| Poster | Thread | Lysa
Member
Joined: 2008/10/25
Posts: 3699
East TN for now!
| | Re: | | Quote:
by Joyful_Heart
Unfortunately so many who believe only the KJV should be read turn many away from reading the Bible.
How could you offend anyone?? You speak the truth in love (edited out a sentence).
The quote is truth. God bless you, Joyful!
Lisa
_________________
Lisa
|
|  2011/3/24 6:02 | Profile | Lysa
Member
Joined: 2008/10/25
Posts: 3699
East TN for now!
| | Re: For some Christians, King James is the only Bible | | Quote:
PassinThru wrote:
You don't have to prove you are spiritual and love the lost just because you don't read the KJV. I am not questioning anyone's spirituality. I keep trying to bring everyone back to scripture comparison of translations, but it seems no one wants to do this. I am not saying anyone has a religious spirit and I hope you are not saying that, too.
Brother, that's not what this thread is about; my friend, it seems that you 'took some imaginary bait' you thought had been thrown out there. Did you even read the article Greg posted?
I don't know if you've seen it but Greg has a 'News and Current Events' section here on sermonindex and he posted an article about the 400th anniversary of the KJV. He did not post it to compare translations; I don't know him personally but I'm thinking he might have posted under 'Scriptures and Doctrine' if he had an agenda.
Submitted in love, brother.
God bless you, PT
Lisa
edited and added this comment about 1 and a half hours later:
Quote:
PassinThru wrote:
Anyway, here again, is what Greg posted. For what purpose, we will never know unless he shows back up. Surely, he knew what he was doing. Seems it was a backhanded way to show disdain for KJVers. Then all his friends jump on me. Not totally unexpected, I might add.
Actually, this might have gone away had you let it! But I looked back and you began posting on page 2 with Ok, I'll take the bait and see what happens. Well, this is what happened and now you are crying foul!
And brother, no one jumped on you, this has been a most pleasant discussion than the ones in the past. Search the previous threads on this topic and you will see that you are not a martyr in this discussion!!
God bless you, brother! No one hates the KJV.
Lisa
_________________
Lisa
|
| | 2011/3/24 6:17 | Profile |
| | Re: | | Frienly question. Does one need to read the King James Bible to go to heaven???? |
| | 2011/3/24 16:58 | | JB1968
Member
Joined: 2009/8/31
Posts: 416
Ohio USA
| | Re: | | Oracio,
From my understanding and what I have been taught is the KJV is from a much larger family of texts that are consistent in content, whereas many of the modern texts used may be older, but less consistent in content or with more fragments missing. The family of texts for the KJV have thousands of manuscripts that are consistent, in contrast to what may be a few that are older that are inconsistent. Just because a text is older does not always imply accuracy. It is possible that some of them were faulty versions of the Gnostics or Romans.
Chris,
Quote,
"And, just as a note regarding something someone said earlier: The NIV did not "leave out" words or passages. Those things were just not found in the source texts that the translators of the NIV believed to be the most reliable."
I remember giving my Dad a NIV in the late 80's trying to witness to him since he said he had a hard time understanding the KJV. When we got to certain passages (John and I don't remember where else), it left them out entirely with a foot note saying they were not in the older and more reliable manuscripts. What a way to cast doubt upon a non-Christian. That was a stumbling block. How do you harmonize that with verses that speak of adding to and taking away from the Word of God? Needless to say, that left a bad taste for the NIV. Now there is another NIV that changes even more.
My personal opinion is we do not need another translation of the Bible. We just need to obey the one we have.
_________________
James
|
| | 2011/3/24 20:13 | Profile | ccchhhrrriiisss
Member
Joined: 2003/11/23
Posts: 4779
| | Re: | | Hi JB1968...
Quote:
I remember giving my Dad a NIV in the late 80's trying to witness to him since he said he had a hard time understanding the KJV. When we got to certain passages (John and I don't remember where else), it left them out entirely with a foot note saying they were not in the older and more reliable manuscripts. What a way to cast doubt upon a non-Christian. That was a stumbling block. How do you harmonize that with verses that speak of adding to and taking away from the Word of God?
A common fallacy is that the translators of the NIV "left out" things. This is incorrect. The translators didn't include those passages because they weren't in the manuscripts by which most experts believe to be the oldest and most reliable. In other words, they translated the manuscripts that they deemed to be best...and those particular passages weren't contained therein.
Thus, there was no "taking away" of the Word of God anymore than the translators would have been "adding to" the Word of God by their inclusion in the finished work. After all, these translators attempted to complete an honest and accurate translation from what they deemed to be the best sources. Those passages just weren't there.
In my research, I was able to contact some of the original translators of the NIV. There are several reasons that those translators (and most modern manuscript experts) believed that those texts are more reliable. It wasn't merely the fact that the texts were older. There were certain signs that the later texts that were used to create the Textus Receptus (by a single Dutch Catholic humanist, no less) were derived from some of the texts by which the translators deemed to be older.
I urge individuals who are curious about Bible translations to avoid websites and secondhand "proclamation" sources that are often filled with more insinuations and accusations than research. Instead, we should consult sources. If someone wants to know why the translators of the NIV made decisions, they should contact the organization and those translators themselves. Even if we are to still disagree with them, it would at least give them the opportunity to answer some of the common accusations.
Quote:
My personal opinion is we do not need another translation of the Bible. We just need to obey the one we have.
I agree. However, I do not have just "one" version or translation. I use the KJV, NIV and NASB (along with several other editions -- including a Spanish version that predates the KJV). I prefer the language of the NIV (1978, 1984) because it fulfills the notion (shared by the translators of the KJV) of a "vulgar" ("common") language translation.
But I certainly agree that we need to obey what we receive from the Lord -- regardless which translation we use.
_________________
Christopher
|
| | 2011/3/24 21:18 | Profile | MrBillPro
Member
Joined: 2005/2/24
Posts: 3422
Texas
| | Re: | | God spoke through a donkey to wake Balaam up to the knowledge of God, and here were are arguing over Bible translations.
_________________
Bill
|
| | 2011/3/24 21:28 | Profile | Miccah
Member
Joined: 2007/9/13
Posts: 1752
Wisconsin
| | Re: | | MrBillPro.
Sometimes donkeys make more sense.
_________________
Christiaan
|
| | 2011/3/24 22:31 | Profile | MrBillPro
Member
Joined: 2005/2/24
Posts: 3422
Texas
| | Re: | | Quote:
Miccah...Sometimes donkeys make more sense.
Amen! Amen! and Amen! can I get another Amen!
_________________
Bill
|
| | 2011/3/24 22:33 | Profile |
| | | 2011/3/24 23:34 | | JB1968
Member
Joined: 2009/8/31
Posts: 416
Ohio USA
| | Re: | | I enjoyed your insights Chris. Have you had Hebrew or NT Greek?
I understand your point on why the translators did not include certain verses etc. in the NIV. Basing their translation on the minority texts which includes a small portion of all manuscripts. Even the Codex Vaticanus could be conceived as a Catholic manuscript since it was found and housed in the Vatican library, which is a minority text. Erasmas may of been Catholic, but the majority texts are based upon most of the copied texts which hold to a consistency of agreement. Unfortunately, none of the original manuscripts are availible for viewing. However, since many of the modern version have used the minority texts, it has caused some speculation and doubt concerning the infallability, inerrancy, and inspiration of all the Bible.
_________________
James
|
| | 2011/3/25 0:14 | Profile |
|
