecclesiastical words' like bishop and church and confession reinstated in his 'united religion' version.

Most scholars of the period, and earlier, had learned their Greek through the medium of Latin which does not have the same tenses as Greek. Consequently the tenses of the KJV are often confusing. Similarly its use of prepositions is not nearly so consistent as later versions.

Another 'weakness/strength' of the KJV is the way it used many different words to translate the same Greek word. “Let that therefore [u]abide[/u] in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall [u]remain[/u] in you, ye also shall [u]continue[/u] in the Son, and in the Father.”
(1John 2:24 KJVS)...is a classic example where the same Greek word 'menO' has been translated by three different words in the same sentence; abide/remain/continue are all translations of the word 'menO'. This is known as 'studied variety' and although it sometimes helps to give the breadth of a word it loses the power of the repitition. Sometimes it does the opposite which is to use the same English word to translate different Greek words; it often does not distinguish between 'child' and 'son' although part of Paul's letter to the Galatians is dependent on the distinction. 'studied variety' is the legacy of William Tyndale.

Its strengths include its use of the archaic 'thee' and 'thou'. Not because they sound more reverent but because 'you' is not the same as 'thee'.

I won't go on; this should give the flavour.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2006/7/24 17:54Profile
RevKerrigan
Member



Joined: 2006/4/13
Posts: 58
South Central Kentucky

 Re:

Paul West said:

Quote:
I like the accuracy of the NASV too. I've got a big NASV study bible. Of course, you probably know of all these changes (and deletions) and dropping the title "Christ" from the texts.



There have been no changes brother. You have come to this conclusion due to false presuppositions. You think that all other versions must be judged by the KJV. If they were to be judged by the KJV, then there would be "errors", "deletions" and "changes." However, the KJV is NOT the standard. The manuscripts used for the other versions are different, older and more accurate because they are closer to the originals. If you were to look at the quotes of Scripture from the early Church fathers, you would see that their quotes are much more in line with the manuscripts used for the NASB. I would challenge you and any other KJVO people on here to go to my website's, [url=http://pinpointevangelism.com/23.html]Apologetics Page[/url] and listen to the audios that I have there where KJVO people and others debate this issue. Most of the arguments (if not all) that I have seen on this message board as well as others were refuted during these sessions. It is titled "Which Bible Translation Is Most Trustworthy And Which One Should You Use?" and there are eight shows to it. God Bless brother...


_________________
Kerrigan Skelly

 2006/7/24 18:07Profile
Christinyou
Member



Joined: 2005/11/2
Posts: 3703
Ca.

 Re:

"Severe weaknesses"? I dare say, Less than most.

This is a very good site to give information of KJV. http://www.ccel.org/bible/kjv/preface/thesis.htm

The weaknesses are taken up in the Holy Spirit revelation of His Truth. I have been reading along and studying a particular passage and The Holy Spirit will stop me and ask a question, Is that concurrent with what I have been teaching you? I stop and listen for more. Then I go back and read and read and soon the Truth comes in as to what the Question was. Example: NASB: Galatians 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ lives in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself up for me.

I was studying faith and where it comes form. With the Studies in John and Col and Gal in the King James, it was becoming clear that this faith before salvation was lacking to be able to believe what God says about His Son Jesus Christ. I looked at a mustard seed and it took a magnifying glass to tell it was a seed. This is the faith that it took to move mountains. That meant that I had so little faith that it could not even be seen without a magnifying glass. No mountains moved and not even a pile of sand in the back yard, not even a grain of sand I put on the table. In This context, how could my faith believe in Jesus Christ? How could I be saved by Grace through faith? I came to the conclusion that I could not. So how could I be saved, I believe in Jesus Christ that He is the Son of God. Where did that come from? Then the Light came on. It was not my faith at all that saved me, it was the Faith of The Son of God's conviction in me by the Holy Spirit that actually would be the means of My Salvation, and after my conversion It would be the Faith of The Son of God that I would live this life in. Not in my faith but His.

So when I read the NASB and it said, "I live by faith in the Son of God", I was confused. It takes faith in the Son of God, but I don't have that Kind of Faith, what is going on?

The Holy Spirit pulled me to the KJV. It says, "KJV: Galatians 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ lives in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave Himself for me.

There it was, I live by the faith of the Son of God. Wow, now I understood why the Holy Spirit stopped me and took me back, over and over and over again, until I could reconcile The Truth that my faith could not save me, it took a much greater faith that what I had. It was the Faith of The Son of God, not my faith in the Son of God. So, for my proof of translations I use all the KJV "faith of the Son of God as the test for which one I will choose". Very small word but a great, great difference. So I just change the word in to of in my NASB and thing work our fine, I have changed words also in the KJV when it takes away from the Christ that is in me and His Work on the Cross revealed By the Holy Spirit.

There are even differences in the context of KJV of the Word of God and the Holy Spirit even reveals them to us if we listen and are seeking this Christ that is In us. I personally like the KJV, I like the NASB, and used it for many years over the KJV, because It was easier to understand, well I understand The KJV more now than I ever understood the NASB because I am relying on the Holy Spirit for Truth, and He has never let me down yet and will never, from what I understand in Scripture.

In Christ: Phillip


_________________
Phillip

 2006/7/24 18:17Profile
PaulWest
Member



Joined: 2006/6/28
Posts: 3405
Dallas, Texas

 Re:

Quote:
I would challenge you and any other KJVO people



I never said I was KJV only, brother. Please do not jump to conclusions. If you go back and read my post, you'll see I actually made it a point to say I WASN'T a KJV only. Also, I've never said that KJV was the standard all other versions should be measured by. I only provided a comparitive list between KJV and NASV. It seems to me that the NASV is basically like the KJV, only with the appellation of "Christ" deleted out of many verses (for whatever reason) and the deity of Jesus diminished in certain areas, and with other important verses deleted out all together. I think it's plain to see that the KJV is much more honorable in its glorification of Jesus Christ in so many verses than the NASV is.

The truth is, I don't care a hill of beans about the age of the manuscript when it comes to this. The KJV just seems to be more honorable and more Christ-exalting, and this pleases my soul. Examine the verse comparisons if you doubt this. I think many here would agree with me. Again, I'm not saying the KJV is the ONLY, but what I am saying is that the KJV manuscript is so very majestic and Christ-honoring. And quite faithful to the Textus Receptus as well.

Have you read Ray Comfort's book "Springboards for Evangelism"? He basically blackballs the NASV as a version that looks as though someone "took a pair of scissors and cut out a bunch of verses" from the KJV. It's quite amusing! I sort of agree with him...owning and examining both KJV and NASV versions. I guess I have the best of both worlds!

However, brother, I agree with Ravenhnill - the KJV is the best. I'm not looking to debate you or anyone else on this. It's just simply my own personal preference. I also love the JB Phillips translation.

Blessings,

Brother Paul


_________________
Paul Frederick West

 2006/7/24 18:48Profile
Combat_Chuck
Member



Joined: 2006/1/27
Posts: 202


 Re:

Quote:

RevKerrigan wrote:
Paul West said:
Quote:
I like the accuracy of the NASV too. I've got a big NASV study bible. Of course, you probably know of all these changes (and deletions) and dropping the title "Christ" from the texts.



There have been no changes brother. You have come to this conclusion due to false presuppositions.


Kerrigan,

You have a very large presupposition yourself.

You are assuming that earlier is better, which is generally true-- but this is still a [i]large assumption[/i].

Consider the earliest complete manuscripts we have are Coxex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus (AKA the "Alexandrian Textform"). These two codex's are what most new translations are translated from. These are 4th century manuscripts and this leaves PLENTY of room for a copiest to come in and alter/remove the text-- especially considering the fact that gnostics were already invading the church during the time of the apostles as is mentioned by John in his epistles.

Also consider that Codex Vaticanus included the Apocrypha, which was not part of the Hebrew OT. But if you want to depend on these two codex's for your translations, you might as well include the apocryphal writings in your Bible.

Also consider that Codex Sinaiticus has been edited with several different hands (possibly 8!)... It is obvious there was confusion as to what was the original text even during the making of these manuscripts.

Also consider that Codex Sinaiticus was found by Constantin von Tischendorf-- and on his first visit they were inside a waste basket and he was told was told by a librarian that "they were rubbish which was to be destroyed by burning it in the ovens of the monestary". ([url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Sinaiticus"]source[/url])

Also consider that these two manuscripts are very much in disagreement with the majority readings of the other 5,000+ byzantine manuscripts.

So which is better, majority (5,000+) or minority(2ish)?

Also let me point out that these two codex's were not discovered until recently-- so to say the Alexandrian textform is the best is to say that the church has been using the wrong readings with all of these "additions" for the majority of her years.

I submit to you that we have been using the right manuscripts throughout the centuries, and now we have shot ourselves in the foot and are using altered manuscripts from [i]EGYPT[/i](!!) which have key verses removed (e.g. the ending of Mark, the name of Jesus Christ replaced with Him throughout the NT, the end of the Lord's prayer, etc...).

Let me give you a simple illustration I came up with.

I work in a grocery store. When I tidy up and straighten the shelves at the end of the day, I sometimes will find a whole row of merchandise, and a couple other similiar (but different) items in the back of the shelf.

So the question is, which item really belongs in this place on the shelf? The Majority items, or the minority (yet probably older) in the back?

Let's add more detail, let's say I have [b]20 Strawberry soaps[/b] lined up in the front of the shelf neatly, and [b]1 Orange soap[/b] and [b]1 Lemmon soap[/b] in the back of the shelf behind the 20 Strawberry soaps.

When I straighten shelves, I find probably 99% of the time the majority will be right, even though the minority in the back has been there longer. I then remove the minority in the back and put it in its proper place. I find that whoever stocked shelves in the past was correct in his placement of the 20, regardless of someones error of the past in placing the orange and lemmon in the incorrect place!

So based on this simple illustration, let us atleast consider that majority readings, even though they are older, have weight and may indeed be correct.

I have a simple question for you.

How is it that the ending of Mark is not included in Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus (therefor according to you, being an "addition", and Mark 16 in your Bible should end with, "and they were afraid") -- anyways, how is it, that Irenaeus quoted the ending of Mark (Against Heresies III:10:5-6, which was written c. 185) a good 100 years before the Alexandrian Textform?

Also consider one more fact, "The Vaticanus mauscript has left an empty space at the end of Mark exactly large enough to contain those twelve missing verses; How did the copyist know how much space to leave if he was not looking at a still older manuscript with the last 12 verses of Mark in it? As for the Sinaiticus manuscript, it is written in the same-size letters throughout until you come to the place where the last twelve verses of Mark belong, then the letters become large and spread out, taking up enough extra space to allow the last twelve verses of Mark to appear in the smaller letters that had been used up until this time." -Jay P. Greens Interlinear N.T. introduction ... Also I'm pretty sure Ron (philologos) is witness to these facts himself.

Of course, if you had believed the traditional majority text to be Scripture, you would have known the ending of Mark was cannonical all along.

Lastly-- a good, commonly asked question: Why do we not have earlier manuscripts with the byzantine readings, if they are indeed the original readings? The answer is quite simple, the good manuscripts were copied and used and copied and used and used and used until they were worn out, and thus destroyed-- and the good copies were passed down. This also explains why vaticanus and sinaiticus are still in existance-- because nobody wanted to use inferior manuscripts.

PS. I am not "King James Only".
I share the same stance with A.W. Tozer in his article, [url="http://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=9270&forum=36"]Confessions of a New Version Addict[/url].

Adam


_________________
Combat Chuck

 2006/7/24 19:51Profile
MR_CPK
Member



Joined: 2004/7/9
Posts: 36
Indiana

 Re:

Quote-" If you were to look at the quotes of Scripture from the early Church fathers, you would see that their quotes are much more in line with the manuscripts used for the NASB." -Mr. Kerrigan

This statement is 100% FALSE! When you reconstruct the the New Testement from early Church Fathers ALONE you end up with a New Testement that is missing 11 verses and lines up perfectly with the Byzantine text types.

Secondly the older is better is retarded on so many levels (I use to believe it myself, so I use to be retarded too, but praise the LORD he will lead you into the Truth if you'll only follow)Think about this. Before the printing press there were much fewer copies of Scripture. EVERY single copy would be used.Who doesn't want to read God's Holy Word right?They would use the copies they had and would make more copies of that copy and over time each one would fall apart with use, and the cycle would continue. I've gone through 2 very nice Cambridge Bible's in the last 2 years alone. They fell apart becuase they got used. On my bookshelf there is a copy of the book of mormon. PERFECT condition. Why is it in perfect condition? It doesn't get used. Why doesn't it get used? It's not the Word of Almighty God. Now I'm not comparing the Minority/Critical text with the book of mormon. It's just an analogy. I'll just leave that there.

Philologos-you mentioned that the tenses are different in the KJV. Can you explain exactly how that is. I've never heard that it had anything to do with translaters learning greek in a sub-par form. I have a NASB "Key Word Study Bible" (AMG Publishers- Spiro Zodhiates) and in the notes it gives the literal tense of the words and when it does it always seems to line up with the KJV (or Youngs-or any other truly literal translation)


_________________
Christopher

 2006/7/24 22:36Profile
MR_CPK
Member



Joined: 2004/7/9
Posts: 36
Indiana

 Re:

First off I am NOT KJV only but I would like to make another random point as to why I trust the KJV more than any other translation (I really like Youngs Literal too) I like the fact that 91% is still exactly the same as William Tydale's translation. My Bible translation was made by a man that died so I could have the Word of Almighty God in English. He was persectuted from city to city and finally murdered. Truly one of the scribes Christ promised to send to us. The new translations however were all made by men who were willing to make lots of money so I could have the Word of Almighty God in a little bit more contemporary version of the English language, and that would divide the body of Christ just a little bit more.

One more random point. Geneologies are wrong in the minority text (clearly scribal errors).Also Jesus either lies or changes His mind (John 7:8)These two things were what set me to study.A few years back about a year after I got saved I had just bought an awesome new super-soft calfskin NASB Wide-Margin and was doing some hardcore studying to fill in the margins and noticed these two afore mentioned things. So I went to every translation I had in my library, NIV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, HCSV, and on and on to reconcile this problem..... finally I went up into my parents attic to find this old KJV I found on the side of the road when I was 9 and it did not have the problem. I then went on to study the manuscript evidence and I had to concede to the truth.

Bible-Researcher.com has some good resourses for the textual stuff.


_________________
Christopher

 2006/7/24 23:00Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
Bible-Researcher.com has some good resourses for the textual stuff.


Indeed he does but read with care; he is not a supporter of the Byzantine Textform. I have had lots of email conversations with him on many of these topics.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2006/7/25 4:45Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
Philologos-you mentioned that the tenses are different in the KJV. Can you explain exactly how that is. I've never heard that it had anything to do with translaters learning greek in a sub-par form. I have a NASB "Key Word Study Bible" (AMG Publishers- Spiro Zodhiates) and in the notes it gives the literal tense of the words and when it does it always seems to line up with the KJV (or Youngs-or any other truly literal translation)


Hi
I suggest you look at Darby's translation (available free online). My own favourite study tool is the Newberry Bible which shows me most of the tenses by means of diacritical marks.

Here is an example of what I am talking about that came from my reading this morning.“For both he that sanctifieth and [u]they who are sanctified[/u] are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren,”
(Heb 2:11 KJV)The verb form of the 'who are sanctified' is Present, Passive Participle, nominative, masculine. The KJV, at this point gives the impression that 'sanctified' is 'done and dusted' but the NKJV has captured the nuance of the Greek tense...“For both He who sanctifies and [u]those who are being sanctified[/u] are all of one, for which reason He is not ashamed to call them brethren,”
(Heb 2:11 NKJV)The writer to the Hebrews has the process of sanctification in mind rather than the crisis. I don't have my NASB to hand so I cannot comment on that here.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2006/7/25 4:57Profile





©2002-2020 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Privacy Policy