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!

KJV vs. other translations

Discussion in 'Christian Theology Forum' started by elmo, Sep 26, 2007.

  1. Tyrel

    Tyrel New Member

    Messages:
    294
    Likes Received:
    0
    (kriss;18908)
    Interesting thats the same arugment I got from Mormans seems this is common excuse for religions of men to add what they please to Gods Word.
    yes...OR they had a good point. Truth is truth despite where you find it Kriss. Recall though, that the Church was the first to declare this truth clearly.
     
  2. Tyrel

    Tyrel New Member

    Messages:
    294
    Likes Received:
    0
    (Nova;18909)
    I feel that the KJV is more accurate than the NIV. However, the "thees" & "-th" endings take some getting used to. So use whatever you find easier to understand. If a text seems unclear, then compare it to other versions.As an aside, I am grateful to those who came before us. They made the sacrifice to translate the Bible into any of the common languages (vs Latin Vulgate.) Most were persecuted for their efforts. We are blessed, that we have easy access to the word, in all it's translations.
    Ahmen :cool:
     
  3. Christina

    Christina New Member

    Messages:
    10,900
    Likes Received:
    74
    (Biblical Tetragramaton;18962)
    yes...OR they had a good point. Truth is truth despite where you find it Kriss. Recall though, that the Church was the first to declare this truth clearly.
    So is being decieved by men.You wanna explain how the dead Sea scrolls many written and copied for thousands/hundres of years before the KJV yet books like Isaiah and others found are word for word Identcal to what we have????
     
  4. Jordan

    Jordan Active Member

    Messages:
    4,886
    Likes Received:
    4
    (Nova)
    I feel that the KJV is more accurate than the NIV. However, the "thees" & "-th" endings take some getting used to. So use whatever you find easier to understand. If a text seems unclear, then compare it to other versions.As an aside, I am grateful to those who came before us. They made the sacrifice to translate the Bible into any of the common languages (vs Latin Vulgate.) Most were persecuted for their efforts. We are blessed, that we have easy access to the word, in all it's translations.
    May I show you proof from YHWH and Yahshua, that not all translations say the same thing. I can show you nine complete missing verses right off the bat of course that only if you wish to know these things.If all translation says the same thing, then what's the point of Satan still deceiving people?Lovest ye in Christ Yahshua our Lord and Saviour.
     
  5. elmo

    elmo New Member

    Messages:
    79
    Likes Received:
    0
    thank you kriss for you clarification in your explanation to my question
     
  6. Christina

    Christina New Member

    Messages:
    10,900
    Likes Received:
    74
    Originally Posted by Biblical Tetragramaton
     
  7. Tyrel

    Tyrel New Member

    Messages:
    294
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thank you, There were some verses there I wasn't even familiar with. Now, please hear me out. I only said that the verse in revelation applied to that book. Just as each of these verses have their proper interpretations as well.None of these apply to the Septuagint at all.ps. why Jos 10:13?
     
  8. Tyrel

    Tyrel New Member

    Messages:
    294
    Likes Received:
    0
    (kriss;18965)
    So is being decieved by men.You wanna explain how the dead Sea scrolls many written and copied for thousands/hundres of years before the KJV yet books like Isaiah and others found are word for word Identcal to what we have????
    They have word for word what we had in the Hebrew Maesoretic texts, not the Latin Vulgate... Simple as that.Besides which they aren't quite word for word exactly, but they are much closer than we would have expected. For example, where what we had in Isaiah 7:14 said; " Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. "Where the Dead Sea Scrolls found;" Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and he shall be called Immanuel. "In one, The Almah names him, and in the other, he is simply named. This is not, however, a theologically pertinent difference, at least according to most.There are also some things to note with the Dead Sea Scrolls. For example, the copy of Jeremiah in the Dead Sea Scrolls is not only smaller than the one we have in the Septuagint or any modern translations, but also has a completely different order of the chapters. The sections of the book aren't in the same order at all. Also the Dead Sea scrolls didn't include the book of Esther at all.But when Scholars say the Dead Sea Scrolls are exactly what we have today, it just indicates that it's so close to the Maesoretic that we have had for a while, that it is stunning. The KJV is quite different. Besides which, the Dead Sea Scrolls don't contain any of the New Testament books. So, the Dead Sea scrolls can only be used for studying the Old Testament books.An example, by the by, of where both the Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls agree might be, Isaiah 53:11NIV;"After the suffering of his soul, he will see the light of life [a] and be satisfied; by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities."[a]# Isaiah 53:11 Dead Sea Scrolls (see also Septuagint); Masoretic Text does not have [the light of life]).So the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Septuagint here both include those extra words, or more words than are found in the later Maesoretic. Examples of the opposite aren't hard to find either.Often, the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Septuagint are in accordance. However, once again, that only has value for studying the Old Testament.Dear Superjag... you totally aren't listening to me at all.
     
  9. tim_from_pa

    tim_from_pa New Member

    Messages:
    1,656
    Likes Received:
    11
    Well, as I stated before in another thread, I'm a KJV man myself.Basically three reasons (I used to have only two until recently I found a 3rd good reason):1. It's one of the few versions that is not copyrighted. The others are. When I upload a bible quote, I am limited to how much I can post on the web, even if I give credit to the translators. Like I often asked before, how would you like for someone to paraphrase your journals and claim copyright on your writings? If these other translations are really "God's Word", then I have to ask why I need permission to quote His Word? It sounds more like these are man's words, not God's.2. There were many scholars translating the KJV from the original Hebrew and Greek with no denominational ax to grind. Indeed, I find many translations today saying something altogether different than the KJV, and I wonder if there isn't a slant coming from those translators. BTW, gemetrias and the more controversial Bible code is supposed to be preserved in the original texts. To me the mathematics says that the texts are pure, at least enough to preserve the codes; the same texts the KJV bible was translated from.3. The KJV bible, the most enduringly used English translation, was translated when King James VI of Scotland became King James I of England, thus fulfilling the prophecy of the third overturn in Ezekiel 21:27. While I am not aware of any scripture that mandates the KJV translation at that time, it is one of those "coincidences" that makes me take a second look at that critical time in history. This was/is the last throne until Jesus comes to claim it, and it's as if for this last overturn to the English nation that God gave us the most enduring English translation ever. That would make sense to me. Anyone else can decide if that's coincidence or not. The transfer of the Davidic throne is not coincidence, but rather it was prophesied. What I mean by coincidence is if the translation of the this KJV happened by mere chance while a biblically significant event transpired in an English-speaking nation. I think not IMO.
     
  10. Tyrel

    Tyrel New Member

    Messages:
    294
    Likes Received:
    0
    (tim_from_pa;19011)
    Well, as I stated before in another thread, I'm a KJV man myself.Basically three reasons (I used to have only two until recently I found a 3rd good reason):1. It's one of the few versions that is not copyrighted. The others are. When I upload a bible quote, I am limited to how much I can post on the web, even if I give credit to the translators. Like I often asked before, how would you like for someone to paraphrase your journals and claim copyright on your writings? If these other translations are really "God's Word", then I have to ask why I need permission to quote His Word? It sounds more like these are man's words, not God's.2. There were many scholars translating the KJV from the original Hebrew and Greek with no denominational ax to grind. Indeed, I find many translations today saying something altogether different than the KJV, and I wonder if there isn't a slant coming from those translators. BTW, gemetrias and the more controversial Bible code is supposed to be preserved in the original texts. To me the mathematics says that the texts are pure, at least enough to preserve the codes; the same texts the KJV bible was translated from.3. The KJV bible, the most enduringly used English translation, was translated when King James VI of Scotland became King James I of England, thus fulfilling the prophecy of the third overturn in Ezekiel 21:27. While I am not aware of any scripture that mandates the KJV translation at that time, it is one of those "coincidences" that makes me take a second look at that critical time in history. This was/is the last throne until Jesus comes to claim it, and it's as if for this last overturn to the English nation that God gave us the most enduring English translation ever. That would make sense to me. Anyone else can decide if that's coincidence or not. The transfer of the Davidic throne is not coincidence, but rather it was prophesied. What I mean by coincidence is if the translation of the this KJV happened by mere chance while a biblically significant event transpired in an English-speaking nation. I think not IMO.
    Dear Tim,1. The Copyright on newer versions is necessary for many reasons, but is by no means a copyright of the Word of God. It is very simply a copyright on the massive amount of work put into translating every passage meticulously looking into all the manuscripts with all their variants, and determining which is likely more authentic. Without a copyright in our day and age, all that work would surely be mangled. The reason the KJV can't be copyrighted is because of the era from which it comes down to us. In Tyndale's time, there was no copyrighting. There was no "stealing" of another's work and making your own profit off of it. Though he didn't quite compose today's KJV, his work was indispensable, and indisputably the greatest influence on the KJV. Copyrights don't give the glory to man, they simply allow for us to find out who translated what, how they did it, and that you can't steal their work. Copyrighting a translation isn't a trespass. 2. The manuscripts that Tyndale and later translators were dealing with were good, but they didn't have nearly the amount of materials we do today. There were no Dead Sea Scrolls, there wasn't as much work on the Septuagint, or the different Greek fragments. The "original Greek" they were going back to was generally Codex's like Vaticanus. They didn't take into consideration the many Greek fragments today's Translations work with.3. This, I presume, was your latest reason. Let's observe shall we?"I will overturn, overturn, overturn, it: and it shall be no more, until he come whose right it is; and I will give it him."~ Ezekiel 21:27 Well, this passage seems to me not to be about it, as the language seems to either not point to this at all, or it speaks quite ambiguously concerning it. In any case, this is not a very solid reason to stop questioning the validity of man's work in translating it. I suggest you read over what I have already posted.In Hope, Tyrel.~Shalom Elechem
     
  11. tim_from_pa

    tim_from_pa New Member

    Messages:
    1,656
    Likes Received:
    11
    1. The Copyright on newer versions is necessary for many reasons, but is by no means a copyright of the Word of God. It is very simply a copyright on the massive amount of work put into translating every passage meticulously looking into all the manuscripts with all their variants, and determining which is likely more authentic. Without a copyright in our day and age, all that work would surely be mangled. The reason the KJV can't be copyrighted is because of the era from which it comes down to us. In Tyndale's time, there was no copyrighting. There was no "stealing" of another's work and making your own profit off of it. Though he didn't quite compose today's KJV, his work was indispensable, and indisputably the greatest influence on the KJV. Copyrights don't give the glory to man, they simply allow for us to find out who translated what, how they did it, and that you can't steal their work. Copyrighting a translation isn't a trespass.
    This sort of makes one realize how things changed over the generations, and I think all the more proves my point. It's this very course of events and thinking that I despise. All I want to do is quote God's Word, and I'm told I can't?
    2. The manuscripts that Tyndale and later translators were dealing with were good, but they didn't have nearly the amount of materials we do today. There were no Dead Sea Scrolls, there wasn't as much work on the Septuagint, or the different Greek fragments. The "original Greek" they were going back to was generally Codex's like Vaticanus. They didn't take into consideration the many Greek fragments today's Translations work with.
    I'll still take it---- original enough to hold the gematria. And I definitely trust the Hebrew, as the Hebrew scholars were meticulous enough to transcribe even jot and tittle which is what Jesus was alluding to in Matthew 5:18 of the Law. Mess that up, and the code gets lost.
    3. This, I presume, was your latest reason. Let's observe shall we?"I will overturn, overturn, overturn, it: and it shall be no more, until he come whose right it is; and I will give it him."~ Ezekiel 21:27Well, this passage seems to me not to be about it, as the language seems to either not point to this at all, or it speaks quite ambiguously concerning it. In any case, this is not a very solid reason to stop questioning the validity of man's work in translating it. I suggest you read over what I have already posted.
    You are correct; it is not about the translation. What I was saying was that the translation came out the same time that the throne was overturned the third time, and the reigning monarch was over the English-speaking nation. I was merely pointing out this so-called coincidence, and I found the event enough to associate with it. Now, Let's take another version of this same passage in the New American Standard for example:
    A ruin, a ruin, a ruin, I will make it. This also will be no more until He comes whose right it is, and I will give it to Him.'
    Needless to say, the Davidic throne was not ruined, otherwise there would be no throne for Christ to claim later on and would be a direct contradiction of God's promise for an eternal throne earlier. Secondly, if something is ruined, it means to not only terminate, but to destroy. Then, later on it will be given to "him"? How can something ruined be given to "him"? Let's look at the so-called logic if for example I owned a car that I would later give to my son. I just rolled it over three times, and totaled it. It's ruined. But now I'm still going to keep my promise to my son and give it to him!Now, if we use the KJV "overturn", that is a better term because overturned (sometimes used as overthrow in Strong's) implies a change in order, but not a termination, therefore there is a throne to give to "him".If the former "ruin" passage makes any logical sense to anyone out there, then all I have to say is I have a bridge on I-35W in Minnesota that I want to sell them.
     
  12. Jon-Marc

    Jon-Marc New Member

    Messages:
    850
    Likes Received:
    7
    (elmo;18758)
    I want to know what everyone one thinks on this subjectEveryone knows the KJV to be the best translation in english but why is the NIV and other versions rejected by some christians.Im going to look at the other side of the coin first.if the other bible are bad compared to the KJV then why would people take the time to translate the NIV for example verse by verse and another perspective for those who think the only version worth reading is KJVif other versions are not correct that could mean the devil helped the people who took a painstaking effort to decieve us...and yet I do not believe that because for satan to say good things for the sake of evil would be to contradict himself for he is incapable of doing good things.please replywould be much appreciated
    Satan is quite capable of using a little truth mixed in with all the lies for the purpose of deceiving.
     
  13. Jordan

    Jordan Active Member

    Messages:
    4,886
    Likes Received:
    4
    Bingo, that is right Jon-Marc. I agree 100%.Lovest ye in Christ Yahshua our Lord and Saviour.
     
  14. Tyrel

    Tyrel New Member

    Messages:
    294
    Likes Received:
    0
    It's great how nobody is bothering to respond to the points I have here presented.[​IMG]
     
  15. Christina

    Christina New Member

    Messages:
    10,900
    Likes Received:
    74
    They are not points they are nit picking at little things as you yourself have said are of little doctrinal importance, unless one is doing and in depth study of particular verse where these need be pointed out. You are completely free to prefer what ever version you like, From what I see the only reason you choose your version is you find it easier to get it to say what you want to support your religious doctrine/denomination. That is fine and your choice. Gods Word has no religious denomination.
     
  16. Tyrel

    Tyrel New Member

    Messages:
    294
    Likes Received:
    0
    (kriss;19086)
    They are not points they are nit picking at little things as you yourself have said are of little doctrinal importance, unless one is doing and in depth study of particular verse where these need be pointed out. You are completely free to prefer what ever version you like, From what I see the only reason you choose your version is you find it easier to get it to say what you want to support your religious doctrine/denomination. That is fine and your choice. Gods Word has no religious denomination.
    Dear Kriss,I disagree with every translation I've ever had on some issue or other. I don't have a denomination to defend, and my views aren't better supported by a different translation. I feely use NKJV, and NIV most often. This is not out of a sense of devotion to either of them, or belief that they are necessarily the best translations. It is simply because they are the ones I have and have had for years. I also have a really nice new NRSV which I had been wanting for a while, so I use that one more now. However, it took me about a day for find a verse I am in direct disagreement with.The fact is, I'm not supporting any particular beliefs with the NIV, NKJV, or NRSV. I always try to cross reference to see what other translations say, and if I feel it's necessary, use the tools at my disposal to go back to the original language, original manuscripts, and original interpretations. However, Kriss, I feel that you are now avoiding the issue. If this subject itself is what you consider "knit picking", then you were just as knit picky as me just a few posts ago. We were getting somewhere with that. I think this discussion, all while fairly inconsequential in the grand scheme of things, is still quite important. I think people have to give up the idea that a translation should be defended at all costs. I'm not saying that you are doing this, but Superjag seems to be. Furthermore, it is for people like elmo that I feel somebody should step up and say something.Recall that I did not make this thread, I joined it. If you do not wish to participate, that's unfortunate, but by all means acceptable. However, I do not believe that you suddenly had a change of heart from Friday to tonight. I believe you still think this issue is of some importance.I am eagerly awaiting your proper response to my points. I am even more eager to hear what Superjag's response to my points and questions will be.I pray that you not judge me so quickly. I am not trying to do anything out of line, and I am not arguing for the sake of arguing. There is an important lesson that I believe we have to learn here.in hope, Tyrel~Shalom Elechem
     
  17. Christina

    Christina New Member

    Messages:
    10,900
    Likes Received:
    74
    If I have misjudged you I'm sorry as you say this is not that important in the grand scheme of things and I got the impression you were trying to make it a bigger deal than it is. We prefer the KJV,not because its completely flawless, but it can be taken word for word to the Strongs concordance for interpretation to Hebrew or Greek and as far as we are concerned on this site Strongs is the best especially the older copies.combining the Original languages with the KJV gives you the best interpretationyou can get for all intensive purposes there are a couple verses that this may not hold true for. However they are few. I don't trust most newer versions because they are to influenced by men that have very little understanding of the Hebrew. For example there are something like 19 differnt Hebrew words all translated as the word "mark" in English yet each of the 19 differnt Hebrew words mean something a little differnt. Now when you start using NIV ect. you have no way to know this.
     
  18. Tyrel

    Tyrel New Member

    Messages:
    294
    Likes Received:
    0
    (kriss;19117)
    If I have misjudged you I'm sorry as you say this is not that important in the grand scheme of things and I got the impression you were trying to make it a bigger deal than it is. We prefer the KJV,not because its completely flawless, but it can be taken word for word to the Strongs concordance for interpretation to Hebrew or Greek and as far as we are concerned on this site Strongs is the best especially the older copies.combining the Original languages with the KJV gives you the best interpretationyou can get for all intensive purposes there are a couple verses that this may not hold true for. However they are few. I don't trust most newer versions because they are to influenced by men that have very little understanding of the Hebrew. For example there are something like 19 differnt Hebrew words all translated as the word "mark" in English yet each of the 19 differnt Hebrew words mean something a little differnt. Now when you start using NIV ect. you have no way to know this.
    Thank you kindly. I was partially fearing that you would respond to me in a condescending manner (again). I gave it some thought, and I can't think of a single post or thing I've said on this forum at any point in time which would lead you or anyone else to believe that I am or ever have used any particular translation because it helps me make my points. If I have ever made that mistake, I do very much apologize, and honestly request rebuke. It's not something I'd ever be proud of. I am a strong believer in reason, and that is not reasonable.While I can understand your skepticism concerning newer English translations, I might posit that it is slightly undue. Though it is very often true, there are good translations, which have worked towards being the improvements on what we've had in the past. In my opinion, a person who contends that the KJV is undoubtedly the best translation needs to open their eyes to the issues with the KJV. While I have not at any time proposed an alternative translation as altogether better, I have given my reasons very clearly for why it is certainly not beyond question that the KJV is outdone by today's scholarly elite. The best translations of today use all the available tools at their disposal in translating.While I can respect that this is perhaps your opinion {that the KJV is the best translation} I would still very much enjoy hearing your reasons, and debating it. Iron sharpens Iron after all.Also, I wonder why you speak for everyone. Though I recognize and respect very much that you are the community guide here, I doubt very much if elmo or superjag agree wholeheartedly with your outlook on this. I am very much looking forward to hearing from them, or anyone who has actually read and simply even considered what I have had to say. I have not, and hopefully never will, ask for anything beyond that.Tyrel~Shalom Elechem
     
  19. Christina

    Christina New Member

    Messages:
    10,900
    Likes Received:
    74
    I was speaking for staff members only not every member.I also already told you my reasonsexample there are something like 19 differnt Hebrew words all translated as the word "mark" in English yet each of the 19 differnt Hebrew words mean something a little differnt. Now when you start using NIV ect. you have no way to know this.Ruth 3:4 (KJV)And it shall be, when he lieth down, that thou shalt mark the place where he shall lie, and thou shalt go in, and uncover his feet, and lay thee down; and he will tell thee what thou shalt do. 3:4(NIV) When he lies down, note the place where he is lying. Then go and uncover his feet and lie down. He will tell you what to do." 3:4 (NKJV)Then it shall be, when he lies down, that you shall notice the place where he lies; and you shall go in, uncover his feet, and lie down; and he will tell you what you should do.”Here are three examples of a verse in Ruth they all say approx. the same thing, Now think about this verse what is it saying? Only in the KJV can you go and find the original word "mark" take it back to the original hebrew word and find out what the expanded meaning is: 3) to know (a person carnally)now you begin to understand the meaning of the verse.You can not to that with translations looking up "note" or "notice" wont give you this information can you still read the verse yes but you can never find out more than what the translator wrote.KJV with Stongs does this for every single word in every single verse. You would be amazed at the deeper picture you get from simple verses
     
  20. Tyrel

    Tyrel New Member

    Messages:
    294
    Likes Received:
    0
    (kriss;19145)
    I was speaking for staff members only not every member.I also already told you my reasonsexample there are something like 19 differnt Hebrew words all translated as the word "mark" in English yet each of the 19 differnt Hebrew words mean something a little differnt. Now when you start using NIV ect. you have no way to know this.Ruth 3:4 (KJV)And it shall be, when he lieth down, that thou shalt mark the place where he shall lie, and thou shalt go in, and uncover his feet, and lay thee down; and he will tell thee what thou shalt do. 3:4(NIV) When he lies down, note the place where he is lying. Then go and uncover his feet and lie down. He will tell you what to do." 3:4 (NKJV)Then it shall be, when he lies down, that you shall notice the place where he lies; and you shall go in, uncover his feet, and lie down; and he will tell you what you should do.”Here are three examples of a verse in Ruth they all say approx. the same thing, Now think about this verse what is it saying? Only in the KJV can you go and find the original word "mark" take it back to the original hebrew word and find out what the expanded meaning is: 3) to know (a person carnally)now you begin to understand the meaning of the verse.You can not to that with translations looking up "note" or "notice" wont give you this information can you still read the verse yes but you can never find out more than what the translator wrote.KJV with Stongs does this for every single word in every single verse. You would be amazed at the deeper picture you get from simple verses
    Well, I don't know about amazed, but it is certainly a good resource that I make use of all the time with E-Sword. However, it should be noted that now there is a Strong's Concordance for the NIV. It does this same thing.Just noteworthy I thought.
     
Loading...