M Paul

There's so much dishonesty in scholarly discussions regarding what is the best English translation, or even what are the best manuscripts, it will test the limits of the imagination for the average Christian. It's really just unbelievable, and I am talking about conservative Christians of the type one normally would consider most trustworthy. Because of that dishonesty, I normally leave this issue alone, but perhaps, this time I should make a response.

The King James version uses a literal equivalent theory of translation. The KJV translators were already the established scholars on biblical languages for their time. They received no payment for their work, and the translation was not copyrighted.

In modern times, there is the dynamic equivalent theory of translation, as a device to be used only when the vernacular does not have a corresponding word for what is being translated. However, for some reason, the modern translations often employ dynamic equivalents, when literary equivalents are readily available and serve as the precise corresponding word. The greatest abuse in this regard can be found in the book of Romans, which perhaps, should not be surprising, given the great significance it has in the formation of the overall and basic theology. However, the scholars involved in modern translations are by far Cessationists in view point, and it just so happens, the passages Pentecostals often use to support their theology from the KJV read quite differently in modern versions.

Modern scholars can hope to establish their reputations by becoming a part of a committee of a modern translation, from amongst a lot of competition, and thereby make a lot of money and gain much prestige, which is just one reason why their work is always copyrighted. However, they also have that financial and status interest in doing anything which enhances the concept that believers should relate to God primarily through scholarship, and that experiencing the power of the Holy Spirit in any biblical manner has ceased. Thus, to understand why the modern translations are superior from their viewpoint, one has to rely on scholars for a complete and proper explanation, which also includes citing new scholarly works of grammar and lexicography.

Overcoming the glowing reputation of the KJV was a real problem for the new translators in having their work accepted and given due honor. The KJV is difficult in its use of archaic language, but people were most willing to put up with the older usages, as the translation had a majestic rhythm and it was believed to have an anointing, if not outright inspiration.

But all of a sudden by scholarship discretionary choices in translation were construed as outright errors. But the manuscript itself was upheld as a major problem. Modern scholars noted the KJV translators didn’t have the advantage of the new manuscript discoveries, of the new Greek text established, yes, by themselves. They noted the KJV translators relied on Erasmus’ first edition, which even retroverted from Latin the final verses of the book of Revelation, and he did not have access to Vaticanus B, or other important Greek sources.

Actually, there is no real significance to proposed new Greek readings from later manuscript discoveries in translation, except, perhaps, to weaken the Christian message, but, definitely, to enhance the prestige of the biblical scholar. And, in fact, the KJV translators did not use Erasmus’ first edition of the Greek text but the second, as well as other Greek sources, and they had access to second century quotations of the Greek text, most significant evidence. And Erasmus did have access to Vaticanus B, but apparently held it of less import.

Further, in reality, the evidence of manuscript families which establishes a supposedly more reliable Greek text can be contested as inconsistent: (but how unpopular, for what would be the significance of the biblical scholar then?). And in actuality, the eight examples of verse conflation used to assert that the Byzantine text is a fourth century Lucian recession really isn’t enough evidence to uphold anything as positive. And, these scholars do not adequately deal with the evidence of the second century quotations. And, why should we readily assume that a reading from one fourth or fifth century manuscript is superior to a reading based on thousands of manuscripts from later centuries, but all apparently based on an even earlier parent? Maybe, because if we don’t, the scholars won’t have any other way to establish their prestige and enhance their earnings??

The KJV does have mistakes, as any translation does, but in my opinion, it is the best translation in English. However, for those who promote the modern translations, to say that the KJV is the best becomes -- “KJV only, because it was given to us by Moses on the side of a mountain.� They won’t let favoring the KJV be stated any other way. Actually, those taking the KJV only position are a small minority of believers favoring the translation, but they can easily be made to look ridiculous.

With the new generation advocating the KJV is difficult, as they just find the language too challenging. In that case I use the NKJV. It has some changes I wish were not made, but I find it entirely acceptable. However, with the KJV, reading it over and over seems to have a mysterious way of making a person fall in love with the word of God. I also uphold the KJ21 as a good alternative.

M Paul

ThinkOnItDevotions

I started with a New Living Translation because it was easy to read. That got me in God's Word. After that, I moved to NKJV because I wanted to get closer to what was originally spoken - since I don't read/speak/understand Greek or Hebrew and at the time I couldn't understand all the thees and thous of the King James Version, I thought that would be best place to go.
Now after several years with NKJV, it seems God's prompting me to go back to the King James Version. This time, it's making more sense. Probably reading through the bible in other translations helped a little bit.

I liked what someone else posted, picking any one would be a good start. Dive in and God's Spirit will guide you and lead you in His truth!

__________________
Elizabeth Marks, has a heart for encouraging others with God's Word.
www.ThinkOnItDevotions.com
www.ThinkOnIt4Business.com

LindaR

Blessings bworthey!!

Here are two resources to check out about Bible versions. First link is Part 1 of one article. I'll post both sites:

http://www.wayoflife.org/articles/modern.htm

http://www.wayoflife.org/articles/modern2.htm

I use the KJV alone. I used to use the NKJV until I checked out the information about that translation. It took me almost a year, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to decide that the KJV was the translation to use. I'm not going to get into a KJVO debate--I hate those types of debates--they are fruitless and not edifying. I would say to anyone who wants to know why someone uses the KJV alone to do their own study--I did that. I didn't find any answers on forum boards, but through Bible study and biblical resources on the internet and from my brothers and sisters in the Lord. My advice to those who seek answers about Bible translations is PRAY, Bible Study and to seek out good biblical resources from those people who defend the KJV, i.e. the two links I posted are a good start.

Remember, "easy to read" is not always accurate. Look for accuracy rather than "easy to read"--the Holy Spirit will always give you understanding.

God bless

adoptivemommy

Hi!

I'm curious... What do you think about the Amplified version? Thank you,

Laura

LindaR

I don't like it. The Amplified Bible, like any of the other MVs, has its problems.

Folks, I'm not in here to debate Bible versions. I use the KJV alone. Nobody is a "heretic" for using the MVs, but if anyone really wants to know why people believe the KJV is the inspired/preserved Word of God in the English language, they should do their own study. The Holy Spirit will guide you. I am not a Hebrew/Greek scholar, I just love God's Word and for me, that is the KJV.

Here are a few good sites:

[ Removed non authorized links ]

(Disclaimer: There are some articles on the bottom of this page "Doctrines of Grace"--I don't recommend them because they are Calvinistic articles. Stick with the articles on the KJV, they are excellent.)

-

epistemaniac

bworthy, just remember that all people have biases, including those who originally worked on the KJV.... (edit to "most" rather than "all") most of the links that Linda gave come from the KJV Only bias..... that doesn't mean the articles Linda recommended are necessarily good or bad, true or false, it just means that when and if you read them, remember that it is coming from a site that advocates KJV Only....

when I struggled with this issue, and I really agonized over it, I was able to speak to some of the professors at my school who were involved in both the NIV, NASB and NLT translations and they seemed pretty comfortable with all these versions (and this is a really conservative school!) so this helped me out some.... I also had some friends very involved in the KJV Only movement, I read some of their material as well, from Peter Ruckman to the book "New Age Versions" by Gail Riplinger (how anyone even published this book is beyond me! it is one of the most poorly written and reasoned "books" I have ever read!), in the end I felt that the 2 books that helped me most on the subject were DA Carson's "The King James Only Controversy, A Plea for Realism" http://www.amazon.com/King-James-Ver...745432-5841661

and James White's "The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations?" http://www.amazon.com/King-James-Onl.../dp/1556615752


here is a short article you could also check out that is very easy to read and is written by a conservative evangelical Christian who is an expert in Greek....
http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=665

blessings,
Ken

epistemaniac

Linda, since I am a Calvinist and not a KJV only we are far far apart doctrinally lol.... but, nonetheless, I was curious about the dreaded false "Doctrines of Grace" on the page you recommended, but the link does not take me to a site that has either articles defending the KJV only perspective or articles on the doctrines of grace....

and btw, the KJV is a "modern" translation relatively speaking as well, considering that the original manuscripts were written around 2000 or more years ago!! lol.....

also, which version of the KJV do you prefer? there have been many such revisions....

"Without changing its name or labelling it as "revised," the KJV in fact was revised many times from 1611 to 1769, including changes in spelling, changes in punctuation, changes in wording, the removal of the Old Testament Apocrypha, the removal of marginal notes with alternative renderings. It was in 1769 that Dr. Benjamin Blayney of Oxford completed what Bruce Metzger describes as "the most careful and comprehensive revision" that came to be known as "the Authorized Version." Blayney's 1769 revision produced the text that is used by most publishers of the KJV today. (This is explained in Bruce Metzger's article on "Translations" in The Oxford Companion to the Bible, edited by Bruce M. Metzger and Michael D. Coogan, New York: Oxford University Press, 1993, page 759-760.) Metzger notes that in the 1614 edition alone, changes were made in over four hundred places." (http://www.bibletexts.com/kjv-tr.htm#5)

blessings,
Ken

LindaR

Just want to let everyone know that I am NOT a follower of Peter Ruckman and Gail Riplinger. They are both extremely radical, to put it mildly. Even David Cloud (Way of Life.org website) critiqued her book, New Age Bible Versions, and he also has critiqued Peter Ruckman.

If you have your mind already made up that ALL KJV defenders are like Peter Ruckman and Gail Riplinger, there is no point in continuing this discussion--it would be fruitless. However, I would appreciate that you allow bworthey to decide for himself whether those sites I posted are good or bad sites for what he is looking for.

Check bottom of the page of the last site for the "Doctrines of Grace"--it's there. For your information, I use the 1769 Cambridge version of the AV KJV. This is not a "revision".

epistemaniac

oh no... I don't think for a minute that all KJV Onlyists are like Ruckman and Riplinger!! Sorry if I gave that impression.

As far as my allowing bworthy to make up his own mind, what I have written that would indicate I was doing anything else?.... the fact is, Cloud is a KJV Onlyist and therefore is biased in that direction, while it is equally true that the sites and books that I recommend are from a non-KJV Onlyist bias. It is important to let bworthy know about these biases at the outset so that he can make up his mind in as informed way as possible.... and equally important to remember and remind him that no one is without their biases, for complete perfect objectivity is a myth. The question is "which bias is the best bias to be biased with !!!

and I also clearly stated that the fact that your links were from KJV Onlyist sources was itself no indication that the recommendations given by you were to be thought of as either good or bad, I said:
I think this quite clearly shows my effort to allow bworthy to make up his own mind every bit as much as anyone else that has contributed to this thread....

I will try the link again... thanks...

as far as your saying this is simply, manifestly and patently false. Check the version of the KJV you read against the KJV originally written in 1611 and you (and anyone else for that matter) can quite clearly see that your 1769 version is a revision of the 1611, as well as a revision of the various other revisions that preceded the 1769 version....

blessings,
Ken

epistemaniac

Linda... here is the site I get when I click on the link that has the "bad" doctrines of grace.... and, btw, why not let bworthy make up his own mind about these as well? why must you tell him that because they are "Calvinistic" that they should be avoided....? anyways... the site I get when clicking on the link in your post is http://www.http.com//www.geocities.c.../articles.html which has this on it:


http.com
Try Searching the Internet for These Topics

Related Searches
Akron ISP
Huntington ISP
Taylor ISP
Woodland ISP
Taunton ISP

Harrisburg ISP
Hope ISP
Janesville ISP
Winchester ISP
Glencoe ISP

Monterey ISP
Akron Internet
Huntington Internet
Taylor Internet
Woodland Internet

Livingston ISP
UKIAH ISP
Yakima ISP
Taunton Internet
Harrisburg Internet

Popular Categories
Travel
Airline
Car Rental
Hotels
Cruises

Financial Planning
Loans
Credit Cards
Debt Consolidation
Stocks

E Commerce
VoIP
Broadband
Domain Names
Web Hosting
Lifestyle
Fitness
Dating
Singles
Education

Real Estate
Mortgages
Refinancing
Home Equity Loans
For Sale by Owner

Insurance
Car Insurance
Travel Insurance
Health Insurance
Home Insurance
Business
Bankruptcy
Business Cards
Affiliate Programs
Conference Calls

Legal Help
DUI Lawyers
Accident Lawyers
Bankruptcy Lawyers
Probate Lawyers

Personal Finances
Investments
Student Loans
Work from Home
Personal Loans
Computers
Laptops
Software Training
High Speed Internet
DSL

Health Care
Vitamins
Contact Lenses
Laser Eye Surgery
Cosmetic Surgery

Shopping
Gifts
Flowers
DVD Rental
Apparel

I use Firefox... so I will try Microsoft Internet Explorer to see if that browser works...

blessings,
Ken