King James Version

How has God preserved His word? How has the enemy tried to pervert the word of God?
wackzingo
Posts: 170
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2005 12:23 am
Contact:

King James Version

Post by wackzingo »

I first began to discuss whether or not the KJV bible is the only true English Bible with Joseph of http://www.psalm9416.com after hearing about his brother-in-law (who happens to be my sister's brother-in-law too) writing an article for his website. In the article I found what I believe to be many false doctrines and teachings. I do not believe these were intentional, nor do I doubt anyones motives other than a desire to know the truth. Joseph and I disagree and from what it sounds like I'm not alone as he says he gets many emails like mine. I stated in my blog post where I wrote what I thought what wrong with the article that we must remember that this is a discussion and regardless of what our beliefs are, we need to remember that love must remain our sole motivation.

My blog post can be found at http://typicalsaint.com/?p=169

Also, Joseph's site can be found at http://www.psalm9416.com

Joseph said he was willing to discuss these things here. Thanks Joseph for being willing to discuss these topics openly.

Zach Wingo
wackzingo
Posts: 170
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2005 12:23 am
Contact:

Post by wackzingo »

To begin this discussion I want to start by putting out some facts.

KJV New Testament was translated from the Textus Receptus and the Old Testament was translated from the Masoretic Text.

More information can be found at the links below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textus_Receptus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masoretic_Text


The NIV was translated from the Alexandrian Texts and the Old Testament heavily relied upon the same Masoretic Texts as the KJV but also looked and and considered other texts as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandrian_text-type



The Textus Receptus came from what is known as the Byzantine Texts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_text-type


Those who believe that the KJV is the only true English bible base this fact not on any proof or fact, but rather because of speculation that they can't be accurate simply because of where they came from. They have never been able to prove that the Alexandrian Greek and Hebrew texts are someone inferior to the Byzantine Texts. What they will do is quote the KJV and then quote a modern (A common one is NIV) English version and say, "The KJV says...and the NIV says...so the NIV is perverse".

Their first problem is both the NIV and the KJV are translations. Again, Both the NIV AND KJV are translations. Because they are both translations you cannot compare them to each other. If you want to make the claim that one version is superior to the other you must show the Original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts and show why one translates the original better. If this were not the case I could say I translated John 3:16 from the Greek manuscripts myself and it says, "God hated the world and would never die for it" and I would have the same claim as the KJV only people. The only way I could make that claim is to say, "The Greek says.... and they mean this... so the correct translation of this verse would be...".

And another thing is there is no scripture anywhere where God says He will only have one English Translation. He says He will preserve His Word but that does not mean there can't be other translations. If it did that would mean even the English translation would be false. This is all just simple reasoning.
David
Posts: 132
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 2:38 pm
Location: Charleston, SC

Post by David »

I like the KJV it's the first bible I ever picked up. I stay away from others but I do on occasion use a NKJV as a companion to the KJV (both Scoffield study bibles).

One site I frequent goes into some of the problems regarding the various types of bibles out there.

http://www.fundamentalbiblechurch.org/T ... cmodrn.htm


...The Old Testament Scriptures were to accomplish one central purpose-to glorify the Lord Jesus Christ (Luke 24:25-27). The same is true of the New Testament as well (John 16:14). Those who undermine the authority and accuracy of the Authorized Version only cause God's people to lack a confidence in His Message and the impeccability of Christ and His finished Work. This certainly does not advance the purpose of God-to glorify His dear Son and to cause His children to have absolute confidence in His final and complete Revelation. Praise God, He has given to us His Word, and we have before us in the English language the Authorized King James Bible, a literal, accurate translation of the very words God breathed in His Revelation to man.
wackzingo
Posts: 170
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2005 12:23 am
Contact:

Post by wackzingo »

Those who undermine the authority and accuracy of the Authorized Version only cause God's people to lack a confidence in His Message and the impeccability of Christ and His finished Work. This certainly does not advance the purpose of God-to glorify His dear Son and to cause His children to have absolute confidence in His final and complete Revelation.
Authorized by who? Man or God? If by God please remind me where is scripture God says the KJV is His official or authorized version?

The only reason this does not advance the purpose of God-to glorify His dear Son and His dear children don't have absolute confidence in His final and complete Revelation is because of the KJV only people who have made the translation work of man an idol and called it HOLY. There is no way scripture supports this view. This is man made and it is the KJV only people who have caused all this doubt.
Praise God, He has given to us His Word, and we have before us in the English language the Authorized King James Bible, a literal, accurate translation of the very words God breathed in His Revelation to man.
The KJV is not an literal translation. There is no such thing as a literal translation from Hebrew and Greek to English. The point of translation is not to make a literal word for word translation, but to convey the meaning as accurately as possible.

I too don't have a problem with the KJV but I'm not ignorant enough to call mans work Holy. I'm also not ignorant enough to believe that all other versions are perverted. Many modern translations are more accurate than the KJV. The KJV was good but there are better ones now. I say better and not perfect.

The KJV has become nothing more than an idol to people. This is where the real problem is at.

I too use the KJV sometimes but I also really like the NIV. They are both good. But to say the KJV is the only English translation is wrong and blaspheme because God has never authorized the KJV.
jimbaum
Site Admin
Posts: 298
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2005 6:07 pm
Location: Port Orchard, WA, USA
Contact:

A Reminder

Post by jimbaum »

I stated in my blog post where I wrote what I thought what wrong with the article that we must remember that this is a discussion and regardless of what our beliefs are, we need to remember that love must remain our sole motivation.
I'm as susceptible as anyone to being harsh in a discussion. But Jesus helps us!

Jim
BeefChuck717
Posts: 16
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 7:04 pm
Location: Port Orchard WA
Contact:

Post by BeefChuck717 »

"Because they are both translations you cannot compare them to each other. If you want to make the claim that one version is superior to the other you must show the Original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts and show why one translates the original better."

OKAY, SO HOW DID YOU COME UP WITH THE CONCLUSION BELOW?



"Many modern translations are more accurate than the KJV. The KJV was good but there are better ones now."

?
wackzingo
Posts: 170
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2005 12:23 am
Contact:

Post by wackzingo »

OKAY, SO HOW DID YOU COME UP WITH THE CONCLUSION BELOW?


"Many modern translations are more accurate than the KJV. The KJV was good but there are better ones now."
More recent Greek texts take into account all the major text types (Western, Byzantine, Alexandritus and Sinaticus), and use textual criticism to point us to the original text as written by the apostles. The dead sea scrolls and other recent finds have given us a wealth of excellent evidence and very old fragments that have made more recent Greek texts far more accurate than the TR, and thus the formal translations (NASB, ESV, etc.) more accurate than the KJV.


Where does God says there is only one English Translation?

Where does God say we can't translate His Word in to other languages?

Where does God say we can only make one translation?

The burden of proof is on the KJV only people to prove other translations are wrong.
BeefChuck717
Posts: 16
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 7:04 pm
Location: Port Orchard WA
Contact:

Post by BeefChuck717 »

Are those Alexandrian texts the same Alexandrian texts that have admitted omission's by Origen the Ebionite (one who denies the doctrine of salvation), belived sin was forgiven by communion, denied that Christ was our high preist?

Why does 95% percent of all manuscript evidence support the text of the authorized Version?

All modern versions of the Bible today are based off of the work of Westcott and Hort!

Hort's "Atonement"

There was also his rejection of Christ's atoning death for the sins of all mankind.

"The fact is, I do not see how God's justice can be satisfied without every man's suffering in his own person the full penalty for his sins."103
In fact, Hort considered the teachings of Christ's atonement as heresy!

"Certainly nothing can be more unscriptural than the modern limiting of Christ's bearing our sins and sufferings to His death; but indeed that is only one aspect of an almost universal heresy."104
The fact is, that Hort believed Satan more worthy of accepting Christ's payment for sins than God.

"I confess I have no repugnance to the primitive doctrine of a ransom paid to Satan, though neither am I prepared to give full assent to it. But I can see no other possible form in which the doctrine of a ransom is at all tenable; anything is better than the notion of a ransom paid to the Father."105

-Dr Sam Gipp -"An understandable History of the Bible"

Maybe I am crazy but I dont remember where the Lord said man could put a copyright law on His text.

I dont remember where the Lord said it was okay to add and take away from His Word.

I dont remember where the Lord said it was okay to have a lesbian whore (NIV) aid in the translation His Word. Isnt it funny that the NIV removed the word Sodomite?

Where dies the Bible say .....

If the NIV is so accurate, why is it changing the original masculine words to masculine and feminine?

Because the NIV is not accurate.

Its translators use dynamic equivalency to translate/rewrite some of the worst manuscripts available.

The result is that they render what THEY THINK God meant and what SEEMS relevant today. They are used to manipulating God's word for their profit, that's how they could inaccurately translate these gender-inclusive editions with such ease. Contrast this with the King Jmaes Bible translators who simply rendered what the best manuscripts said (95% of all manuscript evidence supports the Authorized version), word-for-word--that is formal equivalency. The authorized King James is the only version that uses formal equivalency. They didn't put human interpretation in it--give me that book!
BeefChuck717
Posts: 16
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 7:04 pm
Location: Port Orchard WA
Contact:

Post by BeefChuck717 »

I know that most modern versions are still 95-99 % accurate but rat poison is also 99% nutritious. I think false bibles kill many Christians. I have read many good works by those that do not use the King James. I even use their works often times. I dont hate them or look down on them in any way. There are still some great faith contenders out there that use other versions. My research shows that the KJB is the best and only Bible a Christian needs. I have never lost a debate to a heathen using the KJB but I have lost a debate using the NIV. I will continue to contend for the Word of God which is hard to do to those that do not hold the Word as their final authority in life.
wackzingo
Posts: 170
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2005 12:23 am
Contact:

Post by wackzingo »

Are those Alexandrian texts the same Alexandrian texts that have admitted omission's by Origen the Ebionite (one who denies the doctrine of salvation), believed sin was forgiven by communion, denied that Christ was our high preist?
Origen did leave out some omissions when he attempted to translate the Septuagint which is the Greek translation of the original Hebrew texts that were nearly 1000 years older than the Masoretic texts that are used in many bible translations including the KJV and NIV. Origen found that the Septuagint contained passages that were not in the original Hebrew. Origen believed that if the original Hebrew did not contain the passages then they must have been added later so he left them out.

Remember that almost all modern translation meaning from the 1600's to present rely not on the work of Origen but on the Masoretic texts. Origin's omissions have to do with the Old Testament and not the New Testament because his problems were with the Septuagint. Because no translators today or during Origen’s time used his work, it doesn’t matter what he believed. Origen made no translation of the New Testament which means his views on Christ have even less value.

Why does 95% percent of all manuscript evidence support the text of the authorized Version?
Don’t you mean 95% of the Byzantine texts? Now if you take what you say and include all meaning the Byzantine and the Alexandrian texts both as a whole then I must ask you why does 95% of all manuscript evidence support the NASV, ESV, DARBY, NIV?
All modern versions of the Bible today are based off of the work of Westcott and Hort!
This if completely false. Most translations today acknowledge the work of Westcott and Hort but they do not agree with their textual criticism. In fact the NASV, ESV and NIV do not use Westcott and Hort excepts in very few circumstances. Besides, it is absolutely ridiculous to think that all modern translations would rely on the work of two men in modern times and ignore thousands and thousands of manuscripts that are hundreds of years older.
Maybe I am crazy but I don't remember where the Lord said man could put a copyright law on His text.


This too is an absolutely ridiculous argument. Did you know that my blog and even these posts are protected by copy right laws? Your website is protected by copyright laws. Copyright laws are to protect someone’s or even a group of people’s work from being used by others. The reason we officially copyright work is to officiate it so that if someone takes our work we aren’t going back through ‘he said she said’ type arguments. I’m a citizen simply because I’m born here but if there was no birth certificate to prove it, that doesn’t mean I’m not a citizen, it just means I have to find a way to prove it. The NIV would allow me to use their work provided I don’t make money from it. What’s wrong with that? The IBS is able to print bible for free and I have gotten permission to use 8 books of the New Testament without any restriction provided I site the NIV copyright information and I don’t make money from it.

Also, I have plenty of bibles, and there are some very nice leather bible that cost money to make, I see no problem with me paying for those. It’s not like it’s limiting is it?

As I said before, the KJV is NOT the ONLY translation that is copyright free. The NASV AND ESV have no copyright restrictions.
I don’t remember where the Lord said it was okay to have a lesbian whore (NIV) aid in the translation His Word. Isnt it funny that the NIV removed the word Sodomite?
A lesbian whore? Is this is your attitude toward those whom Christ gave His life? According to God you and I are just as guilty. According to Jesus you and I have both lusted which is the same as adultery. We are all guilty and if this is your view of those for whom Christ died I have no desire to know your God. You mentioned you became a Christians about 3-5 years ago. I sure hope no Christians went around referring to you as the adulterating whore. I wonder if you would have ever become a Christians if that’s what Christians called you.
If the NIV is so accurate, why is it changing the original masculine words to masculine and feminine?


Please give an example.
The result is that they render what THEY THINK God meant and what SEEMS relevant today. They are used to manipulating God's word for their profit, that's how they could inaccurately translate these gender-inclusive editions with such ease. Contrast this with the King James Bible translators who simply rendered what the best manuscripts said (95% of all manuscript evidence supports the Authorized version), word-for-word--that is formal equivalency. The authorized King James is the only version that uses formal equivalency. They didn't put human interpretation in it--give me that book!
There is no such thing as a WORD-FOR-WORD translation from the Greek or Hebrew language. Do you know what the point of translation is?

I know that most modern versions are still 95-99 % accurate but rat poison is also 99% nutritious. I think false bibles kill many Christians. I have read many good works by those that do not use the King James. I even use their works often times. I don't hate them or look down on them in any way. There are still some great faith contenders out there that use other versions. My research shows that the KJB is the best and only Bible a Christian needs. I have never lost a debate to a heathen using the KJB but I have lost a debate using the NIV. I will continue to contend for the Word of God which is hard to do to those that do not hold the Word as their final authority in life.
I find this interesting that you admit that most modern translations are 95-99% accurate. So modern translations have 1-5% errors in them. If these versions are so perverse, and people like Westcott and Hort influenced them so much, there is only 1-5% error in them? These modern translations do not disagree with the Textus Receptus or other Manuscripts on any scriptures that affect doctrine. They only disagree on things like spellings. Just because a FEW (1-5% of over 31,000+) verses say something different than the KJV you and others assume that the KJV must be correct and all others are incorrect. You said many modern versions are 99% accurate, if they could make mistakes, why do you assume that the men who translated it were infallible.? How come you don’t consider the possibility that the KJV translators could have made a few errors?
BeefChuck717
Posts: 16
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 7:04 pm
Location: Port Orchard WA
Contact:

Post by BeefChuck717 »

It only that 1% that will kill you and I am not talking about spelling and small things like that. Do you think the devil would make it easy? There are major doctrinal errors in all the modern translations which many line with the JW's. I think the NIV is ONE of the worst most accepted versions today. I cant wait to discuss this issue face to face with Lord Jesus Christ at the Judgment seat. I am so happy I wont have to give an account for that!

When yo take a book as large as the Bible and say you corrupt 1 to 5% you will have major problems such as these from the NKJV:

The NKJV confuses people about salvation. In Hebrews 10:14 it replaces "are sanctified" with "are being sanctified", and it replaces "are saved" with "are being saved" in I Corinthians 1:18 and II Corinthians 2:15. The words "may believe" have been replaced with "may continue to believe" in I John 5:13. The old straight and "narrow" way of Matthew 7:14 has become the "difficult" way in the NKJV. These doctrinal errors are right out of Rome!

-In II Corinthians 10:5 the KJV reads "casting down imaginations", but the NKJV reads "casting down arguments". The word "thought", which occurs later in the verse, matches "imaginations", not "arguments". This change weakens the verse.

-The KJV tells us to reject a "heretic" after the second admonition in Titus 3:10. The NKJV tells us to reject a "divisive man". How nice! Now the Alexandrians and Ecumenicals have justification for rejecting anyone they wish to label as "divisive men".

-According to the NKJV, no one would stoop so low as to "corrupt" God's word. No, they just "peddle" it (II Cor. 2:17). The reading matches the Alexandrian versions.



- The NKJV gives us no command to "study" God's word in II Timothy 2:15.

I dont know what these alone would register on the % scale although there are more verses of doctrinal error than these. I would guess not much according to the entire text but yet we have some major issues here dont we??????

Here is another seemingly small verse that is changed but has a tremendous impact from the NIV:

Our scripture passage is Galatians 5:12. The context: the apostle Paul is speaking to the Galatians concerning false doctrine brought in by a troublemaker (check out v. 10). What did the Apostle Paul want to happen to this person?

The Authorized King James:
Galatians 5:12, I would they were even cut off which trouble you. (troublemakers, begone) I think this is easy to understand

Now, the New International Version says:

Galatians 5:12, As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves! (meaning troublemakers, cut your genitals off!)

emasculate:The surgical removal of the testes and penis; castration. ooouch! I will take the KJV any-day!


Which one do you think the great apostle Paul said? Is wishing someone would cut off their genitals consistent with a godly, sold-out Christian like Paul? What a terrifying, bloody, horrible thing to say to someone. Although you never know what you get with the NIV or maybe Hells International Version. HIV

Last note: the NASB and the RSV say that the troublemakers should "mutilate themselves"!!!!

wackzingo
Posts: 170
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2005 12:23 am
Contact:

Post by wackzingo »

I guess I need to say this again. You cannot compare two translations to each other to see which one is more accurate. You have to compare them to the texts FROM which they were translated.
The NKJV confuses people about salvation. In Hebrews 10:14 it replaces "are sanctified" with "are being sanctified", and it replaces "are saved" with "are being saved" in I Corinthians 1:18 and II Corinthians 2:15. The words "may believe" have been replaced with "may continue to believe" in I John 5:13. The old straight and "narrow" way of Matthew 7:14 has become the "difficult" way in the NKJV. These doctrinal errors are right out of Rome!
CONTEXT IS EVERYTHING.

THERE ARE TWO WORD BEFORE ARE (KJV) or BEING(NIV) and that is 'for' and 'ever'. The word 'for' in the greek is "eis" which has two meaning. One is a preposition and the other is a verb. As a preposition it means into, go, in, or go into. As a verb it means going and coming, or abiding, living.

The next word "ever" in the greek is "dienekes" which means continuous or continually.

Then we come to the word "sanctified" or in the greek "hagiazo" which means to declare sacred or holy.

If you want a literal translations you could say, "into continually sacred" or "in continuous holy". The problem is that this doesn't make a lot of sense in English. Translators have to take the literal and add words or phrases like "are" or "being" or "are being" to have the English translation make sense. The NKJV is not wrong and either is the KJV. There is more than one way to translate this same text. Isn't there more than one way to say something?

The word "being is more accurate when you look at the context of the whole book of Hebrews. The whole book is that the law and the ministry of the priesthood and sacrifices were all a shadow or copy, or foreshadow of the more perfect one to come. Jesus Christ is our Great High Priest because "he always lives to intercede" for us. Jesus "is" our mediator not "was" our mediator. Jesus by his very existence is a living continual testimony and mediator of the new covenant. We are in a state "being" and we are "continually being" made holy. We have been perfected forever as our salvation goes but we are in a continual state and process of being made holy.
BeefChuck717
Posts: 16
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 7:04 pm
Location: Port Orchard WA
Contact:

Post by BeefChuck717 »

wackzingo
Posts: 170
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2005 12:23 am
Contact:

Post by wackzingo »

Joe,

Please tell me what is the purpose of the Genealogy of Jesus in Luke chapter 3?

In Philippians 2:6 You say that "The NIV again subtitly perverts the deity of Jesus Christ!".

In this case I have a big problem with the KJV's translation of this verse. The whole message throughout the New Testament is that Jesus the King of King and Lord of Lords willingly gave up everything for our sakes. This means Jesus while on this earth did not consider himself equal with God but equal with man. Here's why this is important. Saying that Jesus thought it robbery to be equal with God gives the impression that Jesus thought that out of fear. He feared robbing God. This is not the case. Jesus was not like God He was God. The fact that the NIV says "He did not consider" give us the right impressions. Jesus not out of fear from robbing God but because he was humble and lowly didn't consider himself equal with God. As for whether Jesus was in the form of God or the nature of God.

Answer this please: Was Jesus a man in the form of God or God in the form of Man? OR Was he God in the form of God? Or was he a man with the nature of God AND the nature of man?

As for 1 Corinthians 6:9 says nothing about homosexuality. At least the NIV mentions that they will not inherit the Kingdom of God but the KJV leaves it out entirely.


And I would like to ask you again why you run your site, why you push the KJV so strongly and condemn anything and anyone that doesn't agree completely with you. I ask because of the comments you have made so far to me in our discussions.
I have never lost a debate to a heathen using the KJB but I have lost a debate using the NIV.
A long time ago I was witnessing to a heathen and he tore me
up with my NIV he showed me tons of contradictions that I could not roll
with. So I went back did my home work, regrouped and came out with the
truth. I went back with KJV and whipped him up bad. So bad that I put him in the same shoes he put me in one day.
You would get much further and promote unity among believer and be much more loving and helpful to the body of Christ if you would stop holding the KJV as an perfect idol and looked at reality.

The fact is that the KJV, NIV, ESV, NASV, etc. all have error. None are perfect. You should be encouraging people to use several versions and compare them. When there is a differences encourage them to research why. Is it because some manuscripts have a particular verse and some don't? This would do much more than turning the KJV into an idol.
wackzingo
Posts: 170
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2005 12:23 am
Contact:

Post by wackzingo »

Jim,

Thanks for making this new topic.

I don't disagree with you or Joe that satan has tried and is trying and has perverted the Word's of God.

The TNIV is a great example of how people at zondervan have created a gender neutral bible. Check out www.no-tniv.com

What I like about this site is it's full of big names from the Christian community saying they cannot support the TNIV. It's great when a true attempt to pervert the bible has happened and people have spoken up about it. The TNIV will not be around long.

I don't have a problem with the NIV because it's obvious that the translators intended to and tried to produce an accurate translation. They like the KJV translators are fallible men and produced a good work but not completely perfect. They relied on texts earlier than those of the KJV so it makes sense that they would be a little different but in my opinion its wrong to say they perverted the Word of God.

I'm not defending the NIV as perfect. But I believe the major source of confusion today is the KJV people who condemn all other versions as perversions. Most new Christians know that there are different translations and accepts that. This does not cause them to doubt the final authority of God's Word. But then the KJV only people come along and say "every version is a perversion except the KJV". This causes doubt because now all these versions they have learned to trust from almost every pastor and friend is condemned as a perversion.

Unity and clarity on God's Word will only come when people like the KJV only people set aside their idol. Accept the fact that the KJV like many others is good but not perfect and join together with others to warn people of mistranslations in all texts including the KJV. When people hear "the NIV is a good translation but has a few problems and here's where you need to watch out for them..." and hear "the kjv is a good translation but here's a few places to be concerned about..." they will be able to make better decisions on what they can trust and what not to. Then there won't be division but unity.

Besides the KJV only people point many example of where they say the NIV changes thing so as to remove eh Deity of Christ. This only happens if you remove the verse and make it stand alone. If you look at those verses in context it does not change the meaning on anything doctrinally. Changing 'Christ' to 'HE' only does not change the meaning if you look at the context of the passage. People are [not] stupid, they know when it says HE it means Christ. Who else could it mean.
Locked