Question on Bibles

The reasons Hrt4Christ has shown is what led me to obtain a KJV. I love it, admittedly, I don't read it as much as I do my ESV (my second favorite translation.) I use it for serious studies mainly, because I know that I wont be studying Scripture with verses changed and put in the footnotes and omitted.

I would really like a readable (by our standards today) Geneva or KJV. If I could find one of those, I would probably use it for everything.
 
Hi Hrt!

I've known about and understood the italicised 'extras' in the KJV for 50 years.

You've not commented on what I said about more accuracte manuscripts today being the reason for the supposed missing things in basically ALL recent translations.

My last word, because this is starting to become silly IMO, it's the KJV that has many, MANY errors considering our best knowledge of the originals that we have NOW, and so today's modern translations are far more accurate (plus are in today's English - which "Charity" for agape is not).

And finally, the things "left out" of the NIV (and the others) are never going to lead anyone astray, because these left out truths are there in other parts of the New Testament - which we can now read the closest we've ever been to the originals. They are what the Believer wants to read!!

Blessings!

- BM out
 
I recommend the KJV. While it is a little more difficult to understand, it is the truest translation. As many others have mentioned, you have to be careful with some of the other versions changing or omitting the words of God. If you find the KJV too difficult, I would recommend using another version or a commentary for comparison. This may help you to understand the passages, but if you come across a contradiction, study it out a little farther in the KJV. The Lord will guide you and help you to understand.

If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. - James 1:5 KJV
 
Hi! I can certainly understand your feelings on the King James version. Some people are of the opinion that this version is the only inspired Word of God. That is not the case. ALL scripture is given by inspiration of God. As a pastor I prefer to use the NIV chain Bible. I also use other Bibles for study. The main thing is that you find a translation that works for you and will feed you. The Life Application Bible is another great choice.

Blessings

Pastor Glenn
 
I realize this thread has been "dead" for a little time now, but it was something that I was wondering about....and by no means did I want to come in and start a debate, although I know this is a topic that causes a LOT of debate.

My main question is why are KJV-only-ers that way? I grew up in church all my life, around people that ONLY used KJV, and would only use KJV. I agree there are some translations out there that I don't like and that do "change" the meaning so to speak sometimes. But unless I know the original language and have the original manuscripts next to my KJV, NIV, NLT, HSCB, whatever, I'm not going to know the difference.

So why ONLY the KJV? What makes it the only translation to use? Again, I'm not trying to start a debate...I am really curious here. Like I said, I grew up using on the the KJV until about 3 years ago, and I'm 32 years old!

Thanks in advance for the responses.
 
One of the main reasons that the "Authorized King James Version Bible of 1611" is held in such high regard is that Dr. James Strong found it to be the most accurate English language translation bible that he evaluated and he keyed his "Strong's Complete Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible" to it, so the English language bible reader or student can take ANY word found in the King James Version and take it back to the original wording and usage in Hebrew, Aramaic and 'street' Greek for a more precise understanding of Scripture.

You can not do that original language research properly with any other bible version EXCEPT for the "Green's Interlinear Bible" that IS a KJV - but it also has the original manuscript languages right on the same page as the English text.

The KJV and a high quality Concordance gives you a more in-depth understanding of word usage than that of the Green's, however.

Hope that helps you with your question.
 
Well, "was" it the most accurate, and IS it still the most accurate? Again, not trying to start debate, just trying to sort this out for myself as this was how I was raised.
 
Hi bworthey.

I'm not KJV-only, and I regard myself as somewhat proficient concerning the hundreds of English Bible translations available today, including the great many of them within the KJV family of English Bible translations.
There's indeed some variety within the KJV-only camp, and you're sure to get various responses and defenses reflecting this variety. That is, various KJV-onlyists hold that position for a variety of reasons, and not all of them have to do with either accuracy or concerns regarding the original writings (or, "autographs") of the Scriptures, of which none are available today, but only copies of copies. Indeed, one of the most central of rationale behind the KJV is a preservation of God's revelation beyond the original autographs and languages of the Bible into modern English. This cuts to the heart of the question, "what makes a translation accurate?"

Apologetics regarding English Bible translations are usually made along the following criteria:

1) What are the original manuscripts? What were the Scriptures originally like? We don't have the originals. God had His purposes for not having them preserved to our current viewing. Without the tablets of Moses or actual written letters of the Apostle Paul we rely upon what preserved records we have. Most modern English translations (like the NIV, NLT, and HCSB you mention) favour the oldest manuscripts we have available, using what are called eclectic critical texts - an educated putting together of the Greek text from what manuscripts and bits and pieces of old copies that remain and have been discovered. Especially as regarding the Greek New Testament, modern translations generally make use of two primary continuing efforts toward recapturing the original text - the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament (UBS4) and the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament (NA27).

The KJV family of translations (like the 1611 original KJV), are somewhat unique in favouring a particular line of Bible copies used by what survived to be the majority of Christendom - what are often called the Majority Text or Byzantine text-type, because, although not as old, were preserved as the texts the majority of Christians had for their use, and which survived into most Latin texts used at the time the KJV was produced, and which underlines what is often called the Textus Receptus available to Protestants (like the Christians of King James' England) at the time medieval translations began to be made into the languages of regular people.

The KJV-onlyist thought is that since this was what the majority of Christians had for use, then it must bear the blessing of God for use by His Church. However, as logical as this thought might be, it sometimes fails to consider that just as there are some differences between all the variety of Bible manuscripts which have survived, there are also differences between Bible copies within the Majority Text family of manuscripts. There is no one ancient and preserved text, even as regarding the KJV, which, despite efforts at standardising, remains with differences even from the first printings of the KJV.

So, this first consideration has to do with what we translate from into our English language. The assembly of men working on the KJV tried to do the best with what they had access to, but they did not have access to some of the most ancient copies of the Bible, but instead favoured using what traditionally had been used by a majority of Christians, especially as reflecting the Latin Vulgate in use by Christians for over a thousand years.

2) Part of the worth of Bible translation is involved in the people doing the translating work. Were they Christians? Were they skilled and honest in their efforts? Were they influenced to tamper with the text in any way? What was the level of their scholarship and competence? The KJV is highly prized for the dedication of these Christians at a time when doing such things as translating the Bible into English often carried a steep price, as many of the early English translators in precedent to the KJV paid with their life.

3) The transmitter-specific / receptor-specific debate. That is, what matters more in translating, trying to remain as close as possible to the original language forms and expressions (even though some of their cultural idioms might be misunderstood by readers of a different culture) or trying to be considerate of the culture whose language the text is being translated into? The KJV and HCSB might be said to lean toward the former, while the NIV and NLT might be said to lean toward the latter.

4) What version or dialect or idiom of English best conveys the original Bible languages? Essentially, this principle for KJV-olyists contends that the Shakespearean or Elizabethan English of the 1611 KJV is a 'higher' English that better preserves and communicates God's Word - that 'high English' is reverently befitting the holy nature of God's Word.

5) There can be only one. This principle for KJV-onlyists contends that God has a singular presentation of His revealed written Word. On the surface this principle sounds good, as defending that there can be only one truth, but sometimes it's taken to excess, in claiming that the KJV is even better than the original, or in failing to valuably consider that the Bible is also available in languages other than English, and while it may be true that English has become quite an internationally prominent language, especially among Christians, such a claim may belittle the Christian worth of other languages and cultures.

There are a variety of other KJV-only points of emphasis, but these are some of the more important ones. Personally, unless a Bible student can sort their way through the original languages of the Bible, I find it best to make use of a variety of English translations, and many of the modern ones, like the NKJV, NASB, NRSV, ESV, and especially various study Bibles available today make ample notes of what the major differences are between varying manuscripts. I grew up on the KJV and still find it a beautiful and valuable translation, but there's no doubt that it is old and the English language has significantly changed in the past 400 years as to merit the use of more contemporary renderings as well.
 
great post Grit!

I learned some interesting things from that! thank you!

In regards to this topic, though, I find it silly that people actually are KJV-only-ers. In regards to the original Greek (which I study at Bible College), the KJV has phrases translated in it which are actually quite misleading from the original language. In todays english too, unless you know the shakespearean english well, then you will quickly find out that words back then DO NOT mean the same as they mean now. E.G. "Ghost" as a translation of PNEUMA is arguably an incorrect translation because of the meaning of that word now means something different today.

Acts 12:4 for example says "Easter" instead of "Passover"... You can see why they translated it easter, but it has nothing to do with the original language.

also in John 3:16 it holds ... "only begotten" where more recent scholarship see the word NOT implying begetting of any sort, but just stating that Jesus is a [lit.] "one-of-a-kind" (unique) son.

But I'm not going to sit here and list errors, because that leads to nothing.

All you need to know is that the KJV is of no more worth than (for example) a NASB. I would even argue of LESS worth because no one speaks like that anymore. There are plenty of GOOD literal translations available and KJV is not the best! I only used small examples here. For me its kinda a little bit silly. Say you had a maths textbook and you wanted to study for a test. For me the KJV is like buying the textbook in Roman Numerals - It just makes it more difficult because people don't use that system anymore.


Let me best illustrate some tranlations....


Literal---------phrase-by-phrase-----------what is it saying in todays language

NASB------------------NIV---------------------NLT
ESV

- NASB/ESV focus on translating as close to word-by-word as possible. This means that (a lot of the time) idioms will need to be known by the reader for understanding. E.G. "before your face" in Mark 1:2 is an idiom that simply meant before you (your face representing you). ESV = "before your face" NIV = "ahead of you". NIV Conveying the idiom so we understand it. This is a simple example.
- the NIV (and similar) looks at a phrase (more than just the 'words') and tries to convey the original meaning (some idioms we would not get in english)
- NLT (and similar) seems to translate trying to put the original meaning into 'todays' language.



I would recommend having a literal for study purposes.
Maybe also having something like a NIV for quoting to people something they will easily understand when they hear it.

Personally, I would recommend the ESV. It is literal, but unlike the NASB, it is VERY readable and doesn't sound disjointed. ESV = very handy translation.


ON A LITERAL NOTE:
The Septuagint (Greek translation of the Old Testament that the Apostles used) was NOT a very literal translation! That's why some times when you see quotes of the OT in the NT and they don't match up all that well when you flick back to the OT version is because they were quoting the Septuagint (Greek version of OT), NOT the Hebrew. So I think that the Bible itself bears witness that we need NOT be 'nazy' about needing a literal translation. If someone best understands something less literal then that is really ok. Usless it distorts the text... but remember that we CANNOT in any circumstance translate every meaning of another language into another. Not one word can really ever capture another in another language. They have developed in different cultures, times, and places. This is why there are so many translations to begin with. It isn't black-and-white.
Also remember that in different textual contexts the same word will mean something different! You cannot just go to a lexicon and go... "oh look they translated this word badly here this says that it actually means this" (unless you really know the original languages well). Let's not be too critical.

May these words help, the Lord reigns!
Luke.
 
Well said, Luke.

I like the NASB and ESV. Every translation has its challenges and failings, and every one of them is of little use apart from the guidance of the Holy Spirit within us. I think that's really the most important aspect of the Scriptures, when discussing their reliability and worth. Sin isn't a matter of our not knowing what God has said, but of our being intent to act against what God has said.

The KJV debate often comes down to considerations of changing God's Word. Proponents of the KJV often claim other translations leave things out, while proponents of other English translations may claim the KJV adds things not originally part of sacred Scripture, in our oldest copies of the Bible. Though both considerations are worthy of our trying to accurately know what God has said, most of our problems are not from an ignorance of what God has said, but of stubbornly disagreeing with Him, or at least wanting our own way contrary to His.

Without an original Bible in the original languages of the Bible, it still all comes down to listening above and beyond the written Word. For sure, God uses the great value of having an accurate written representation of what He has said, but if we ignore the Spirit backing up those words, all the ink in the world wouldn't make a bit of difference, and that's perhaps one of the key factors in why God hasn't perfectly preserved a written Bible, even while ensuring we have reliable ones. We would be inclined to make an idol out of it in replacement of God.
 
The reason I mostly used the King James Bible is if you learn this version when you first get saved it sticks with you. And you can look up the original word and meaning in the Greek and Hebrew and in my opinion is best for studying. I do read the New King James sometimes. It's very similar
 
I personally like to have 3 or 4 translations on hand myself. I understand how hard it can be to read from a KJV and my boyfriend has the same issue. He asked for an NKJV (NEW King James) and it is much easier to understand. I myself prefer the NASB, but I also have an NIV and my mother's King James version. I am not one that thinks a KJV is the only way to go and as I said I like having more than one around the house so if I am led to explore a certain passage in more detail I can use these as helpful references. Not that that helps, but... there's my 2 cents. :) The Lord will point out the best bible for you.
 
I have lots of versions and enjoy reading them at times although I mostly go by King James. I really like the Amplified. You might say it amplifies, explains it. Many times when you look it up in the orginal Greek and Hebrew, it says similar to the Amplified
 
I have an amplified too, sort of. It's Amplified it's just the New Testamnet is all. It's the one that goes everywhere with me in my purse. I have a whole Amplified bible on my Amazon wishlist though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top