SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : The King James or a Newer Version?

Print Thread (PDF)

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



Joined: 2008/6/12
Posts: 40


 Re:

Another Bible versions debate... :-(


_________________
Paul W. Lamicela

 2009/2/23 11:23Profile
hmmhmm
Member



Joined: 2006/1/31
Posts: 4991
Sweden

 Re:

Quote:

paulamicela wrote:
Another Bible versions debate... :-(




Dear sister, there are two ways to do a discussion like this, the right way with humility and the approach to the discussion with the possibility and very likley fact we dont know everything and we may be wrong. Or the opposite....


There have been some very "ugly" debates about this, but also some very edifying and informative discussions also. So it is in our hands, it will be what we make it, how we approach it and how we respond to it.

I hope the discussion can bring some fruit in us that will produce a more Holy fear for god and his word, and bring a seriousness to study it and obedience to it.

so let us discuss with a right attitude towards our fellow saints, if we just want to prove our point and our perception as the best and highest we have already fallen. Let us share with love and humility what we know or believe and why we prefer with different versions.

the truth is, no english bible version is perfect, some have more defects then others, so we have pro and cons with all english bibles. When we realize this we will take another approach to the subject.

then we will have a thread that will bless many and our selves.


_________________
CHRISTIAN

 2009/2/23 11:34Profile









 Re:

We also have to keep in mind that our salvation is not based on what version we read. When we approach it from that angle, realizing that those we may disagree with are still our brothers and sisters... we can then approach this discussion with love, and not hostility.

But this is a very important topic that too many Christians today refuse to educate themselves about, preferring to stick their heads in the sand. When our heads are in the sand it makes for an easy target for the enemy kick our butts.

And also... if one finds this discussion too offensive for one's sensibilities... one can simply ignore it on this forum. No one here is forcing anyone else to read this. :-)

Krispy

 2009/2/23 11:48









 Re:




Dear Hmmhmm:

I used to believe what the publishers had to say---that the New King James relied upon the same historic text as the King James Version. However, after some serious study, I began to realize that the New King James Translators were very deceptive. One of the basic texts that I always check is Genesis 3:15. The King James says “The seed of the woman” and the New King James says “The seed of the woman”, so it should be O.K. we would think. However, in key places like this, throughout the Bible, the New King James is seemingly in sync with the King James. Have the Translators purposely tried to deceive us? The answer is yes.


Question: Is the New King James version basically the same as the King James Version? Does the New King James use the same text, passed down from Antiquity, that the King James Bible uses?

Isn’t the New King James Version essentially the same as the KING JAMES VERSION only without the "Thee's and Thou's?"

Answer: No, it is not. The Old Testament of the KING JAMES VERSION is translated from the Ben Chayyim Masoretic Text, which was edited by a born again Masorite Jew. Many Christians are surprised to find the texts underlying the NKJV are not the same texts the KJV is translated from...

Just as Hort and Westcott utterly rejected the Majority/Received Text (the N.T. of the KJV is translated from) for their Greek New Testament, and chose instead the deeply flawed Egyptian Minority texts, the translators of the New King James Version rejected the Ben Chayyim Masoretic text for the Old Testament and chose instead a Masoretic text that differs significantly from the text the King James Version was translated from.

[b]In addition to using corrupted texts in translating the Old Testament portion of the NKJV, the Egyptian Minority texts were consulted and used to some extent in the New testament portion. Although the translators attempted to retain the familiar rhyme and rhythm of the KING JAMES VERSION, and it does adhere in places to the Received Text *it does not entirely do so. That means the texts of both the Old and New Testaments of the New King James Version are corrupted.[/b]

That makes the NKJV just another counterfeit Bible, albeit a slightly better counterfeit than most *which makes it far more dangerous.
Just as tobacco and marijuana are known as *gateway drugs to the harder stuff, the New King James Version is a gateway as well by fostering acceptance of other corrupt Bible versions.

Question: Who are Hort and Westcott?

Answer: Professor Fenton John Anthony Hort and Bishop Brooke Foss Westcott were the [human] driving forces behind the Revised Standard Version.

These two Anglicans formulated the theory that the Received text (which the N.T. of KING JAMES VERSION is translated from) is full of errors and that the Egyptian Minority Texts (that they based their Greek New Testament on) were pure texts and completely error-free (an absolutely preposterous claim). Their theory is known as The Hort Westcott Theory and the Greek text they created (or one virtually identical to it) is used to train ministers in almost every English speaking Bible college in the world today.

Facts pertaining to both Hort and/or Westcott:
• Involvement in the occult (séances etc.)
• Professed disbelief in either the divine inspiration of scripture or the diety and physical resurrection of Jesus Christ.
• Hated the idea of the blood atonement, hence preference for manuscripts which deleted references to both the blood and deity of Christ (see insidious footnotes, omissions and changes to Colossians 1:14 and 1 Timothy 3:16 in most Bibles).
Hort and Westcott were unsaved men. No one can be saved who denies either the Diety or the resurrection of Jesus Christ (see John 8:24, Romans 10:9-10,13).

Their scholarship and fitness for handling the Word of God was challenged by godly scholars of their day. And godly scholars today continue to stand against the heresy that has flooded the church as a result of the translations based on the Greek New Testament these two unregenerate men produced. In more recent years, many have attempted to distance themselves from the obviously flawed Hort Wescott Greek New Testament, but the United Bible Society's Nestle-Aland Greek text (used in its stead) is virtually identical to it.

[b]This means that almost every modern Version--including the New King James Version--is heavily influenced by the work of two men who demonstrated absolutely no fear of God during the course of their lifetimes. All versions resulting from their work and influence should be rejected.[/b]


[b]Question: Why should we trust the KING JAMES VERSION?[/b]

Answer: The King James Version is based on texts that can be traced to Apostolic times.
There are over 5000 extant copies of Majority/Received Text manuscripts, texts and versions available today that exhibit the agreement needed to be considered reliable. These texts come from all over the world and can be traced to many different time periods--including the time period of the the early church.

The Received Text is not riddled with errors. That claim is made only in connection with the Minority Texts which greatly contradict the Majority Texts in denying the blood atonement, deity, and virgin birth of Christ.

For more information on this subject, the book, MY BIBLE DOESN'T SAY THAT!, goes into great detail and is available online at www.Lulu.com/JocelynAndersen .

The E-book at www.Lulu.com/JocelynAndersen is available free for download.

If you would like a print copy but cannot afford one, call (863) 614-0439 to record your request along with your name and complete mailing address. We will send you a copy free of charge (limit one per household please).

http://www.sharecropperradio.com/
THE RADIO VOICE OF
http://www.hungryheartsministries.com/

Sincerely,

Walter

Quote:

hmmhmm wrote:
I prefer myself the bibles translated from TR
mainly because, if those manuscripts are not "pure" and nott trustworty, then it meens there was no Word of god that could be read and trusted in english until 1881 or whenever it was WH translated their version from the new manuscripts. And i dont think God would alow the church to be decived by a "faulty" text and that had been corrupted for about 1800 years. So that is one of many reason i prefer the TR, and the versions we have today is KJV and NKJV, in some cases i think kjv does a better job, in others nkjv does it better.

Deleted.............


quote]

 2009/2/23 11:48









 Re:

Walter,

Forgive me if you have already answered this, but do you consider Youngs Literal Translation, Geneva, and Wycliff to be corrupt?

-Jim

 2009/2/23 11:53
hmmhmm
Member



Joined: 2006/1/31
Posts: 4991
Sweden

 Re: The King James or a Newer Version?

here is one reason i prefeer the KJV and the NKJV, mainly because the stick with the text in the original. And as we shall see the other versions, even those that claim to be exact word for word dont do this, and this is a very important thing. We see a very huge part of christianity teaching easy belivism and the doctrines of regenaration is very much lost in modern evangelical preaching. Can it be due to the very vast flood of modern versions of bibles translate some things differently then the original plainly says? i dont know, but it is my suspicion.


Romans 6:6 knowing this, that our old [b]man[/b] was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin. (Rom 6:6 NKJ)

Romans 6:6 Knowing this, that our old [b]man[/b] is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. (Rom 6:6 KJV)

here we have the two translations from TR, the two most common today, the word in greek is:

a;nqrwpoj anthropos {anth'-ro-pos}
Meaning: 1) a human being, whether male or female 1a) generically, to include all human individuals 1b) to distinguish man from beings of a different race or order 1b1) of animals and plants 1b2) of from God and Christ 1b3) of the angels 1c) with the added notion of weakness, by which man is led into a mistake or prompted to sin 1d) with the adjunct notion of contempt or disdainful pity 1e) with reference to two fold nature of man, body and soul 1f) with reference to the two fold nature of man, the corrupt and the truly Christian man, conformed to the nature of God 1g) with reference to sex, a male 2) indefinitely, someone, a man, one 3) in the plural, people 4) joined with other words, merchantman

here are some other translations, from modern versions, it is the same word in the greek and in the other places the word occors in the NT it is translated man. Why then do other so called word for word translators translate this word this time into something else? i dont have the answer other then that they have made an interpretation that they themself se fit. and it iis very dangerous i think.

Romans 6:6 We know that our old [b]self[/b] was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin. (Rom 6:6 ESV)

Romans 6:6 knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, that our body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin; (Rom 6:6 NASB)

Romans 6:6 For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin (Rom 6:6 NIV)

Romans 6:6 We know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be destroyed, and we might no longer be enslaved to sin. (Rom 6:6 NRSV)

Romans 6:6 We know that our old self was crucified with him so that the sinful body might be destroyed, and we might no longer be enslaved to sin. (Rom 6:6 RSV)

theree are some others that translate it to man, but not among the "large" and popular ones, to quote Ron Bailey, "I am not so sure a new self is much better then an old self"

This is a very important doctrine that you cant get from just reading the bible with many new translations. You have to have a commentator or a teacher tell you "really in the original it meens man"

this is just one thing, dont want to throw all these versions in the trash for this one verse since they have other strengths and are very good translations from their source on the whole. But we need consider this i think and carefully examine some things from what bible we read.


_________________
CHRISTIAN

 2009/2/23 11:59Profile
hmmhmm
Member



Joined: 2006/1/31
Posts: 4991
Sweden

 Re:

Dear waltern, i have read much also against the nkjv and the translation and the texts they used, and i find not much worthy to be upset about in the prosess, its true you will get in the margin info on what the corrupt text say as you put it, and it is true that the manuscripts they used in kjv translation we dont have today, but on the whole i have no problem saying nkjv is a very good faithful translation from the greek in the majority text, i dont know much greek, but the very little i have learned i can say in some areas the nkjv is in fact better then the kjv.

And any honest greek schooler will say the same, not perhaps in everything but in some aspects in the translation.

Now that i have said that :-) i just want to say i prefer the KJV over all other translations, but i feel the criticism against nkjv sometimes are a bit "over reacted" so to say, i understand the concern and some of what people say, but again, i think it is not a big issue.


_________________
CHRISTIAN

 2009/2/23 12:06Profile









 Re:


To Jimdied2sin:

The [b]Geneva Bible[/b] relies on the same historic text as the King James, the Received Text, the Textus Receptus, and is not corrupt.

The [b]Wycliff Bible [/b]relies on the same text as the King James, the Received Text, the Textus Receptus, and is not corrupt. It is one of the oldest translations of the Bible into English. The translation was completed over a period of years between 1382-1395. Well known as a precursor to the Tyndale Bible and the King James Version, the Wycliffe Bible was very popular in its day.

The English state and the Roman Catholic Church took drastic steps to suppress the Wycliffe Bible, circulating pamphlets critical of the it and enacting some of the severest religious censorship laws. The translation itself can be difficult for modern readers because current spelling and grammatical conventions have changed drastically from those of Middle English.


[b]Youngs Literal Translation[/b] relies on the same historic text that the King James does, and is not corrupt. However I find it difficult to read and understand:

Young used the present tense in many places in which other translations use the past tense, particularly in narratives. For example, the YLT version of Genesis begins as follows:

1 In the beginning of God's preparing the heavens and the earth —
2 the earth hath existed waste and void, and darkness [is] on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God fluttering on the face of the waters,
3 and God saith, 'Let light be;' and light is.
4 And God seeth the light that [it is] good, and God separateth between the light and the darkness,
5 and God calleth to the light 'Day,' and to the darkness He hath called 'Night;' and there is an evening, and there is a morning — day one.
6 And God saith, 'Let an expanse be in the midst of the waters, and let it be separating between waters and waters.'
7 And God maketh the expanse, and it separateth between the waters which [are] under the expanse, and the waters which [are] above the expanse: and it is so.
8 And God calleth to the expanse 'Heavens;' and there is an evening, and there is a morning — day second.
9 And God saith, 'Let the waters under the heavens be collected unto one place, and let the dry land be seen:' and it is so.
10 And God calleth to the dry land `Earth,' and to the collection of the waters He hath called 'Seas;' and God seeth that [it is] good.
11 And God saith, 'Let the earth yield tender grass, herb sowing seed, fruit-tree (whose seed [is] in itself) making fruit after its kind, on the earth:' and it is so.
12 And the earth bringeth forth tender grass, herb sowing seed after its kind, and tree making fruit (whose seed [is] in itself) after its kind; and God seeth that [it is] good;
13 and there is an evening, and there is a morning — day third.[1]

Sincerely,

Walter

Quote:

jimdied2sin wrote:
Walter,

Forgive me if you have already answered this, but do you consider Youngs Literal Translation, Geneva, and Wycliff to be corrupt?

-Jim

 2009/2/23 12:33
ccchhhrrriiisss
Member



Joined: 2003/11/23
Posts: 4499


 Re:

Hi Krispy...

Quote:
Yes... exactly. When I refer to "influence" I mean KJ did not tell the translators "translate this to mean... etc." There are many false accusations of such influence when in fact there is no proof of such in any of the writings of the translators.


Actually, there is some proof of James' and the the official Church's instructions in this regard. It might take a little while, but I'll gather it when I can.

:-)

BTW...Walter...haven't we gone around this wilderness mountain over and over again? Perhaps we should simply use one of the many existing threads instead of creating yet another? I often feel the need to contradict the inconsistencies in your claims and accusations...but it gets tiring.


_________________
Christopher

 2009/2/23 12:45Profile









 Re:



To ccchhhrrriiisss:

It is interesting to me to see how one person's prejudice can effect men for many years. One of those men is Alexander McClue, and his Book "The Translators Revived, published in 1858.

I don't agree with all of Mr. McClure's historical commentary. In fact, I strongly disagree with his assessment of His Majesty King James VI. McClure makes him out to be worse than a heathen. [b]One way this bias manifests itself is in Mr. McClure's narrative about Dr. Richard Bancroft, one of the translators close to the King: [/b]

"...considering the control exercised by this towering prelate, and the fact that the great majority of the Translators were of his way of thinking, it is quite surprising that the work is not deeply tinged with their sentiments. On the whole, it is certainly very far from being a sectarian version, like nearly all which have since been attemped in English. It is said that Bancroft altered fourteen places, so as to make them speak in phrase to suit him...Two of those alleged alterations are quite preposterous. To have the glorious word "bishopric" occur at least once in the volume, the office is conferred, in the first chapter of Acts, on Judas Iscariot! 'His bishopric let another take.'"

[b]Here Mr. McClure shows his ignorance of earlier Bible versions,[/b] which I just happen to have a copy of. The scripture in question is Acts 1:20 where the King James translators selected the word, [b]"bishopricke". [/b] This translation was not unique to the King James Bible. In fact the word "bishopricke" was used in Wiclif's translation which was produced over 200 years before the King James Bible was ever thought about! Remember that the King James Bible came out in 1611. Look at the readings in these earlier translations--



Translation Year Reading
[b]WYCLIF 1380[/b] "and it is writun in the book of salmes, the abitacioun of hem be made desert: and be there noon that dwelle in it, and another take his [b]bischopriche,[/b]"
[b]TYNDALE 1534[/b] "It is written in the boke of Psalmes: His habitacion be voyde, and no man be dwellinge therin: and his [b]bisshoprychke[/b] let another take.
[b]CRANMER 1539[/b] "For it is wrytten in the boke of Psalmes: hys habitacyon be voyde, and no man be dwellinge therin: and his [b]Bisshoprycke [/b]let another take."
[b]KING JAMES 1611[/b] "For it is written in the booke of Psalmes, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: And his [b]Bishopricke[/b] let another take."
[b]GENEVA 1557 [/b]"For it is written in the boke of Psalmes, Let his habitation be voyde, and no man dwel therin: And let another take his charge."

[b]The only dissenting Bible in this group is the Geneva, a Puritan Bible.[/b] It was wrong for Mr. McClure to slander Dr. Bancroft for adding the word "bishoprick", when we can see that Dr. Bancroft did no such thing, and the staement was made for sectarian reasons. People have said for years that the King James translators mis-translated certain items to placate the King. As we see in the above example, this simply is not true.

Perhaps Mr. McClure's Puritanical bias has clouded his sense of objectivity (upon reading Translators Revived this Puritanical bias is easily seen). The Puritans and King James were not the closest of friends. In fact, Puritan Oliver Cromwell took over England after the regicide (means, killing of a king) of King James' son King Charles I.


The King James Bible translators were a collection of some of the world's best scholars. They approached this translation with the mindset that they were translating the very word of God, not just some book. The King James Bible has been called "the monument of English prose" as well as "the only great work of art ever created by a committee".

Take a look at that old King James on your shelf, and find out for yourself.

Sincerley,

Walter


Quote:

ccchhhrrriiisss wrote:
Hi Krispy...
Quote:
Yes... exactly. When I refer to "influence" I mean KJ did not tell the translators "translate this to mean... etc." There are many false accusations of such influence when in fact there is no proof of such in any of the writings of the translators.


Actually, there is some proof of James' and the the official Church's instructions in this regard. It might take a little while, but I'll gather it when I can.

:-)

BTW...Walter...haven't we gone around this wilderness mountain over and over again? Perhaps we should simply use one of the many existing threads instead of creating yet another? I often feel the need to contradict the inconsistencies in your claims and accusations...but it gets tiring.

 2009/2/23 13:51





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