Nomad
Post Tenebras Lux
SwampFox said:
That's not accurate. The Stuttgart edition of Biblia Hebraica is the Masoretic text used by the KJV.
New King James Version ALERT!
- Thread starter Pariah
- Start date
-
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!
That's not accurate. The Stuttgart edition of Biblia Hebraica is the Masoretic text used by the KJV.
Actually it is dude, it uses the Leningrad Manuscript B19a. Look it up, don't take my word for it. 
Nomad
Post Tenebras Lux
SwampFox said:Actually it is dude, it uses the Leningrad Manuscript B19a. Look it up, don't take my word for it.
The Leningrad Manuscript is Massoretic text--dude.
Then you don't quite know as much about manuscripts as you claim to know.
I'm pretty sure the translators who wrote the preface that says this and then translated the work would know better than you, Al Gore.
I'm pretty sure the translators who wrote the preface that says this and then translated the work would know better than you, Al Gore.
Jimmy Engle
New Member
IMHO, the NKJV is not too much different from the KJV so since the KJV is the oldest and most accurate English translation then you mind as well should just stick with a KJV.
I agree. While it is true that it is better to read the KJV because it is the most accurate source around it doesn't mean that by reading a NKJV you are wrong. I think this comes back to faith and just having faith that this is God's word even though men may fail. I don't think God would allow all his sheep to be mislead by a book that was mistranslated. I'm not talking about other translations such as the NIV or ESV but in regards to the KJV and NKJV I strongly believe either one is fine.kiwimac said:
Nomad
Post Tenebras Lux
SwampFox said:Then you don't quite know as much about manuscripts as you claim to know.
I'm pretty sure the translators who wrote the preface that says this and then translated the work would know better than you, Al Gore.
What's with the name calling?
Here, something for you to read.
"The Leningrad Codex is considered one of the best examples of the Masoretic text."
http://www.usc.edu/dept/LAS/wsrp/educational_site/biblical_manuscripts/LeningradCodex.shtml
Nomad
Post Tenebras Lux
SwampFox said:
O.k., my apologies. It would appear that the Leningrad manuscript is the oldest example of the ben Asher Masoretic Text (MT). The KJV uses the ben chayyim edition of the MT while the NKJV uses the Stuttgart edition of the MT which contains the Leningrad B19a. Both the KJV and the NKJV use the MT. The difference is that the NKJV uses an older version of it which some consider a superior example of the ben Asher Text.
The strange thing here for me is that the preface of my NKJV, which I've had for more than 20 years now, does not mention the difference between the Stuttgart edition of Biblia Hebraica and the ben Chayyim text at all. I had to look up the NKJV preface online to see what is missing in mine.
The texts used are really not the issue, KJV is still a corrupt translation if for no other reason than they used some of the Latin Vulgate in place of missing text.
.....
If there was one perfect version of the bible ..............
Mankind will still manage to screw something up. That is what we do. The Lord calls it sin.
No matter which translation you use ..... it contains the name by which men may be saved from this sin.
That name is not KJV so we should get over it. In modern day we have a every translation at our fingertips including Greek and Hebrew if required.
It was not all that many years ago that most people could not even read. We have nothing to complain about in modern day by having 20 English language translations with slight variations. But we complain anyway. I have always noticed that the complainers never use the 1611 King's English in speech or writing , why is that ? Think about it.
If there was one perfect version of the bible ..............
Mankind will still manage to screw something up. That is what we do. The Lord calls it sin.
No matter which translation you use ..... it contains the name by which men may be saved from this sin.
That name is not KJV so we should get over it. In modern day we have a every translation at our fingertips including Greek and Hebrew if required.
It was not all that many years ago that most people could not even read. We have nothing to complain about in modern day by having 20 English language translations with slight variations. But we complain anyway. I have always noticed that the complainers never use the 1611 King's English in speech or writing , why is that ? Think about it.
Well, I'm not one qualified enough to tell which translation is better than another, or what manuscript for that matter. However, the reasons you are voicing do not prove anything. Futhermore, they trouble me, as it's like the Lord could not save Egypt. God is not limited by cities, sorry but that whole argument is fallacious.
Christina said:
Nomad
Post Tenebras Lux
Martin W. said:
Speaking of 1611 Kings English... here's an interesting little tidbit. I find that those who are the most vociferous about the KJV don't realize that the KJV they're using isn't the 1611 version at all. It's the 1769 revision. The 1611 also contained the apocrypha, which is something a KJV onlyist would find abhorent.
That being said, I want to make it clear that I'm not against the KJV. I simply take issue with the idea that it is somehow the standard for all English translations or that it's better and more accurate than modern formal equivalent translarions such as the NASB, NKJV, etc.
If anyone is interested in seeing what the 1769 revision entailed, follow the link below.
http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon10.html
Nomad said:
Nice post Nomad, a very good book on the KJV is "In The Beginning" by Alister Mcgrath. It covers the history surrounding the KJV.
A point to be considered is the motivation behind the reformation, the reform movement in Europe (Martin Luther) was spiritually motivated but the reform movement in England (Henry The VIII) was politically motivated.
Nomad
Post Tenebras Lux
jiggyfly said:
I haven't read that one. I'll have to check it out. Another good one is The King James Only Controversy by Dr. James R. White.
The King James Bible is read by many. Yet, it has had many changes over the course of almost four centuries since it was first published in 1611. Today, no one reads the King James Bible in it's original form. Explaining why this is so, the book The Bible in Its Ancient and English Versions says: “Almost every edition, from the very beginning, introduced corrections and unauthorized changes and additions, often adding new errors in the process. The edition of 1613 shows over three hundred differences from 1611. . . . It was in the eighteenth century, however, that the main changes were made. . . . The marginal references were checked and verified, over 30,000 new marginal references were added, the chapter summaries and running headnotes were thoroughly revised, the punctuation was altered and made uniform in accordance with modern practice, textual errors were removed, the use of capitals was considerably modified and reduced, and a thorough revision made in the form of certain kinds of words.”
So many changes have been made, many of them in the readings of passages, that the Committee on Versions (1851-56) of the American Bible Society found 24,000 variations in six different editions of the King James Version! Many should appreciate, perhaps unknowingly, the improvements the later editions have made. There was the odd spelling and punctuation of the 1611 edition; for who would want to read “fet” for “fetched,” “sith” for “since” or “moe” for “more,” as the edition of 1611 had it.
King James of England set forth certain rules of procedure when he authorized this version. These the translators followed. One of those rules was that “the old Ecclesiastical words [were] to be kept.” Thus the translators were bound to follow the Bishop’s Bible (first published in 1568) in using certain ecclesiastical words, whether or not these words represented an accurate translation of the original Bible. For example, the ecclesiastical word “bishop” (Greek e·pi´sko·pos) appears in the King James Version, although the original word, correctly translated, merely means “overseer", as at Philippians 1:1.
Some other words used by the King James translators are not even used today. When we encounter these, our rate of understanding may considerably slow down. So mentally a reader of the King James Version may have difficulty when he encounters obsolete words.
For example, at Jeremiah 4:22, the King James Bible reads: “They are sottish children.” What kind of children are these? A modern translation clears the meaning of an obsolete word out of our pathway of understanding: “They are stupid children"(Revised Standard Version), "unwise sons", (New World Translation) The King James Version also uses the word “overcharge" at 2 Corinthians 2:5. What does the phrase “that I may not overcharge you all” mean? The obstacle to understanding is removed by a modern English translation reading: “not to be too harsh in what I say.”(2 Cor. 2:5, New World Translation), "not to be severe on all of you."(William's New Testament)
Language change can distort God’s Word if we use a Bible that is not up to date. These distortions either give a reader an entirely wrong idea or may cause him, in despair, to give up trying to understand at all. Take, for example, Jesus’ words at Matthew 11:12 according to the King James Version: “From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.” Will God allow one to attain his kingdom by violent means? No. So what is the right understanding? A modern translation removes the distortion: “From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of the heavens is the goal toward which men press, and those pressing forward are seizing it.”(New World Translation)
At Matthew 5:3, the King James Bible says: " Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." What would one draw from these words, as rendered by the King James Bible ? That perhaps one lacks energy, vitality, determination or will power. A modern translation correctly renders it: “Happy are those who are conscious of their spiritual need.” (Matt. 5:3, New World Translation) Today's English Version reads: "Happy are those who know they are spiritually poor."
Sometimes words change so much that they take on a meaning entirely opposite from that which they once had. When this happens to words in the King James Bible, the reader gets just the opposite from the truth. How would you understand, for instance, the word “let”? Today it means “allow", yet in the days of King James, it meant to "hinder". How then would today’s reader understand the scripture of 2 Thessalonians 2:7, 8 in the Authorized Version: “The mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. And then shall that Wicked be revealed" ? Does this mean that the apostles of Christ, when still alive, allowed lawless, apostate Christians to come into and remain in the Christian congregation?
A modern translation renders this as: "The mystery of this lawlessness is already at work; but only till he who is right now acting as a restraint gets to be out of the way. Then, indeed, the lawless one will be revealed.”(New World Translation) The International Standard Version reads: "For the secret of this lawlessness is already at work, but only until the person now holding it back gets out of the way. Then the lawless one will be revealed."
So many changes have been made, many of them in the readings of passages, that the Committee on Versions (1851-56) of the American Bible Society found 24,000 variations in six different editions of the King James Version! Many should appreciate, perhaps unknowingly, the improvements the later editions have made. There was the odd spelling and punctuation of the 1611 edition; for who would want to read “fet” for “fetched,” “sith” for “since” or “moe” for “more,” as the edition of 1611 had it.
King James of England set forth certain rules of procedure when he authorized this version. These the translators followed. One of those rules was that “the old Ecclesiastical words [were] to be kept.” Thus the translators were bound to follow the Bishop’s Bible (first published in 1568) in using certain ecclesiastical words, whether or not these words represented an accurate translation of the original Bible. For example, the ecclesiastical word “bishop” (Greek e·pi´sko·pos) appears in the King James Version, although the original word, correctly translated, merely means “overseer", as at Philippians 1:1.
Some other words used by the King James translators are not even used today. When we encounter these, our rate of understanding may considerably slow down. So mentally a reader of the King James Version may have difficulty when he encounters obsolete words.
For example, at Jeremiah 4:22, the King James Bible reads: “They are sottish children.” What kind of children are these? A modern translation clears the meaning of an obsolete word out of our pathway of understanding: “They are stupid children"(Revised Standard Version), "unwise sons", (New World Translation) The King James Version also uses the word “overcharge" at 2 Corinthians 2:5. What does the phrase “that I may not overcharge you all” mean? The obstacle to understanding is removed by a modern English translation reading: “not to be too harsh in what I say.”(2 Cor. 2:5, New World Translation), "not to be severe on all of you."(William's New Testament)
Language change can distort God’s Word if we use a Bible that is not up to date. These distortions either give a reader an entirely wrong idea or may cause him, in despair, to give up trying to understand at all. Take, for example, Jesus’ words at Matthew 11:12 according to the King James Version: “From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.” Will God allow one to attain his kingdom by violent means? No. So what is the right understanding? A modern translation removes the distortion: “From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of the heavens is the goal toward which men press, and those pressing forward are seizing it.”(New World Translation)
At Matthew 5:3, the King James Bible says: " Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." What would one draw from these words, as rendered by the King James Bible ? That perhaps one lacks energy, vitality, determination or will power. A modern translation correctly renders it: “Happy are those who are conscious of their spiritual need.” (Matt. 5:3, New World Translation) Today's English Version reads: "Happy are those who know they are spiritually poor."
Sometimes words change so much that they take on a meaning entirely opposite from that which they once had. When this happens to words in the King James Bible, the reader gets just the opposite from the truth. How would you understand, for instance, the word “let”? Today it means “allow", yet in the days of King James, it meant to "hinder". How then would today’s reader understand the scripture of 2 Thessalonians 2:7, 8 in the Authorized Version: “The mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. And then shall that Wicked be revealed" ? Does this mean that the apostles of Christ, when still alive, allowed lawless, apostate Christians to come into and remain in the Christian congregation?
A modern translation renders this as: "The mystery of this lawlessness is already at work; but only till he who is right now acting as a restraint gets to be out of the way. Then, indeed, the lawless one will be revealed.”(New World Translation) The International Standard Version reads: "For the secret of this lawlessness is already at work, but only until the person now holding it back gets out of the way. Then the lawless one will be revealed."
The King James Bible has been proven to have many inaccuracies and inconsistencies. For example, at Genesis 13:1, 3 it says that Abraham "went up out of Egypt, he, and his wife, and all that he had, and Lot with him, into the south....And he went on his journeys from the south even to Bethel." Could Abraham reach Bethel by going "south" ? No, for Bethel was over 225 miles (360 kilometers) northeast of Egypt. The Hebrew word for "south" is ne´ghev and is thought to be derived from a root meaning “be parched” and often denotes the semiarid area south of the mountains of Judah.
From the circumstance that this region lay south of Judah, ne´ghev also came to mean “south” and is used with reference to a southern side (Num 35:5), a southern boundary (Josh 15:4), and a southern gate (Eze 46:9). In some translations a distinction between the geographic designation and the compass direction is not maintained, resulting in confusing renderings. Hence, the King James Bible, along with several other Bibles (such as American Standard Version, Young's Bible, Darby's Bible, Webster's Bible) causes a confusion on which way Abraham went.
At 1 Timothy 3:16, the King James Bible reads: "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh." This Scripture, with the words "God was manifest in the flesh" has been found to have been tampered with. John James Wetstein (1693-1754), while he was examining the Alexandrine Manuscript in London (a Greek manuscript dating from the fifth century C.E., which contains most of the Bible), made a startling discovery. Up till that time, according to the King James Version (1611), 1 Timothy 3:16 was rendered: “God was manifest in the flesh.” This rendering was reflected in most other Bibles in use.
However, Wetstein noticed that the Greek word translated “God,” which was abbreviated to TC, had originally looked like the Greek word OC, which means “who.” But a horizontal stroke showing through faintly from the other side of the vellum page, and the addition by a later hand of a line across the top, had turned the word OC (“who”) into the contraction TC (“God”). Other manuscripts now confirm Wetstein’s reading, accurate modern translations read: “He was made manifest in flesh,” or “He who . . . ,” referring to Jesus Christ and not God. (American Standard, Moffatt, Weymouth, Spencer, The New English Bible)
From the circumstance that this region lay south of Judah, ne´ghev also came to mean “south” and is used with reference to a southern side (Num 35:5), a southern boundary (Josh 15:4), and a southern gate (Eze 46:9). In some translations a distinction between the geographic designation and the compass direction is not maintained, resulting in confusing renderings. Hence, the King James Bible, along with several other Bibles (such as American Standard Version, Young's Bible, Darby's Bible, Webster's Bible) causes a confusion on which way Abraham went.
At 1 Timothy 3:16, the King James Bible reads: "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh." This Scripture, with the words "God was manifest in the flesh" has been found to have been tampered with. John James Wetstein (1693-1754), while he was examining the Alexandrine Manuscript in London (a Greek manuscript dating from the fifth century C.E., which contains most of the Bible), made a startling discovery. Up till that time, according to the King James Version (1611), 1 Timothy 3:16 was rendered: “God was manifest in the flesh.” This rendering was reflected in most other Bibles in use.
However, Wetstein noticed that the Greek word translated “God,” which was abbreviated to TC, had originally looked like the Greek word OC, which means “who.” But a horizontal stroke showing through faintly from the other side of the vellum page, and the addition by a later hand of a line across the top, had turned the word OC (“who”) into the contraction TC (“God”). Other manuscripts now confirm Wetstein’s reading, accurate modern translations read: “He was made manifest in flesh,” or “He who . . . ,” referring to Jesus Christ and not God. (American Standard, Moffatt, Weymouth, Spencer, The New English Bible)
Taking corrupted texts and comparing them to KJV won't work. Non-authorative text can't be given authority by you or me.
The LXX was not accepted and no scholar will accept the Vaticanius.
You can find old text and writing but that does not make them authorative.
Use the accepted text of the first century Christians......................... The KJV will stand up.
The Russian text above of ~1010 AD may decend through avenues like Sinaitius which is 1600 yrs old and corrupted text and unaccepted by early Christians.
When you look at new bibles like the NIV and find from where they came you will rapidly reject them. Would anyone use catholic text (killers of the saints)? That line seems to like the LXX, hexapla, statue worship and Mary worship and the like plus Plato and a nuber of others subscribing to philosophy. I don't think they have their place in Holy Scripture.
The LXX was not accepted and no scholar will accept the Vaticanius.
You can find old text and writing but that does not make them authorative.
Use the accepted text of the first century Christians......................... The KJV will stand up.
The Russian text above of ~1010 AD may decend through avenues like Sinaitius which is 1600 yrs old and corrupted text and unaccepted by early Christians.
When you look at new bibles like the NIV and find from where they came you will rapidly reject them. Would anyone use catholic text (killers of the saints)? That line seems to like the LXX, hexapla, statue worship and Mary worship and the like plus Plato and a nuber of others subscribing to philosophy. I don't think they have their place in Holy Scripture.
TheUnworthyServant
New Member
First: I do trust in God. I trust that God used faithful men to create the KJV
Second: How can we trust in God if we can not read His word?
Romans 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
Third: And then of course there's:
2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed. Rightly dividing the word of truth.
We have to study Gods WORD.
I trust in the KJV as being the most accurate version of Gods HOLY WORD. Bar none! Not even preachers of 40 years experience have been able to change my mind on this.
Read this first before replying: Why the KJV?
I see hearing but sure don't see reading in that text. How do think Abraham, Israel, Jacob and Joseph trusted God? What of the many who couldn't not read?
Religious paradigm is hard to change indeed. The scriptures encourage us to be led by HolySpirit.
Here's a very good example.
John5:39&40 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life. KJV
[sup]39[/sup] “You search the Scriptures because you think they give you eternal life. But the Scriptures point to me! [sup]40[/sup] Yet you refuse to come to me to receive this life. NLT
Similar threads
