KJV is the most authentic and closest interpretation

[blazerdave]

blazerdave
There is indeed a lot of conversation about the KJV online. While not everyone is versed in the controversy, make no mistake that the texts used by the modern editions are based upon a few older manuscripts. However, do spend some time looking at these three individual manuscripts. I have spent considerable time finding out that in the thousands of places they disagree, that theological bias and presuppositions enter into phrasing and word choice in the translation. Jack Chick oversimplifies and distorts facts but there is a real choice to be made by people in determining the proper and best text in God’s word. You can disagree with the views of those who adhere to the majority text but make sure it is based upon accurate knowledge. Truth in this case, is hard to come by without knowing the facts.

Very good points. There certainly are theological decisions made by the translators, and that’s why I like to keep more than one version on hand. I actually know a couple of the guys who were on the ESV committee, so I’ve been blessed with an opportunity to learn about the textual schools and the decisions that have to be made. I don’t claim to be an authority, but at least I know something about it haha. But no matter what theological bias might affect a translator or an editor, the majority of newer Bible versions are not translated with diabolical intent (which seems to be a prevailing opinion in certain circles ). Not that you said anything about that…just getting that out there

 

[TobyLue]

JRKH

Of course it is easy to maintain your position when you can simply choose to deny the evidence clearly presented to you.

They dont see this as evidence. They simply see it as the work of the devil.
They also say the CC depends on man-made doctrines, and their mistaken history. I guess they believe God dropped the KJV onto somebody’s lap.

As I have heard it said before "If the KJV was OK for Paul, its good enough for me.

 

[greggy53]

JRKHThey dont see this as evidence. They simply see it as the work of the devil.
They also say the CC depends on man-made doctrines, and their mistaken history. I guess they believe God dropped the KJV onto somebody’s lap.

As I have heard it said before "If the KJV was OK for Paul, its good enough for me.

Actually I think they believe that the Bible fell out of the sky and hit Martin Luther on the head !

 

[NEWCATHOLICJEFF]

Very good points. There certainly are theological decisions made by the translators, and that’s why I like to keep more than one version on hand. I actually know a couple of the guys who were on the ESV committee, so I’ve been blessed with an opportunity to learn about the textual schools and the decisions that have to be made. I don’t claim to be an authority, but at least I know something about it haha. But no matter what theological bias might affect a translator or an editor, the majority of newer Bible versions are not translated with diabolical intent (which seems to be a prevailing opinion in certain circles ). Not that you said anything about that…just getting that out there

I dont know… Jehovah’s witnesses, Mormons, and anybody that would remove or add books or text to strengthen a position is probably doing so for less then Angelic purposes. As a Cradle Lutheran I was pretty upset when I found out what Luther did…

 

[john_charles]

Earlier I asked if anyone knows why they removed those books. I am seriously interested as to why. Does anyone have an answer?

 

[Rightlydivide]

Yes all of us who support the majority text think it dropped out of the sky…
or not…
rosetta.reltech.org/TC/vol06/Robinson2001.html

 

[greggy53]

Earlier I asked if anyone knows why they removed those books. I am seriously interested as to why. Does anyone have an answer?

If you are speaking of the 7 deuterocanonical books from what I understand Martin Luther did not believe they were divinely inspired scripture. He did not remove them from his bible but rather placed them in their own section and called it the Apocrypha. I have also been told on this forum that he (Luther) did not believe the Epistle of St James and the Revelation of St John were scripture either but his followers wouldn’t go along with their removal. I have a KJV that was printed in Canada in 1876 that includes the 7 books. I asked about it on another thread a while back and was told that some Protestant bible society decided to stop including them in their bibles in the late 19th century to save money. That is what I know. If anyone else has more info I would love to hear it.
This thread reminds me of a report in the news last fall about a Baptist minister that was having a Bible burning party on Halloween. The report said that his church believed that the KJV was the only real Bible and that every other version was of the devil, so his congregation was having a party and burning all the other translations they could get their hands on. It was quite an amusing story.

 

[Shiranui117]

If you are speaking of the 7 deuterocanonical books from what I understand Martin Luther did not believe they were divinely inspired scripture. He did not remove them from his bible but rather placed them in their own section and called it the Apocrypha. I have also been told on this forum that he (Luther) did not believe the Epistle of St James and the Revelation of St John were scripture either but his followers wouldn’t go along with their removal.
This thread reminds me of a report in the news last fall about a Baptist minister that was having a Bible burning party on Halloween. The report said that his church believed that the KJV was the only real Bible and that every other version was of the devil, so his congregation was having a party and burning all the other translations they could get their hands on. It was quite an amusing story.

I don’t know about you, but I certainly don’t find that amusing… I find it disturbing that anyone would burn a copy of the Bible, which is still Sacred Scripture, just because it’s not their preferred edition. I have a NAB, and I’m sure my mom wouldn’t like it if I burned her NIV Bible because it wasn’t a NAB, and vice-versa.

The fact that people go out of their way to call entire translations or whole books of the Bible heretical or non-applying tells me that they are seriously narrow-minded, intolerant and blind in their faith, especially if they do it without any evidence whatsoever.

 

[NEWCATHOLICJEFF]

I don’t know about you, but I certainly don’t find that amusing… I find it disturbing that anyone would burn a copy of the Bible, which is still Sacred Scripture, just because it’s not their preferred edition. I have a NAB, and I’m sure my mom wouldn’t like it if I burned her NIV Bible because it wasn’t a NAB, and vice-versa.

The fact that people go out of their way to call entire translations or whole books of the Bible heretical or non-applying tells me that they are seriously narrow-minded, intolerant and blind in their faith, especially if they do it without any evidence whatsoever.

If you think that is interesting take a look at the books in the Ethiopean Bible. They are in full communion with Rome and some of their books are different?

 

[greggy53]

I don’t know about you, but I certainly don’t find that amusing… I find it disturbing that anyone would burn a copy of the Bible, which is still Sacred Scripture, just because it’s not their preferred edition. I have a NAB, and I’m sure my mom wouldn’t like it if I burned her NIV Bible because it wasn’t a NAB, and vice-versa.

The fact that people go out of their way to call entire translations or whole books of the Bible heretical or non-applying tells me that they are seriously narrow-minded, intolerant and blind in their faith, especially if they do it without any evidence whatsoever.

You are right, of course. I shouldn’t make light of the ignorance and prejudice in the world. But on the other hand people do some crazy things and it makes me laugh…A defect in my character no doubt. You have to agree though that the image of Christians burning Bibles is kind of bizarre.

 

[descout]

I would think that someone would of started to go on about the history of the KJV. About the Receivied text vs the Sinaiticus or Vaticanus. I am interested on where does the Received text come from. Sources please.

 

[descout]

John
The Deuterocanonical/Apocrypha were removed to save money and printing costs in the 1800’s. It is important, and you may already know this, that the KJV has them in a seperate section unlike a Catholic or Orthodox bible. It is also important to understand that KJV with the disputed books are still available. In fact, I think we have seen an upswing in their use. That is only anecdotal. I based that upon my impressions from other forums.

IMO–Why would you remove the books as for money reasoning? You are putting out a Word of God and you decide that some need to be left out for money reasons? Seems you just should not publish it, unless you are publishing it with intent to finish it later.

Upswing? Why was there ever a downswing? Now they want to go back and are finding reason that they should be in there?

I like the fact that if I purchase a Bible, Catholic one, I do not have a choice of either getting the extra 7 or not. I have choice of the style of writing I want to read, but it will contain all the same inspired books it has always been from the very begining.

 

[NEWCATHOLICJEFF]

You are right, of course. I shouldn’t make light of the ignorance and prejudice in the world. But on the other hand people do some crazy things and it makes me laugh…A defect in my character no doubt. You have to agree though that the image of Christians burning Bibles is kind of bizarre.

As far as I know the Bible when old should be burned. It is the same as a flag.

 

[blazerdave]

I dont know… Jehovah’s witnesses, Mormons, and anybody that would remove or add books or text to strengthen a position is probably doing so for less then Angelic purposes. As a Cradle Lutheran I was pretty upset when I found out what Luther did…

Friend, I hope you don’t think I ment cult editions! Sorry if I wasn’t clear. I was referring to people who think that RSV, NRSV, NIV, NKJV, and other “recognized” Protestant bibles are satanic attempts at bringing about the New World Order or whatever foolishness they’re talking about. The translation committees of Protestant/Interdenominational bibles, though they might have agendas, aren’t “out to get you” the way a cult is, and they’re not trying to bring about the end of the world haha

 

[greggy53]

As far as I know the Bible when old should be burned. It is the same as a flag.

Right, and like old palms as well. It is the intent in the bruning that makes all the difference here.

 

[Holly3278]

As “AnAtheist” I’m assuming you don’t believe any of the Bibles so how is your opinion relevant?

Here is something to think about (not you specifically but could apply). God said His word would be preserved. Here is just one example of many:

Psalms 19:7, “The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.”

Now, if the newer Bibles of today had used the same method of translating instead of copyrighting their Books and removing verses on the blood and deity of Christ then maybe there would be no issues and we could live happily ever after. But, have you noticed that many of these newer Bibles contradict themselves and one (Living Bible) just paraphrases the word of God? How ridiculous is it to think that God wanted his word paraphrased? It’s common sense to think God wanted His word preserved in a way that got the real message across. The King James Bible was used and the only English version for almost 400 years…are you saying God is a liar and did not preserve His word for those multitudes of Generations? He didn’t preserve His word for all those years until the Catholic Church magically found these “older” documents from which to translate from? NO! He said He preserved His word and that means these new documents are from the Devil, to make us stray from God’s true teachings. If they were something God wanted in His word, they would have been in the manuscripts and have been translated through the years. This is not the case.

I dare anyone to find a contradiction or mistake in the King James Bible, you can’t do it. While I can find many MISSING, yes MISSING verses in the new Bibles and contradictions to the deity of Christ. It’s despicable and I hope and pray you take the chance and research, study ask God for guidance. I’m only a man, I can make mistakes but I’ve searched my heart and I’ve asked God to give me wisdom in the manner and He has. I would ask that you consider doing the same.

Oh please! Tell me, if the KJV is God’s only perfect Bible, then what about non-English speakers? I guess they are just without the “true Bible”?

 

[JRKH]

Earlier I asked if anyone knows why they removed those books. I am seriously interested as to why. Does anyone have an answer?

As I understand it, part of the reason had to do with what books were accepted formally by the Jews. The “Hebrew OT” as opposed to the Septuigent or Greek OT.
The Hebrew OT was agreed upon in about 100 AD, as I understand it. Long after the events establishing the Christian Church.
The Catholic Church included books from the Septuigent because this was the OT used by much of the Early Church and there is evidence that Christ and the Apostles had access to and used the Septuigent.

Luther decided that to go with the Hebrew OT. He also wanted to remove several books from the NT, including, interestingly enough, Revelations.

Peace
James

 

[Zooey]

As “AnAtheist” I’m assuming you don’t believe any of the Bibles so how is your opinion relevant?

Here is something to think about (not you specifically but could apply). God said His word would be preserved. Here is just one example of many:

Psalms 19:7, “The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.”

Now, if the newer Bibles of today had used the same method of translating instead of copyrighting their Books and removing verses on the blood and deity of Christ then maybe there would be no issues and we could live happily ever after. But, have you noticed that many of these newer Bibles contradict themselves and one (Living Bible) just paraphrases the word of God? How ridiculous is it to think that God wanted his word paraphrased? It’s common sense to think God wanted His word preserved in a way that got the real message across. The King James Bible was used and the only English version for almost 400 years…are you saying God is a liar and did not preserve His word for those multitudes of Generations? He didn’t preserve His word for all those years until the Catholic Church magically found these “older” documents from which to translate from? NO! He said He preserved His word and that means these new documents are from the Devil, to make us stray from God’s true teachings. If they were something God wanted in His word, they would have been in the manuscripts and have been translated through the years. This is not the case.

I dare anyone to find a contradiction or mistake in the King James Bible, you can’t do it. While I can find many MISSING, yes MISSING verses in the new Bibles and contradictions to the deity of Christ. It’s despicable and I hope and pray you take the chance and research, study ask God for guidance. I’m only a man, I can make mistakes but I’ve searched my heart and I’ve asked God to give me wisdom in the manner and He has. I would ask that you consider doing the same.

[SIGN1]
Piffle!!
Pshaw!!!
Pfui!!!
[/SIGN1]

Ye dinnae know wha’ ye speak of, yean.

 

[Zooey]

Oh please! Tell me, if the KJV is God’s only perfect Bible, then what about non-English speakers? I guess they are just without the “true Bible”?

Thank you, Holly!!!

As for our KJV-worshipping “friend”:
Yean, I have my great-grandmother’s Bible.
That dear lady never went to school a day in her life, but she loved the Lord dearly, & she spent all she had, before she & my great-grandfather sailed over from Holland to come to America, to buy herself a Bible…With his help, she taught herself to read in the only language she knew: Dutch, & all she ever read was that Bible.
That Bible was as perfect a Bible as was ever printed. I know, because my great-grandmother was as great a saint of God as ever walked this earth. I would trade all the KJV’s on the planet for that one dear volume, tattered though it may be. It is over 130 years old, & hallowed with the touch of her hands.
Quit studying your bluidy conspiracy theories, laddie. They’re all so much dust & sand on the winds.

 

[Rightlydivide]

I have a couple of things to say.
First, I do not believe the historical evidence shows an open canon for the Jews until 100AD. I am also going to go out on a limb, and there might be exceptions, and say I have read more than just about anyone on this forum on that particular topic.
This belief is based upon assumptions. What it lacks is any form of primary source evidence. You can think I am full of it and go and research it. Let me give an example that may help people.
Did you know that research scholars almost without exception hold that the Gospels were first passed on without names attached to them? Did you know that the primary source evidence for this is nada? In other words, there are no existing early copies of the Gospels without names on them. There are no early patristic writers who say that either. Yet, the vast majority of scholars accept this as fact. It is one of the reasons they attach much later dates to the composition of the Gospels themselves.
So lets turn back to this belief about an open canon among the Jews in 100 AD. There is in my estimation no real evidence of this. Its a belief.
Second, and final point. If people believe that all older copies of the “Bible” (understanding they did not contain the full set of books by anyone’s canon) have vast differences. Based upon these differences translations today look very different. Maybe you know this and do not care. However, in the fundamentalist community there exists a desire to know what the original copies said and what they looked like. Our scholars hold radically different presuppostions than many of the people who make the modern editions. As such, it is a contentious issue. Because the vast majority of fundamentalist might not be able to articulate the problems and issues does not negate that they exist.