1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Do we really need the English KJV of Bible?

Discussion in 'Christian Theology Forum' started by 6742705, Sep 21, 2007.

  1. 6742705

    6742705 Guest

    Removed
     
  2. Christina

    Christina New Member

    Messages:
    10,900
    Likes Received:
    88
    Thats not exactly right the KJV is the best we have however it is somewhat lacking because the English lanuage is that lacking for instance:The word "Mark" appears in the KJV 37 times in 36 verses.However when we look at the original text we see that Sixteen (16) different words with slightly to extremely different meanings were used for this one English word. Using a (Strongs) concordance we can break this down and see what verse's used which, words and their meaningsSo another words 16 differnt Hebrew words were all translated in to english as the one word "Mark" because there were not English words with those meanings so they tried to get close they suceeded for the most part but failed in some important others.
     
  3. HammerStone

    HammerStone Well-Known Member Staff Member

    Messages:
    5,110
    Likes Received:
    250
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    The simple answer is that the KJV is the best we have available. The long-winded explanation,in a very small nutshell, is that English is half the language of Hebrew, or even the Greek for that matter. The Bible operates on more level than one and often our English language fails to grasp the depth of the Hebrew and Greek.I thank God that we have the tools to be able to go back and see these meanings and catch them. This, quite obviously, differs greatly from writing one's own.
     
  4. Wakka

    Wakka Super Member

    Messages:
    1,470
    Likes Received:
    2
    The KJV follows the Byzantine text. Best version translated to English. And most all other versions are from Alexandrian text, which contains missing and misinterpreted verses.
    Q: What are some of the differences between the Alexandrian manuscript family versus the Byzantine?A: The Alexandrian manuscripts have at least 33 verses less than the Byzantine family, which works out to 577 words less. There also are at least 54 word modifications. If someone felt certain the earliest Alexandrian manuscripts were totally correct, then the following verses would not be in the Bible: Mt 12:47; 17:21; 18:11; 23:14; Mk 9:44, 46; 11:26; 15:28; 16:9-20; Lk 23:24; Jn 5:4; John 7:53-8:11. The manuscripts Bodmer 14, 15, Sinaiticus do not have Lk 23:17 while Vaticanus has it.Modern times did not produce the first people to study Bible manuscript variations. An unusual Christian from Alexandria named Origen apparently was the first to very systematically look at various manuscripts and decide which most likely was the original reading. Origen had a large number of manuscripts available to him that are lost to us today, and Alexandrian manuscripts are all assumed to be influence by his work. (Christians today debate over whether his influence is a good or bad thing.) Here is a small sampling of manuscript variations where the Alexandrian manuscripts generally say the same thing and Byzantine manuscripts say something different.Mt 18:11 ("For the son of Man is come to save that which has been lost.") is absent in Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Sahidic Coptic, Bohairic Coptic, Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome. These 9 words are included in the Byzantine Lectionary, Syriac, Armenian, Diatessaron (c.170 A.D.), and Chrysostom (400 A.D).Mk 10:34 has "after three days" in Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, Bezae Cantabrigiensis, Sahidic Coptic, Bohairic Coptic. It says "On the third day" in Alexandrinus, Byzantine Lectionary, Gothic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Georgian, Origen.Mk 11:26 "But if you do not forgive, neither will your Father who is in heaven forgive your sins/transgressions." is missing in Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Bohairic Coptic, and Sahidic Coptic. (17 words)Mk 16:9-20 The following sources do not have the longer ending.c.360 A.D. Eusebius Questions to Marianus I193-217/220 A.D. Clement of Alexandria225-254 A.D. Origen407 A.D. Jerome, Epistle 120At least 6 other ancient manuscriptsSyriac900-1000 A.D. Armenian manuscript has it, but says it was added by Aristion, whom Papias mentionsSinaiticus and Vaticanus do not have it, but they have a blank space for it.The following manuscripts do have the longer ending170-202 A.D. Irenaeus Against Heresies 3:11110-155 A.D. (disciple of Polycarp, disciple of John)c.170 A.D. Tatian's Diatessaron200 A.D. Tertullian Treatise on the SoulAt least 38 ancient Bible texts120-150 A.D. Didache~700 A.D. on Byzantine text family5th century Freer Gospels400-600 A.D. Codex Bezae manuscriptThe later Alexandrian manuscripts have it also.c.450 A.D. Alexandrinus400-500 A.D. Ephraemi Rescriptus Manuscript3rd-4th century Bohairic Coptic3rd-4th century Sahidic CopticJn 5:4 ("for an angel of the Lord went down at certain seasons into the pool, and stirred up the water; whoever then first, after the stirring up of the water, stepped in was made well from whatever disease with which he was afflicted.") absent in p66 (150-200 A.D.), p75, Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Sahidic Coptic, Bohairic Coptic, and the original copies of Ephraemi Rescriptus, Alexandrinus, and the Diatessaron. The church writer Nonnus (431 A.D.) does not have this. The earliest copies with these 29 words are the Armenian and Georgian versions (both 5th century), and later corrections to Alexandrinus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, and the Freer Gospels. However, the church fathers Tertullian (200-240 A.D.), Ambrose, Didymus, Chrysostom, and Cyril refer to this in their paraphrased renderings.Jn 7:53-8:11 is called "the pericope of the adulteress" Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, p56, p75, the Sahidic Coptic, and the Gothic do not have it. The Diatessaron, Clement of Rome, Tertullian, Origen, and Chrysostom also do not have it. The rest of the major manuscripts have it. Aland et al. says "Alexandrinus and Ephraemi Rescriptus apparently had it, though their state of preservation makes this not certain. This passage is interesting in that Aland et al. says this is "virtually certain" it was in the original manuscript, yet the Alexandrian family, with the exception of Bohairic Coptic, do not have it. Thus, if one relies on the Alexandrian family of manuscripts, one has to do so recognizing that this family left out this entire passage. Of course while the Byzantine family has this passage, John Chrysostom does not. (The pericope of the adulteress and the ending of Mark are the two largest non-trivial manuscript variations in the New Testament.)Jn 10:34 "the law" is in Bodmer II 200 A.D. Bodmer 14,15 early 3rd century, Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, Byzantine Lectionary, Sahidic Coptic, Bohairic Coptic, Gothic, Armenian, Athanasius. It says "the law of you" in Chester Beatty Papyrii 200 A.D., Sinaiticus (corrected), Cantabrigiensis, Tertullian, Hilary.Eph 1:1 The words "in Ephesus" are absent from Chester Beatty II (200 A.D.), Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, and the early Christian writers Tertullian (200-240 A.D.) and Origen (225-254 A.D.). A corrector later added the words to Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. Alexandrinus also has these words, as do the Byzantine Lectionary and John Chrysostom (c.397 A.D.)1 Cor 11:24 "broken for you", "broken" is absent in Chester Beatty II (200 A.D.), Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, Ephraemi Rescriptus (original), Alexandrinus, Athanasius (326-373 A.D.). "Broken" is present as a later correction in Sinaiticus, Ephraemi Rescriptus (3rd corrector), the Gothic, Byzantine Lectionary, and John Chrysostom (c.397 A.D.)A split decision is Mk 1:2, where the Byzantine Lectionary and the Armenian says In the prophets, along with Alexandrinus, Syriac, Bohairic Coptic, Ethiopic, Irenaeus, and other manuscripts. Isaiah is mentioned in most other manuscripts including Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Sahidic Coptic, Gothic, Bezae Cantabrigiensis, etc..Regardless, the Alexandrian and Byzantine manuscript families all do not have 1 Jn 5:7-8. The first preserved Greek manuscript that has this was not written until the 10th century, though the heretic Priscillian (380 A.D.) had heard of this.
     
  5. tim_from_pa

    tim_from_pa New Member

    Messages:
    1,656
    Likes Received:
    12
    I like the KJV because Is has no denominational ax to grind. This is not to say that it is perfect, but was translated from the original Hebrew and Greek where codes and gematrias work. The newer versions almost sound (IMO) like they are slanted depending on who translated them.In addition, the KJV bible is not copyrighted. For the newer texts, I often wondered how someone can translate or paraphrase God's Word and then claim copyright on it? How would you like for someone to rephrase your journal and then claim it as their own? Personally, I see that as blasphemy. Therefore, if someone wants to claim copyright, it must be man's words, not God's. Sometimes I think that these other translations are to fit people's notions instead of the truth.On a side note here, the KJV was translated when James VI of Scotland became James I of Britain. Those of us who understand the 3rd overturn of the Davidic throne can appreciate this critical time in history, and how our English KJV bible was born. I believe its no coincidence that the most enduring translation came out at this time.
     
  6. Jordan

    Jordan Active Member

    Messages:
    4,884
    Likes Received:
    5
    I agree with Wakka and Tim_from_Pa. I won't use a modern version for studying the Word. Much has said in ths scripture...to warn us from false teaching. I have 3 bibles. 1 is KJB, and 2 others are modern bibles, that I dare not to use for studying.You can see my post at this topic. Go to post #9.TaintLovest ye in Christ Yahshua our Lord and Saviour.
     
  7. E Nomine

    E Nomine New Member

    Messages:
    120
    Likes Received:
    0
    I found what helps in buying a bible that is sound is looking at John 1:1. If you disagree with that translation of the verse then you will disagree with the entire bible.
     
  8. Wakka

    Wakka Super Member

    Messages:
    1,470
    Likes Received:
    2
    Also for this fact:
    The Alexandrian manuscripts have at least 33 verses less than the Byzantine family
    Revelations 22:18-1918 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
     
Loading...