What is sad is that reason is always given for this particular discussion but not about other "pointless" discussions.

Pointless is in quotes for a reason because pointless is in the eyes of the beholder.

Too bad that you think only the original autographs (which are not originals) are accurate and what we have today is not.

Mike

Hey, does anyone know what the standard is so we know whether the Bible is being corrupted or not?

Seems like anything goes.

Does God have a standard or not?

Why did he waste His time telling us not to add to or subtract from the Bible, or else?

What standard tells us if we are adding to or taking away from God's Word? Something we can judge all versions by. Does anyone know what standard God uses? This is not a trick question so no tricky answers, please.

Seriously.

Brother, it's a narrow WAY not a narrow-minded way.

God be with you,
Lisa

_________________
Lisa

Hello Julius 21,

Regarding your post on Genesis 12. I am assuming your are looking for the truth.

(KJV) And Pharaoh called Abram, and said, What is this that thou hast done unto me? why didst thou not tell me that she was thy wife? {19} Why saidst thou, She is my sister? so I MIGHT have taken her to me to wife: now therefore behold thy wife, take her, and go thy way.

In the Hebrew the word " might " is not there. In that case KJV is nort accurate, and the other versions are more literal than KJV.


Please review the text in the hebrew.

Ge 12:19 Why saidst thou, <'amar> She is my sister <'achowth>? so I might have taken <laqach> her to me to wife: <'ishshah> now therefore behold thy wife, <'ishshah> take <laqach> her, and go thy way. <yalak>

the word "laqach" means ((took)), not (( might have taken)).

If we are to say ((might have taken)), we must add the word " m@`at " to the word " laqach " to mean " almost took "

or miat {meh-awt'}; from 4591; a little or few (often adverbial or compar.):--almost (some, very) few(-er, -est), lightly, little (while), (very) small (matter, thing), some, soon, X very.

You see that in Genesis 26:10 when isaac did the same with his wife when he lied about her to Abimelech and said she was his sister.

Ge 26:10 And Abimelech said, What is this thou hast done unto us? one of the people might lightly have lien with thy wife, and thou shouldest have brought guiltiness upon us.

The word translated " lightly" means it was about to happen but had not yet.

But if you notice in Genesis 12 the word " TOOK " is not preceded by that word, but in the past tense.

It is the same word as in the following verses.

Ge 2:15 And the LORD <Y@hovah> God <'elohiym> took <laqach> the man <'adam>, and put him <yanach> into the garden <gan> of Eden <`Eden> to dress <`abad> it and to keep <shamar> it. {the man: or, Adam}

The word simply means: took, take, was taken, has taken....
But not might have taken. it speaks of a definite action past, present, future, or a command, but not a possible action.

_________________
Fifi

Come a day in the not too distant future when we are in prison for Jesus, will this discussion really be relevant? If we are in a concentration camp and we find other believers are we going to ask then what translation of scripture they read? Imagine yourself in a concentration camp. You are KJV only. You find a fellow saint. He is thrown into prison with you. But horrors he has read The Message. Yet he is suffering for Jesus as you are. Are you going to with hold fellowship from that believer? Something to think about.

Hi Untobabes,

That is very interesting what you point out and I am doing research on it.

I did not mean to raise a ruckus and have to answer martyr that of course this does not matter if we are in prison. But, then again, many of these discussions on SI won't matter, right? But, as someone already said, that reasoning is never held up to other discussions. I don't think it is a fair characterization what martyr has said and these characterizations don't seem to stop regarding those that believe God has a standard.

I don't know anyone that loves the KJV that does not fellowship with others. Maybe there are some who do that. Not liking a certain translation does not mean that you don't love the Body of Christ but that seems to be the characterization.

It grieves me that this issue raises such ridiculous and harmful comments, so I willingly withdraw this thread because this will only continue.

I liked what Untobabes posted and that is the kind of discussion that should take place. To be honest, I had not found the answer yet, but am only starting my research.

I may just take it privately with Untobabes.

I wish everyone well and you should all get back to your usual discussions. No child of God is a buffoon and neither side of this discussion should be characterized in a negative way.

I am sorry if I offended anyone, I guess I was just naive and did not know what I was walking into.

Julius

Brother I deeply apologize. My post was not to characterize or offend. I honestly forsee a time that believers will go to prison and possibly death for their faith in Jesus in America. So this was not to mock you. I was wondering what your thinking woukd be come the time we are put in prison for our faith.

Julius I do not know you except through your post. You seem reasonable. Unfortunately most of my experiences with the KJO have been pretty unpleasant. But I have had some good dialogue with you and Sarah. I apologize that I misread your passion. Brother keep your thread open. We need to be challenged. I have been continually challenged and even insulted in this forum. Brother I may pose questions and maybe disagree with you. But if I have insulted you then please forgive me. That was never my intention. You have the freedom to keep this thread open. I hope you do. There will be those who will differ with you. Bit you will aleays have my respect because you love the word.

Your brother in Christ,

Blaine aka Martyr

_________________
Arun

Hi Julius and all those who want to read this.

I must say, I am very glad to see the good spirit of love amongst us all on this website. What an example for our Lord Jesus Christ!

I would like to add to this discussion, because I also am very familiar with the KJV-only movement and sadly the damage that it caused me personally. I have no doubt Julius that you love the word of God and want to honour God. No doubt at all. But I would like to give you one or two things to think about.

For starters, we all agree here that the KJV is not an easy translation to read. I had been just as zealous to defend the KJV previously and I had no time for the NIV. I had heard plenty of KJV-only arguments against the NIV and I was scared to touch it, quite frankly.

But reading the NIV Preface one day began to change my mind. This is always helpful, I find. I began reading the NIV and read through all the prophets, which was far easier than in the KJV! All of us admit that the Scriptures must be in language that is easy enough for us to understand. God does NOT want his word veiled in language that is difficult. I accept that most of the NT in the KJV is simple enough to understand: but what about the OT? How many Christians actually read through every word of the OT in the KJV? It's extremely challenging to do this for the average Christian, far more so than reading through the entire NIV.

In addition: reading the NIV everyday, the OT, has blessed me immeasurably! I used to get hung up also on all of those very Scriptures you have brought up. But I wonder what the need is to be concerned about these slight differences in translation IF SOMEONE IS ONLY READING THROUGH THE ENTIRE BIBLE. I think for reading through the Bible, an accurate, but readable translation is by far a better choice than the KJV. The NIV is quite accurate enough to do this, without claiming perfection in accuracy.

I have come to believe strongly that the Bible is not a text book or reference book. It's a book which contains 66 books, all of which have a main point and purpose. But to get that purpose in one reading, you must not miss the wood from the trees. You must see basically what each passage is saying. This means paying attention to the CONTEXT as your greatest concern: not each individual words. In fact, attention to the context often overthrows these textual concerns. For example: the Matthew 1:25 text. Ok, let's say the original read 'firstborn son', rather than just son. There are other areas in the whole context of the NIV, like Mark 6:2-3 and luke 2 which tell you clear as day that Jesus was not Mary's only child. So what's the problem? Also, the Genesis 12 one: Pharoah does not say to Abram: 'Take MY wife, and go', but 'take YOUR wife and leave'. So it's clear Sarai wasn't really Pharoah's wife.

If a Christian seeks to just read the Bible and get the basic thrust of each passage, the vast majority of them would never have picked up those differences in translations anyway. This is not because we don't care about accuracy. It is because to pay too much attention to errors (which all translations have) when simply reading the Bible would cause us to miss the point of the passages.

I believe that accuracy is of the greatest important when someone is studying a passage very intimately. That's when we want to be having as accurate a translation as possible and perhaps the KJV is good for this. But the ASV and ESV are good for this too.

Anyway: since my heart is on desiring Christians to read through the Bible, I cannot favour the KJV for this. I would far favour the NIV, or just about any version other than the JW's one, where the Scriptures have clearly been meddled with.

I will say one last thing. When I saw that the NIV and ESV and other translations are not seeking to corrupt God's word and that it was not poison that would kill my Christianity, this was one of the most liberating experiences in my life. I really don't think holding to the common KJV-only view-point is helpful at all to God's people. It does create divison and puts an enormous block in the way of preventing believers from getting the most out of reading the Bible. Trust me: I've done it myself. I blame myself for enforcing the KJV onto Christians because I believe this hindered their understand of the Bible. So even if we all went back to the KJV, you'd have another enormous problem on your hands: getting Christians to enjoy reading it, especially in the OT prophets. That sacrifice is far too great in my mind's eye. I would far rather they stick with the NIV or another readable translation which is reliable enough for just reading repeatedly through the Scriptures.

Hi matt1000,

Everything you say is fine by me, I may not agree but I am not going to argue with you.

Have a great day,
Julius