Very Important Information about Bible Translations

[Rockerduck]

The reason that the Majority text is more accurate is because with more copies the accuracy goes up as opposed just two, the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, which themselves do not match. So, they combined the two to make one, which corrupted the one. To be sure, when the Holy Spirit speaks to me, it's in plain English. However, in a vision I was shown a bible, it was the KJV. I've been and am still in bible studies where people use different translations and when reading scriptures, it confusing to follow, and sometimes inaccurate.

 

[Rockerduck]

But translations do matter. Some translations make the verse men something completely different. Just one example is the New World translation used by Jehovah's Witnesses. In the first of John's gospel, that version says something like: "And the word was a god." That means something different to the usual translation of that phrase: "And the Word was God."

So true, there are over 10,000 Latin texts which were meticulously copied and contain all verses in the KJV. Combine that with the over 5000 Majority texts. The accuracy of the KJV is unparalleled.

 

[Davy]

What most are unaware of is that Westcott and Hort were first formers of the creation of a critical text of the New Testament Westcott and Hort text. Their work, published in 1881 as The New Testament in the Original Greek, became a highly influential critical edition of the Greek New Testament.

This was the first translation from the three ancient manuscripts recently discovered (19th century: Vaticanus, Sinaticua and Alexzandrinus.) Their translation from these manuscript copies are what all modern translations are derived from.

I wanted you to know that these two scholars were members of a cult group: B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort were members of a group known as the “Ghostly Gilled,” formed in 1850. This club, also referred to as the “Bogie Club”, focused on investigating paranormal phenomena, including ghosts and supernatural occurrences, as members were “disposed to believe that such things really exist”. Some sources suggest that a previous club organized by Westcott at Cambridge named “Hermes” may have been a precursor to the Ghostly Guild. The Ghostly Guild later evolved into The Society for Psychical Research, a key player in the 19th-century spiritualism movement.”

The two scholars who used Westcott and Hort’s translation were Eberhard Nestle and Kurt Aland (whom you’re probably familiar with). Nestle and Aland’s text is where today’s modern translations come from.

Yes, and letters by Wescott and Hort written to each other, they admitted that if their purpose for the new Greek NT translation ever got out, they would be ruined. Their main target was against the Textus Receptus and Majority Text.

 

[JohnDB]

 

[Netchaplain]

Yes, and letters by Wescott and Hort written to each other, they admitted that if their purpose for the new Greek NT translation ever got out, they would be ruined. Their main target was against the Textus Receptus and Majority Text.

Hi Brother, and yes, I've read of other things they did that are wrong, but I think there's enough that has been expressed here to warn others of their character (even if they eventually left the guild).

Satan has been attacking God's Word ever since the first strike in Genesis 3 with "Yea hath God said." The worst demonstration of this attack to me is when the Catholic Church pressed secular forces to arrest people for making an English translation; and burning people at the stake like Tyndale. Their has been a long battle over the Word between Protestant and Catholic groups. Of course the Protestant Christians didn't hurt any in their debates.

There are many Scripture passages that demonstrate God's promise of a compete (perfect) Bible, but it must be the correct translation. None of the Minority Text translations contains the entirety of the Word, which involves all modern translations.

Thanks for the reply Brother!

 

[Netchaplain]

Instead of making this a war between texts, we should consider all credible input, in my view. In particular, the earlier manuscripts should be given greater weight.

Hi Randy! Something I'm finding difficult to explain is that all the modern translations made from the recently discovered manuscript copies do not contain the entirety of the Word. This I believe is one of the primary issues concerning the scriptures, considering what the Lord Jesus said in Matthew 4:4: "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." Too many missing passages, words, interpolations and transpositions to be considered a part of God's Word. We've had it for 500 years, and now they say they found the true Word. That would mean God gave us an incomplete Bible for that long!

 

[Randy Kluth]

Hi Randy! Something I'm finding difficult to explain is that all the modern translations made from the recently discovered manuscript copies do not contain the entirety of the Word. This I believe is one of the primary issues concerning the scriptures, considering what the Lord Jesus said in Matthew 4:4: "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." Too many missing passages, words, interpolations and transpositions to be considered a part of God's Word. We've had it for 500 years, and now they say they found the true Word. That would mean God gave us an incomplete Bible for that long!

Well, that begs the question: were these missing words actually missing in the original autographs? If they are materials derived from tradition, as opposed to stories actually given in the original Scriptures, then they should be noted as such.

Actually, versions I've read that have omitted this material have included the missing material in the notes. Most versions I've read have noted where things were missing in the earlier manuscripts, so that people can decide for themselves. In that case, they're not really "missing"--just asking the question.

So we can't really say that "God's Word" is being removed when translations are given based on these earlier documents that simply do not have these stories/materials. The question is: are these things truly "God's Word?"

In view of this I would just buy a Bible that notes it all, inclusive, in case they really are "God's Word." But it should be noted that some very early manuscripts do not contain them, just to be safe.

To show you the concern further, let me just say that "they handled snakes, and drank poison, without being hurt" (paraphrased) was not included in the earliest manuscripts? Could it be that some monk added these stories as an embellishment of some kind, based on tradition? In that case, including it as "God's Word" may lead some weak Christians to practice "snake handling" or eat toxic foods by "faith."

Fortunately, even reducing these missing passages to notes has little effect in cases where the same truths are included in another book of the Bible. A passage or words missing in one book may be referenced, in principle, in another book. In that case, there is really not much harm done.

 

[Netchaplain]

Fortunately, even reducing these missing passages to notes has little effect in cases where the same truths are included in another book of the Bible. A passage or words missing in one book may be referenced, in principle, in another book. In that case, there is really not much harm done.

I find that the notations at the bottom of a text just attempts to discredit Scripture, attempting to say they shouldn't be included. The KJV italicizes words they did not find in the manuscripts. For example, 2Sam 21:19 says "Elhanan killed Goliath," in the modern versions, but it's suppose to read "Elhanan killed the brother of Goliath." They made this mistake deliberately, because there are no manuscripts that say "the brother of" in the manuscripts and so they let that passage as is which is an obvious error. So the KJV italicized "the brother of" to let the reader know they are not adding to the Word, because 1Chro 20:5 reiterates the passage with the correct reading that is not italicized and says "Elhanan killed Lamia the brother of Goliath" showing that there are copies that support the reading in 2Sam 21.

This may seem like a big deal but any obvious errors are a big deal. The books on all that we are discussing has a true story in it on page 176, 177 about the Goliath incident, in his book "Which Bible." It says "In one of our prominent publications (England) there appeared in the winter of 1928, an article entitled "Who killed Goliath?" Then in the spring an article named "The Dispute About Goliath." Attention was called to the fact that in the American Revised Version, IISam 21:19, we read that Elhanan killed Goliath. A special cablegram from the "most learned and devout scholars" of the Church of England said, in substance, that the Revised Version was correct, that Elhanan and not David killed Goliath."

"This publication aroused a national interest and its office was "inundated," as to the editor says, with letters as to whether this Revised Version is correct, or whether, as we have always believed according to the Authorized Version, that David killed Goliath."

The article goes on to tell of the fact that these so call scholars also did not believe on many other things in the Bible.

 

[Michiah-Imla]

Wescott & Hort…

Instruments of Satan.

 

[Aunty Jane]

But translations do matter. Some translations make the verse men something completely different. Just one example is the New World translation used by Jehovah's Witnesses. In the first of John's gospel, that version says something like: "And the word was a god." That means something different to the usual translation of that phrase: "And the Word was God."

Have you ever looked up this verse in a good concordance David?

Here is Strongs definition of what is contained in that verse....
This is the NASB version which is found in the majority of modern translations.

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

Here is the verse broken up into its components...(Strongs Concordance)

“In the beginning G746 was the Word, G3056 and the Word G3056 was with God, G2316 and the Word G3056 was God. G2316

So we have three words that need scrutiny here.......firstly, a “beginning” (“archē”)...a time when “the Word” was “with God”.
Did God have a “beginning”? And why is that relevant to the verse? It indicates a time period, which would be immaterial, even redundant if “the Word” was an immortal who has always existed “with God”.
God did not have a beginning, so the Word would not have a beginning either. (Rev 3:14)

Who is “the Word” and why is Jesus given this title?
We know that this word is “logos” but it has many meanings as Strongs indicates.....

It means .....”of speech

1. a word, uttered by a living voice, embodies a conception or idea
2. what someone has said
   
   1. a word
   2. the sayings of God
   3. decree, mandate or order
   4. of the moral precepts given by God
   5. Old Testament prophecy given by the prophets
   6. what is declared, a thought, declaration, aphorism, a weighty saying, a dictum, a maxim.” And even more than that if you want to look it up. Strongs “logos”

So this title means that Jesus spoke God’s words, or was his spokesman.....and that “the word of God” can also mean something written down that was spoken by God...and which would logically include his words in the Scriptures. So his title doesn’t indicate that he is the one that he spoke for, but was his mouthpiece, or representative.
His role as Mediator shows this....he is the “mediator between God and men”. Two parties need the mediation.....so Jesus cannot be one of the parties.

The last word we want to define is “theos” which is translated “God” or “god” depending on the context.
This is where we need some background information before jumping to conclusions based on doctrine rather than truth.

How does Strongs define this word “theos”?
It’s primary definition is....

1. “a god or goddess, a general name of deities or divinities”.

So it can relate to any kind of “god” or “divine” personage. It isn’t always a reference to Yahweh.

Also to be considered is the use of capital letters, when the Greek did not have upper and lower case, nor any punctuation. So the use of capitals can also be misleading if they are used in the wrong place.

Also, we understand that God’s personal name (Yahweh/Jehovah) had been abandoned by the Jews in their general speech, long before Jesus came.....preferring to call God, “Adonai”, meaning “Lord”. But having removed God’s name from their speech, they did not dare remove it from their sacred Scripture, so it was still very evident in their writings.

When the Scriptures were translated from Greek to English and the divine name was substituted, they capitalised the word “LORD” to indicate where the divine name was mentioned in the Hebrew Scriptures from which they often quoted. So when we see “theos” as an address to Yahweh it is always preceded by the word “ho” which means “THE God”.....this was because the Greeks did not have a word for a god with no name. All their gods were identified with their names, but the one God of the Jews needed to be identified by the definite article “ho”....so every time we see “ho theos”...we can use God’s personal name (Yahweh).

If we remember that all of Jesus’ first disciples were Jewish, then he would naturally teach his followers about the God they all held to be “the only true God” (John 17:3)...the God of Jewish monotheism. If Jesus were to present a different “god” to these Jews, he would have been rejected as a blasphemer.

That is what his opposers tried to insinuate if we look in John 10:31-36.
The Jews were trying to pin a charge of blasphemy on him to have an excuse to execute him....

“Once again the Jews picked up stones to stone him. 32  Jesus replied to them: “I displayed to you many fine works from the Father. For which of those works are you stoning me?” 33  The Jews answered him: “We are stoning you, not for a fine work, but for blasphemy; for you, although being a man, make yourself out to be God.” (theos) 34  Jesus answered them: “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said: “You are gods”’? (theos) 35  If he called ‘gods’ (theos) those against whom the word of God (ho theos) came—and yet the scripture cannot be nullified— 36  do you say to me whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, ‘I am God’s (ho theos) Son’?”

Reading that in English it appears as if the Jews accused Jesus of claiming to be “God” with a capital “G” but that is not what they said if you read the Greek.
Just like John 1:1 there is God, “ho theos” (Yahweh) and “gods” (just “theos” without the definite article).

Jesus said that calling men “theos” (gods) meant that they were God’s representatives, just as the judges were in ancient Israel, to whom Jesus referred. Since the differentiation is obvious in Greek, why is that difference not carried over into English translations? In a word....doctrine.
Satan is called “theos” in 2 Cor 4:4.

If the verse in John 1:1 is read in Greek, it should be translated into English as......
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, (ho theos) and the Word was “a god” (theos) or divine”.

It’s a small word but with a very important meaning.....if we don’t do our own research, then the lies that were sown by the “weeds” of Jesus parable centuries ago, will appear to be gospel truth and accepted by the majority....there is the red flag. The majority are on the wrong path....”few” are going to be found teaching the truth...a very unpopular one as Jesus did. (Matt 7:13-14; 21-23) It came with false accusations and persecution. (Matt 5:11-12; John 15:18-21)
FWIW.....

Those who love the truth, will not be drawn into falsehood.

 

[Randy Kluth]

I find that the notations at the bottom of a text just attempts to discredit Scripture, attempting to say they shouldn't be included. The KJV italicizes words they did not find in the manuscripts. For example, 2Sam 21:19 says "Elhanan killed Goliath," in the modern versions, but it's suppose to read "Elhanan killed the brother of Goliath." They made this mistake deliberately, because there are no manuscripts that say "the brother of" in the manuscripts and so they let that passage as is which is an obvious error. So the KJV italicized "the brother of" to let the reader know they are not adding to the Word, because 1Chro 20:5 reiterates the passage with the correct reading that is not italicized and says "Elhanan killed Lamia the brother of Goliath" showing that there are copies that support the reading in 2Sam 21.

This may seem like a big deal but any obvious errors are a big deal. The books on all that we are discussing has a true story in it on page 176, 177 about the Goliath incident, in his book "Which Bible." It says "In one of our prominent publications (England) there appeared in the winter of 1928, an article entitled "Who killed Goliath?" Then in the spring an article named "The Dispute About Goliath." Attention was called to the fact that in the American Revised Version, IISam 21:19, we read that Elhanan killed Goliath. A special cablegram from the "most learned and devout scholars" of the Church of England said, in substance, that the Revised Version was correct, that Elhanan and not David killed Goliath."

"This publication aroused a national interest and its office was "inundated," as to the editor says, with letters as to whether this Revised Version is correct, or whether, as we have always believed according to the Authorized Version, that David killed Goliath."

The article goes on to tell of the fact that these so call scholars also did not believe on many other things in the Bible.

Really? And how does this affect my spiritual life today? Are we really this fragile in our faith? I certainly hope not!

As much as we wish to believe God magically created perfect biblical authors and copyist scribes, I think that their work should be characterized as "faithful," as opposed to "perfect." Likely errors were corrected and polished to render the language more "readable." The important thing was the validity of what was said, or even what was likely intended to be said.

Basing your Christian life on the need for perfection of Scriptural record should be eclipsed by our need to place our lives in the hands of a perfect Savior. We are not perfect. But he is, on our behalf. If you believe the authors of Scripture, including Moses, were perfect, you do not believe Scripture where all men are consigned to a Sin Nature. And that Sin causes us to necessarily be flawed, physically and mentally.

But the whole record of Redemption shows that God can faithfully work through weak and imperfect men to communicate a message that can be properly understood and received. Quibbling over small matters is part of our weak and sinful heritage, as well as part of our proneness to a "party spirit."

 

[PS95]

Those who love the truth, will not be drawn into falsehood.

Yes, well Satan is called ho theos.
It very clear by reading the Apostolic Church Fathers that they who read Koine Greek understood it to say THE WORD WAS GOD. They leave zero doubt by context that is how they read it.

The JW "bible" good grief. I grew up with that thing. Here are just 3 quick examples of your idea of "truth"---

Since lying causes one to spin a web of deceit to further the lie--- JWs began with John 1:1 so then Colossians was also offensive to them -so they "fixed" it-- by adding the word (OTHER) FOUR TIMES in a blatant attempt to make the pre-existent Jesus a creature-

1) Colossians 1 (NASB- with JW nwt added words in red)
15He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16For by Him all (OTHER) things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all (OTHER) things have been created through Him and for Him. 17He is before all (OTHER) things, and in Him all (OTHER) things hold together. 18He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything. 19For it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him, 20and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven.

There is absolutely no excuse for that. OTHER is not in the Greek anywhere! and they no longer even use parenthesis. It is NOT ok to add your own words when they change the meaning just to suit your twisted doctrines . Yet that is precisely what they did.

-----------------
2) JW "bible" has been adapted to suit your doctrines- Look at Romans 6:23 Again, this is not in the Greek. It's subtle and does not alter the meaning but it is not in the Greek- So why add it? It was perfectly clear without it.
The words "pays" was added here because you teach that when you die physically that you pay for our own sins .aka. (acquitted of sins) - so you are resurrected sinless by dying... If Jesus' blood paid for your sins why do you teach your physical death does?
Isn't Jesus' payment sufficient? Does your God require dual payments?
There was NO OTHER REASON to add the word pays here.. It was to assist in the indoctrination of people. It serves no other purpose.

For the wages sin pays is death, but the gift God gives is everlasting life by Christ Jesus our Lord.-- JW bible nwt

For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. --KJV
----------------

3) and- How about this one- and then we have the added word, NO beginning verse 7, so you are further being led to believe that Jesus is not equal.. The Greek there is one word, "alla", so it should not read NO but.

Verse 6- KLV uses robbery- harpagmos: Grasping, robbery, something to be seized.
plunder
From harpazo; plunder (properly concrete) -- robbery.
This is a forceful word. It certainly does not mean to "consider an idea."
Also, non- KJV bibles that use the words, grasp, can be misleading since grasp has more than one meaning.
To take or grab something- or to comprehend something. --Did you grasp what I said?
The Watchtower has taken very clear advantage of the confusion by using the word, grasp-- and they ran with it and put
"consider the idea"!!!! Cut me a break.....
The word harpagmos denotes a ---forceful taking.. --Robbery is best.

And then of course, we have the word, OTHER added again in verse 9 which is not in the Greek.
The Greek does not say "became human" it DOES say "became obedient"

Nothing about this is a translation- it is a corrupted transliteration-
The bias is just incredible as the entire nwt is.

Phil 2:6-11

JW version--
Keep this mental attitude in you that was also in Christ Jesus,  who, although he was existing in God’s form, did not even consider the idea of trying to be equal to God.  No, but he emptied himself and took a slave’s form and became human.  More than that, when he came as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death, yes, death on a torture stake.  For this very reason, God exalted him to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every other name, so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend—of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the ground and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.

HORRIBLE! Let's read truth-

NKJV Phil 2:1-11 added verses 1-4 for context- which is humility..
1Therefore if there is any consolation in Christ, if any comfort of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any affection and mercy, 2fulfill my joy by being like-minded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind. 3Let nothing be done through selfish ambition or conceit, but in lowliness of mind let each esteem others better than himself. 4Let each of you look out not only for his own interests, but also for the interests of others.
5Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus,
who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. 8And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross. Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, 10that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, 11and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

I could go on and on but I'm tired.

 

[Netchaplain]

Really? And how does this affect my spiritual life today? Are we really this fragile in our faith? I certainly hope not!

I don't know what you're trying to say here, so I don't want to comment of the wrong thing. Let me know what you mean in another way. Thanks!

As much as we wish to believe God magically created perfect biblical authors and copyist scribes, I think that their work should be characterized as "faithful," as opposed to "perfect." Likely errors were corrected and polished to render the language more "readable." The important thing was the validity of what was said, or even what was likely intended to be said.

I can't doubt that the complete Word of God is contained in the correct translation. The translation isn't flawless but the Word in the right translation is flawless (complete; perfect). There are too many scriptures that indicate this: Psa 19:7 "The law of the LORD is perfect"; Pro 30:5 "Every word of God is pure"; 2Ti 3:16 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God" (which means something contains "all Scripture"; 2Pe 1:21 "Prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." Deuteronomy 4:2, 12:32 "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you." Deu 12:32 "What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it." I don't think in need to continue Brother.

Basing your Christian life on the need for perfection of Scriptural record should be eclipsed by our need to place our lives in the hands of a perfect Savior.

All know the most important thing is God first, then love (which He teaches us), then Bible doctrine; and it's through Bible doctrine that God guides and enables Christians to love Him first in all things!

 

[Randy Kluth]

I don't know what you're trying to say here, so I don't want to comment of the wrong thing. Let me know what you mean in another way. Thanks!

I can't doubt that the complete Word of God is contained in the correct translation. The translation isn't flawless but the Word in the right translation is flawless (complete; perfect). There are too many scriptures that indicate this: Psa 19:7 "The law of the LORD is perfect"; Pro 30:5 "Every word of God is pure"; 2Ti 3:16 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God" (which means something contains "all Scripture"; 2Pe 1:21 "Prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." Deuteronomy 4:2, 12:32 "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you." Deu 12:32 "What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it." I don't think in need to continue Brother.

All know the most important thing is God first, then love (which He teaches us), then Bible doctrine; and it's through Bible doctrine that God guides and enables Christians to love Him first in all things!

I do think attempting to find the *perfect* Scripture translation is an exercise in futility, and an indulgence in misdirection. We are to aim towards a perfect God, and not towards a perfect translation. That's what I meant above.

If you just look at the history of Bible translation you will find that there never has been a perfect Scripture translation, nor likely a perfect Scripture autograph, as well. That's because Scripture is not God. It contains the Word of God but is something less than God's Word because it is the product of Man being faithful to God's Word--not God speaking His own Word apart from human contamination.

Can God operate His Word through fallible, flawed creatures? Of course! That is the whole message of redemption, that God can still faithfully produce the effect of His Word through creatures that have been marred by sin.

But saying the Scriptures *are* the Word of God in perfection is saying something beyond what we generally mean by calling Scriptures the "Word of God." What we should mean, in my view, is that the Scriptures are reliably used by God to convey His Word, accurate enough to enable us to rely upon it to a great measure.

There has always been problems with adding to Scriptures, differences between translations, evidence of "polishing," etc. We should not deny that.

If we start a "religious war" over what translation best presents that David killed Goliath, then we've elevated the minor and devalued the major. In sum, we've put our spiritual lives on hold until we resolve issues of language, which never has been the purpose of Scripture.

Scripture itself would have us conform to God's image, and not get caught up in the minutae of low-level disagreements. That's what I intended to say above.

 

[Rockerduck]

I do think attempting to find the *perfect* Scripture translation is an exercise in futility, and an indulgence in misdirection. We are to aim towards a perfect God, and not towards a perfect translation. That's what I meant above.

If you just look at the history of Bible translation you will find that there never has been a perfect Scripture translation, nor likely a perfect Scripture autograph, as well. That's because Scripture is not God. It contains the Word of God but is something less than God's Word because it is the product of Man being faithful to God's Word--not God speaking His own Word apart from human contamination.

Can God operate His Word through fallible, flawed creatures? Of course! That is the whole message of redemption, that God can still faithfully produce the effect of His Word through creatures that have been marred by sin.

But saying the Scriptures *are* the Word of God in perfection is saying something beyond what we generally mean by calling Scriptures the "Word of God." What we should mean, in my view, is that the Scriptures are reliably used by God to convey His Word, accurate enough to enable us to rely upon it to a great measure.

There has always been problems with adding to Scriptures, differences between translations, evidence of "polishing," etc. We should not deny that.

If we start a "religious war" over what translation best presents that David killed Goliath, then we've elevated the minor and devalued the major. In sum, we've put our spiritual lives on hold until we resolve issues of language, which never has been the purpose of Scripture.

Scripture itself would have us conform to God's image, and not get caught up in the minutae of low-level disagreements. That's what I intended to say above.

The KJV has been around for over 400 yrs.. Every important preacher since has used the KJV. Every revival has used the KJV. Only in the last 50 yrs has the push for "another" bible to be made. The result of this is the lack of church attendance, no revivals, and watered down preaching, and no evangelists anymore. Only the KJV and NKJ uses the textus receptus all other translations use the corrupt critical text. Ever since the Tyndale bible people have trusted God's word in these books to save millions. Trust in God's preserved word, and not a world philosophy.

 

[Randy Kluth]

The KJV has been around for over 400 yrs.. Every important preacher since has used the KJV. Every revival has used the KJV. Only in the last 50 yrs has the push for "another" bible to be made. The result of this is the lack of church attendance, no revivals, and watered down preaching, and no evangelists anymore. Only the KJV and NKJ uses the textus receptus all other translations use the corrupt critical text. Ever since the Tyndale bible people have trusted God's word in these books to save millions. Trust in God's preserved word, and not a world philosophy.

That, in my view, is pure "party spirit" and bias. You think there has been no important preachers in the last 50 years who have used other than the KJV? Who says?

You think the fall in church attendance is due to modern Bible translations? Who says?

I would blame the Enlightenment before I would blame responsible Bible translations from Alexandrian manuscripts! I would blame urbanization rather than minor differences in the language used in different Bible versions.

You really need to be more fair, in my opinion. You cite no scientific studies to back up your claims, which depend purely on your own emotions. And emotions can steer you down the path of division and carnality.

 

[Rockerduck]

That, in my view, is pure "party spirit" and bias. You think there has been no important preachers in the last 50 years who have used other than the KJV? Who says?

You think the fall in church attendance is due to modern Bible translations? Who says?

I would blame the Enlightenment before I would blame responsible Bible translations from Alexandrian manuscripts! I would blame urbanization rather than minor differences in the language used in different Bible versions.

You really need to be more fair, in my opinion. You cite no scientific studies to back up your claims, which depend purely on your own emotions. And emotions can steer you down the path of division and carnality.

Nothing carnal here, but purely from the Holy Spirit, Who gives me revelations. I don't divide, I point out the fact that the last great preacher was Billy Graham who God anointed for a generation and nobody has replaced B. Graham. In the past, another Great preacher would always rise after another passed for a generation. I worked for the Billy Graham crusades. Where are all the evangelists? They were common when I was first born again from above. I am well aware of the watered-down gospel preached today. They are not really preachers like those in the past. When a pastor tells jokes, and talks about his family or growing up its not preaching, its entertainment. Like I said, everything has changed in these latter days. Why do you need a scientific study to see what is right in front of you? Christ does not call us to be fair, but to call out the sin of the complacent and warn of the end times.

 

[Netchaplain]

I do think attempting to find the *perfect* Scripture translation is an exercise in futility, and an indulgence in misdirection. We are to aim towards a perfect God, and not towards a perfect translation. That's what I meant above.

Thanks for the explanation, and I thought that's what you meant, but I wanted to be sure not to offend you. It seems we are going around in circles now, repeating and covering the same ground too much. It's obvious that we have a different understanding about this issue and thanks ok of course. We probably need to wait for a different subject to chat about.

To me and every Christian, God is first in everything, then our love for others, then Bible doctrine. So this priority seems to be the the same for you. Bible doctrine is what God uses to guide and enable us to always seek to put Him first!

Love you Brother and God's blessings to your Family!

 

[Netchaplain]

The KJV has been around for over 400 yrs.. Every important preacher since has used the KJV. Every revival has used the KJV. Only in the last 50 yrs has the push for "another" bible to be made. The result of this is the lack of church attendance, no revivals, and watered down preaching, and no evangelists anymore. Only the KJV and NKJ uses the textus receptus all other translations use the corrupt critical text. Ever since the Tyndale bible people have trusted God's word in these books to save millions. Trust in God's preserved word, and not a world philosophy.

Hi Rod! Very true and informative above-average information! The transposed and interpolated passages in the modern translations do often seem philosophical and natural, rather than spiritual. I strongly agree that these versions have resulted in many ceasing to read the Word because not many of the passages can be easily memorized. I have no doubt this is part of what caused many to stop attending Church.

It was the Word that got us in Church and it was the Word that kept many going to Church. One thing I think these versions do is give people a reason to cease from studying the Word and also eventually cease from everything Christian, which leads to "dead faith." Jas 2:17, 20, 26. I also think that many of those who have left the Church within the last 50 years may not have been saved (1Jo 2:19).


I find it interesting that the KJV is the only translation you can use efficiently with a concordance when attempting to locate a passage!

 

[Randy Kluth]

Thanks for the explanation, and I thought that's what you meant, but I wanted to be sure not to offend you. It seems we are going around in circles now, repeating and covering the same ground too much. It's obvious that we have a different understanding about this issue and thanks ok of course. We probably need to wait for a different subject to chat about.

To me and every Christian, God is first in everything, then our love for others, then Bible doctrine. So this priority seems to be the the same for you. Bible doctrine is what God uses to guide and enable us to always seek to put Him first!

Love you Brother and God's blessings to your Family!

love ya brother... take care! :)