• Welcome to Talk Jesus

    A true bible based, Jesus centered online community. Join over 13,000 members today

    Register Log In

Users who viewed this discussion (Total:0)

Active
In another thread the debate on "versions" and the KJV came up. I decided to start a thread for information on the subject for those who would like to look deeper concerning it.

Years ago I done much research regarding this, and seen the KJV as the number one absolute. This does not mean I condemn other Bible versions. I believe God uses them all to His glory and to save souls regardless of the underlying problems many have found with them. He is able to bring good out of anything being the Creator and Sustainer of all things.

If you have any wonder in your mind concerning this, or if you have information for your view and opinion concerning it I would love to see everyone come to some common ground on understanding regarding the history of Scripture and how it has formed what we all have access to today.


I will also, as time permits, post things I've learned and remember.. links to information, or studies I find online or in my archive of information I still need to organize more thoroughly.

I hope this will be a blessing to many. :)


 
Active
For starters this is a reply that is concise concerning my own view on this subject I posted in another thread:

While for years I held very solidly to the KJV as the only true Bible, I have since revised my opinion to a degree on it. Not to the discredit of the King James Version by any means.. I still believe it is THE Bible commissioned by Almighty God, and have a large large list of reasons for that.

But... As years go by, I've come to accept a few things.

One ---> People are saved even through the other versions. This means that God speaks to them through these versions. Did I like the fact this is true? No, not back when. I hold a deep love for my KJV, and grudgingly gave in to God on this realization.

Two ---> Sometimes the KJV is hard to read. (note: this is true of all versions though to a degree) In places here or there, the way language was used in King James day it is hard to follow at times. I personally believe those that translated the KJV understood language better than those of today, as it is all they spent their time on. No computers. Pen and paper. (or quill) I believe the version of language used in the Bible is superior to what we use today, as it is more accurate. This is the reason they wrote it with thee, thou, and thy actually, as there is no confusion who the speaker is talking to. Hebrew is like this in that you aren't confused with words like "you" which can mean just you, or "you people" or "you two"... it could be nearly any number... singular and/or plural.

Three---> I don't think for one second that God will allow them to screw up the translations beyond being useful for Him. I've come to the conclusion that though I feel the KJV is irreplaceable in its accuracy and that it should hold as the standard... no matter who translated it, He was there and wouldn't allow them to twist it but so far. I've heard stories of God doing supernatural things to those who didn't believe in Him yet took on translating His Word and were planning something God didn't approve of. Considering how badly they could have messed it up.. (especially using the Westcott-Hort instead of Textus Receptus) God wouldn't let them do but so much. I believe there are Evil twists in some versions.. and have actually seen some pretty wicked works of deception placed in Bibles. But I truly believe this is a Romans 8:28 issue and God is using Evil against itself.

Concerning the things I post, the links and other resources may not always fully support my personal view as a whole. But they will contain information that I've studied and/or know to be true to the best of my knowledge.


As a quick point to begin, here is a link concerning the translators of the texts used for translations of versions that are not the KJV.

There are strong viewpoints at this link! lol But I scanned the info and from what I gathered for the most part it is true from what I've studied and know:

WESTCOTT AND HORT VS. TEXTUS RECEPTUS
 
Loyal
I've heard all this many times through the years. But I myself have a Bible over 300 years old. Handed down through 4 generations.
I will likely hand it down also. It is a KJV. I rarely use it, it is old and fragile. But I have read all the way through it, and on occasion
I will will still pick it up and look up a passage or two in it.

The Smithsonian institute has a Bible that is "mostly" from the 10th century. Written well before there was a recepticus.
The Vatican has an even older Bible. From the fourth century. Also the British Library has a 4th century version.

Before the dead sea scrolls, these were the oldest known versions. They haven been gone through, verse by verse,
word by word, line by line by hundreds of scholars over the centuries. Both Christian and atheist, they are protected,
and the public doesn't have direct access to them of course, but several years ago they were copied to microfilm.
Then more recently they were digitally copied. These copies are available (for a very steep price).

Then of course, there are the dead sea scrolls found in the 1940's and 1950's, many of these are from the first century,
some are from the second century.

The point here is... we have reliable sources through the centuries that ave not changed. God has even made new sources
available (dead sea scrolls). Now while every book and every verse isn't found in the dead sea scrolls, the ones we do have
are amazingly accurate. Of course also have the Septuagint. Which is of course a translation of the Hebrew (old testament)
into Greek, done by 70 Jewish scholars in the 3rd century.

It's funny, that out of all the countries and languages on the earth, two have remained for thousands of years.
Greece and Israel. (Israel wasn't always a country, but there have always been Jews). People still speak Greek,
people still speak Hebrew. Many people still speak Aramaic. These are all very well documented languages.
There have been some changes in the languages over the centuries, but even these are documented.

Even American English has changed in the last 500 years or so. The majority of us don't really walk around saying
thee and thou, and changest not.

The King James is a translation. (some would say a translation of a translation, if you are worried about the recepticus)
"Most" (but not all) newer translations do not use the recepticus but almost always go back to the original Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic.
The point here being, literally thousands of Bible scholars and language experts have checked and rechecked our Bible sources
over the centuries. Despite all the theories, nothing has changed.

I currently have 16 versions. I most frequently use the NASB. But use almost all of the versions from time to time.
The NIV is my least favorite, but I still use it sometimes. Mostly it comes down to easiness to read and understand.

Having said all of that... there are of course some obvious counterfeit versions. And of course entire books that
some churches build theologies on (watchtower society, book of Mormon, the catechism's, etc.. )
These are usually pretty easy to spot.

Isa 40:8; The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.

1 Pet 1:24; For, "ALL FLESH IS LIKE GRASS, AND ALL ITS GLORY LIKE THE FLOWER OF GRASS. THE GRASS WITHERS, AND THE FLOWER FALLS OFF,
1 Pet 1:25; BUT THE WORD OF THE LORD ENDURES FOREVER." And this is the word which was preached to you.

I believe that if God can control the course of every star, and every drop of rain, then controlling what His word says, is no problem.

How we translate it, and what we do about it... well, that's our problem.
 
Active
How we translate it, and what we do about it... well, that's our problem.
Well with all the complicated stuff, one thing I fall back on, alluding to the fact that Greek and Hebrew (except for Daniel) are where the accuracy is..

Is that with my KJV I can grab my Strong's Concordance and look up every word in the Bible. This to me brings study to a whole new level.

I have much "brushing up" to do regarding historicity and my previous research may well contain errors. But as I stated, just like you have.. I believe God is sovereign and can take care of these things. But that to me is no reason, personally, to assume all claimed scripture accurate if I'm given the ability to find answers. I feel responsible when I'm able, or when it comes to being questioned, to look deeper.

I believe someone very close to me uses a NASB, but I'll have to double check that. They will be incredibly pleased if my feelings on this subject are turned more toward their particular choice. lol

Sounds like someone has done some work of his own. I would love to learn that my views are off at times. Lifting disagreements or being corrected after unwittingly being wrong for a time has never been a burden to me, but a blessing. Who wants to continue believing things that are untrue?
 
Loyal
HOW WE GOT OUR BIBLE
by Charles C. Ryrie

The question of which books belong in the Bible is called the question of the canon. The word canon means rule or measuring rod, and in relation to the Bible it refers to
the collection of books that passed a test of authenticity and authority; it also means that those books are our rule of life. How was the collection made?
The Tests for Canonicity
First of all, it is important to remember that certain books were canonical even before any tests were put to them. That’s like saying some students are intelligent before any
tests are given to them. The tests only prove what is already intrinsically there. In the same way, neither the church nor councils made any book canonical or authentic; either the book was authentic or it was not when it was written. The church or its councils recognized and verified certain books as the Word of God, and in time those so recognized were collected together in what we now call the Bible.
What tests did the church apply?
(1) There was the test of the authority of the writer. In relation to the Old Testament, this meant the authority of the lawgiver or the prophet or the leader in Israel.
In relation to the New Testament, a book had to be written or backed by an apostle in order to be recognized. In other words, it had to have an apostolic signature or apostolic authorization. Peter, for instance, was the backer of Mark, and Paul of Luke.
(2) The books themselves should give some internal evidences of their unique character, as inspired and authoritative. The content should commend itself to the
reader as being different from an ordinary book in communicating the revelation of God.
(3) The verdict of the churches as to the canonical nature of the books was important. There was in reality surprising unanimity among the early churches as to which
books belonged in the inspired number. Although it is true that a few books were temporarily doubted by a minority, no book whose authenticity was doubted by any large number of churches was later accepted.
The Formation of the Canon
The canon of Scripture was, of course, being formed as each book was written, and it was complete when the last book was finished. When we speak of the “formation” of
the canon we actually mean the recognition of the canonical books by the church. This took time. Some assert that all the books of the Old Testament canon were collected and recognized by Ezra in the fifth century B.C. References by Josephus (A.D. 95) and in 2 Esdras 14 (A.D. 100) indicate the extent of the Old Testament canon as the thirty-nine books we know. The discussions by the teaching-house at Jamnia (A.D. 70—100) seemed to assume this existing canon. Our Lord delimited the extent of the canonical books of the Old Testament when He accused the scribes of being guilty of slaying all the prophets God had sent Israel, from Abel to Zechariah (Luke 11:51). The account of Abel’s death is, of course, in Genesis; that of Zechariah is in 2 Chronicles 24:20-21, which is the last book in the order of the books in the Hebrew Bible (not Malachi as in our English Bibles). Therefore, it is as if the Lord had said, “Your guilt is recorded all through the Bible—from Genesis to Malachi.” And He did not include any of the apocryphal books that were in existence at that time and which contained the accounts of other martyrs. While these book are of value, the canonizers of the period felt that they "did not reveal the divine nature of God". The first church council to list all twenty-seven books of the New Testament was the Council of Carthage in A.D. 397. Individual books of the New Testament were acknowledged as Scripture before this time (2 Pet 3:16 nd 1 Tim 5:17, and most were accepted in the era just after the apostles (Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John and Jude were debated for some time). The selection of the canon was a process that went on until each book proved its own worth by passing the tests of canonicity. The twelve books of the Apocrypha were never accepted by the Jews or by our Lord on a par with the books of the Old Testament. They were revered but were not considered Scripture. The Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament done in the third century B.c.) included the Apocrypha with the Old Testament canonical books. Jerome (ca. Ail 340—420) in translating the Vulgate distinguished the canonical books from the ecclesiastical books (the Apocrypha), which had the effect of according them a secondary status. The Council of Trent (1548) recognized them as canonical, though the Reformers rejected this decree. In our English Bibles the Apocrypha was set apart in the Coverdale, Geneva, and King James versions. The first English Bible to exclude it entirely as a matter of policy was an Amsterdam edition of the Geneva Bible published in 1640, and the first English Bible printed in America (the Aitken Bible, 1782) omitted it.
Is Our Present Text Reliable?
The original copies of the Old Testament were written on leather or papyrus from the time of Moses (ca. 1450 B.c.) to the time of Malachi (400 B.C.). Until the sensational discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947 we did not possess copies of the Old Testament earlier than Ail 895. The reason for this is simply that the Jews had an almost superstitious veneration for the text, which impelled them to bury copies that had become too old for use. Indeed, the Masoretes (traditionalists), who between Ail 600 and 950 added accents and vowel points and in general standardized the Hebrew text, devised complicated safeguards for the making of copies. They checked each copy carefully by counting the middle letter of pages, books, and sections. Someone has said that every thing countable was counted. When the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, they gave us a Hebrew text from the second to first century B.C. of all but one of the books (Esther) of the Old Testament. This was of the greatest importance, for it provided a much earlier check on the accuracy of the Masoretic text, which has now proved to be extremely accurate. Other early checks on the Hebrew text include the Septuagint translation (middle of third century B.C.), the Aramaic Targums (paraphrases and quotes of the Old Testament), quotations in early Christian writers, and the Latin translation of Jerome (A.D. 400) that was made directly from the Hebrew text of his day. All of these give us the data for being assured of having an accurate text of the Old Testament. More than 5,000 manuscripts of the New Testament exist today, which makes the New Testament the best-attested document of all ancient writings. The contrast is quite startling. Not only are there so many copies of the New Testament in existence, but many of them are early. The approximately seventy-five papyri fragments date from Ail 135 to the eighth century and cover parts of twenty-five of the twenty-seven books and about 40 percent of the text. The many hundreds of parchment copies include the great Codex Sinaiticus (fourth century), the Codex Vaticanus (also fourth century), and the Codex Alexandrinus (fifth century). In addition, there are 2,000 lectionaries (church service books containing many Scripture portions), more than 86,000 quotations of the New Testament in the church Fathers, old Latin Syriac and Egyptian translations dating from the third century, and Jerome's Latin translation. All of the data plus all of the scholarly work that has been done with it assures us that we possess today an accurate and reliable text of the New Testament
 
Active

RJ

In another thread the debate on "versions" and the KJV came up. I decided to start a thread for information on the subject for those who would like to look deeper concerning it.

Years ago I done much research regarding this, and seen the KJV as the number one absolute. This does not mean I condemn other Bible versions. I believe God uses them all to His glory and to save souls regardless of the underlying problems many have found with them. He is able to bring good out of anything being the Creator and Sustainer of all things.

If you have any wonder in your mind concerning this, or if you have information for your view and opinion concerning it I would love to see everyone come to some common ground on understanding regarding the history of Scripture and how it has formed what we all have access to today.


I will also, as time permits, post things I've learned and remember.. links to information, or studies I find online or in my archive of information I still need to organize more thoroughly.

I hope this will be a blessing to many. :)

KJV is great but I use many versions. I really don't see that much difference when it comes down to the basic gospel of who God is and what he and Jesus has provided for us.
 
Active
I may have a preference and may take 2 Timothy 2:15 quite seriously. But I agree, Romans 8:28.

I do believe accuracy is important to some degree though. There are Bible translations written specifically to promote homosexuality. Which is akin to a Bible to promote lying. So... I can't quite simplify it but to a particular denominator.

It all boils down to whether you are only spreading the Gospel, or studying the meat of the Word, rather than just the milk.

I believe we should all spread the Gospel, but our first priority, is to know God better and be closer to Him. Matthew 22:37

To me personally, having the most accurate copy of what my Father actually says is important. I've tried to switch to a modern version.. I can't come to grips with it. It gives me a uneasy feeling.

The closest I can get to Hebrew and Greek for me is KJV, and if I could learn Hebrew and Greek, or if I ever get the chance... I would certainly be reading the original texts. This is especially true for poetic books such as Psalms that tend to lose the feel and beauty of how the original language portrayed the heart of God.

I'm so serious about the sacredness of the Canon I won't write in my Bible. Period. They've tried to convince me it's ok. Which, is fine for them, as that is between them and God. I don't condemn them or even consider it concerning them. God knows their heart and I don't feel like it's a sin. But I can't do it.

I have a Bible that I've owned for 22 years. I wrote a couple verses as a younger man on a blank page in the back. Nowhere within the text will you find a mark of any kind though.
 
Member

Well with all the complicated stuff, one thing I fall back on, alluding to the fact that Greek and Hebrew (except for Daniel) are where the accuracy is..

Is that with my KJV I can grab my Strong's Concordance and look up every word in the Bible. This to me brings study to a whole new level.

I have much "brushing up" to do regarding historicity and my previous research may well contain errors. But as I stated, just like you have.. I believe God is sovereign and can take care of these things. But that to me is no reason, personally, to assume all claimed scripture accurate if I'm given the ability to find answers. I feel responsible when I'm able, or when it comes to being questioned, to look deeper.

I believe someone very close to me uses a NASB, but I'll have to double check that. They will be incredibly pleased if my feelings on this subject are turned more toward their particular choice. lol

Sounds like someone has done some work of his own. I would love to learn that my views are off at times. Lifting disagreements or being corrected after unwittingly being wrong for a time has never been a burden to me, but a blessing. Who wants to continue believing things that are untrue?

Very new, and not much insight to offer other than from what I understand there are more literal translations and more figurative. KJV and NASB both fall on the word for word side, where NLT/NIV are more thought for thought. Not really a question...but I love this thread. I am looking at buying my first bible and have yet to decide if it really matters.
 
Active

I'm glad you like the thread and I hope it answers some questions you have. Goodness, I hope it answers some more of mine.
:laugh:
 
Active
It's interesting I find this discussion. I had the experience of entertaining three Mormon missionaries yesterday evening. One of the items raised but given little chance to discuss it, was the Bible has errors which the Book of Mormon corrects. I stated that I could think of several people who would disagree, but they're entitled to their opinion. Oddly, Mohammed declared the same thing, made even more remarkable that he couldn't read it. Thinking about the Mormon's conversation, I read in a pamphlet after their departure that the Book of Mormon is incomplete. The scribe, Martin Harris, anxious to show his wife that his time spent away from home was being put to good use, requested of Joseph Smith to be allowed to show their work to Harris's wife. Unfortunately, 116 pages of work disappeared into thin air. After a pause, Smith was allowed to resume translating a different section.

I was somewhat surprised when I was told of items which the Bible is polar opposite on. One is that God has a physical body because we are made in His image and we have a physical body. I objected by saying that's not what Scripture says. Smith had plans to make revisions to the Bible by correcting the errors and adding additional details. He died before that could occur.

I find remarkable the mention of errors considering the original Book of Mormon no longer exists and only a small portion made it to print. It may make a supplemental confirmation in one sense, but the Bible was and is meant to stand on its own merit. If the Bible fails, then all other books supporting it also fail. They seem to have an wee issue with that.
 
Active
I have found a couple links for some personal contemplation. They show two different views, and I think they are good for stimulating intriguing questions.

Textus Receptus

This link has an entire site with it I found after reading a bit. So there is more there than originally intended, but I don't see how more information can be a bad thing really. Unless you've already got lines drawn in the sand. lol

http://www.ibri.org/Tracts/trkjvtct.htm

This link is a query answered by two Bible Scholars, or presidents, or both.. (Bottom of the page lists their "titles" if that matters a lot to you.) :)

They both have some good points. The concepts and questions that make the most bearing on me still lean toward my original thought, though I will admit and agree with one of the scholars that the KJV is hard to understand in places.. I don't believe it's necessary always to re-translate just to make reading easier. I never agreed that it is impossible. I read mine quite often, therefore I know it's very plausible to do so.

But nevertheless, I don't etch that in stone. I'm sort of enjoying the freedom of swinging in the wind on the issue. I have a previous stance, but I am enjoying reading about the underlying concepts and history of Canon and translation.

The thoughts of men concerning important subjects can be quite intriguing.


---------------------------------------------

I stated that I could think of several people who would disagree, but they're entitled to their opinion.
Got that right Shutterbug! :laugh:

Some people won't believe in God at all.. Others will follow anyone's looney writing, Even Joseph Smiths..... Whackiest set of doctrines and beliefs I've ever heard of in my life. I think I'd laugh until I died if I read all their extra writings... lol

Not to be mean or anything, I wouldn't laugh in their face. (Or at least I'd do my best not to)

Unfortunately, 116 pages of work disappeared into thin air.
I think more than the pages disappeared into thin air. Ahem. I can't elaborate further, or it wouldn't be sensitive. (I truly don't want to be mean, but it's just too easy to refute) :coffee:
 
Active
Ok.. after finding the "whole website".. I am recalling some of the things that used to eat at me.

This is something that always gets me. I start to feel my stomach turn when I see these charts. (There are lots of them online)

Altered/Omitted Verses

When it seems as if most of the changes and omissions are concerning Christ's diety.. and forgiveness.. and other important concepts, I always pull back into the safety of my KJV. I'd rather struggle to read what I know isn't tainted. There's more reasons for me than just that though, and I don't see it as too hard to read.

This for ME.. is can't do it.. Hair on my neck stands up. Just can't do it.
 
Active

RJ

Ok.. after finding the "whole website".. I am recalling some of the things that used to eat at me.

This is something that always gets me. I start to feel my stomach turn when I see these charts. (There are lots of them online)

Altered/Omitted Verses

When it seems as if most of the changes and omissions are concerning Christ's diety.. and forgiveness.. and other important concepts, I always pull back into the safety of my KJV. I'd rather struggle to read what I know isn't tainted. There's more reasons for me than just that though, and I don't see it as too hard to read.

This for ME.. is can't do it.. Hair on my neck stands up. Just can't do it.
I would say what ever you are most comfortable with. I guess the best would be to study the original manuscripts, if you knew the language! But, even if you are strictly in the KJV, I would ask the Holy Spirit for understanding...John 16:13 ( Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth) KVJ
 
Active
I think the King James version became the yardstick because its translators made every effort to ensure contextual meaning. If one does something for the King, one generally makes a greater effort to get it right the first time. What I find most comforting about it is people used ordinary means to create and compile it. While prayer and supplication was used, personal knowledge of the languages was employed. In the case of the Book of Mormon, Mr. Smith employed reading glasses and a pair of stones. Miracle? Some certainly think so.
 
Loyal
I would still lean toward the NASB as the most accurate. I went and checked out the pro KJV
website above. Most everything it says true (some of it is a little misleading, for example
it says Luke 4:8; is omitted in the NASB. Not true, only that portion of the sentence is omitted.

Also in the case of Matt 18:11; for example... the reason it's in parenthesis is because it's not in
any of the original manuscripts.

In fact everywhere it shows a phrase missing in the NASB, it's because it's not in the original
manuscripts. That's why I would hold the NASB is more accurate. If anything, the KJV added those.

Also in the case of verses like Matt 27:25; "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet"
That isn't in the original manuscripts either. But it's good that this is here, so you know that
it's quoting an old testament passage.

What the website fails to mention here is... that the NASB gets around this by using uppercase.
For example.... In Luke 4:18; Jesus is quoting Isa 61:1; So the NASB prints that verse all uppercase
in Luke, so that you know it's a old testament passage.
 
Member
In another thread the debate on "versions" and the KJV came up. I decided to start a thread for information on the subject for those who would like to look deeper concerning it.

Years ago I done much research regarding this, and seen the KJV as the number one absolute. This does not mean I condemn other Bible versions. I believe God uses them all to His glory and to save souls regardless of the underlying problems many have found with them. He is able to bring good out of anything being the Creator and Sustainer of all things.

If you have any wonder in your mind concerning this, or if you have information for your view and opinion concerning it I would love to see everyone come to some common ground on understanding regarding the history of Scripture and how it has formed what we all have access to today.


I will also, as time permits, post things I've learned and remember.. links to information, or studies I find online or in my archive of information I still need to organize more thoroughly.

I hope this will be a blessing to many. :)

I am back to the beginning ...... I thought the NASB was very similar to the KJV in regards to being accurate in the translation from the original manuscripts that are used. Now, I believe I understand that there are basically 2 camps that use 2 different "early manuscripts" I cannot find the links to this again so cannot reference them here. Do you or any others have an idea of where to start or what to look at? UG. why can't we just have one translation?!? lol
 
Loyal
Do you or any others have an idea of where to start or what to look at? UG. why can't we just have one translation?!? lol
Those that use the textus receptus, and those that do not.
Also to add more confusion, some were translated from the original Hebrew OT, other's from the Septuagint.
 
Member
Those that use the textus receptus, and those that do not.
Also to add more confusion, some were translated from the original Hebrew OT, other's from the Septuagint.
Looks like I'll need to have a LOT more understanding to form an opinion on this one. *grumpy face*
 
Top