Which Bible?

Discussion in 'Bible Study' started by citizen, Mar 27, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. I am a new member to this forum. On searching around I noticed different versions being used by adherants and even this forum.
    Now, most of these newer versions have a copywrite. Now, I will say this. Would the Lord God approve of HIS word being copywrite?
    I use the Authorised or King James Bible. There are many reasons why I do.
    The word of God is FREE, freely given. The translators that worked on both old and new testaments
    of the KJV were the very best of the time. They new the ancient languages involved; in how they were spoken, written and understood. The translators of today would not even touch the sides in this respect.
    The KJV is beautifully written. Much is prose and much is like poetry. It is easy to remember and there is NO copywrite!

    Today, the 28th March 2015, the Bible verse is from Psalm 62:7 NIV ©
    "My salvation and my honor depend on God; he is my mighty rock, my refuge."

    Now this is from the KJV.
    "In God is my salvation and my glory: the rock of my strength, and my refuge, is in God."

    Which of the above verses would you use? Of which gives more Glory to God and which speaks with power and authority? Thus saith the LORD!
    I could say more, but what I have said is worth pondering...
    Waggles likes this.
  2. There are many 'versions'. I feel greatly blessed that the Bible applications and online Bible sites provide so many. When I was a new Christian, it was before the Internet, and before desktop computers. Having multiple versions meant buying the physical books.

    I do not read the original texts. So, I rely on multiple translations, particularly those of which I have experience to try to see what was originally meant. Each version is the result of a complex process including selecting which copy of the 'original' language document to use, and trying to come up with the best English translation, whether it is thought-by-thought, or word-by-word, or some other. Some translations will 'leave out' verses and passages found in others. This is the result of selecting different 'original' texts. In some cases the best English doesn't track well with the original. This is another cause for differences.
    And there is the issues concerning intended audience. New International Reader's Version, for instance was, according to my understanding, specifically intended for readers with limited education (young readers, or less sophisticated readers). Others are an attempt to reflect the changes in the language since 1604.

    I do not hold that any particular version is absolute best for all purposes. I have physical versions of 4 translations. I use electronic apps & the internet to compare with versions I do not have, I rely on the Holy Spirit to guide me, as I trust He guided the various translation efforts. Sometimes I solicit the guidance of a brother that does know the original languages.

    In the end, I know that the Bible is not to replace the Lord. If it did not require the HS to help me know how to apply what I read in His Bible, I would be lazy enough to skip the asking the Lord and go write to the answer-book.
    JCT likes this.
  3. The KJV is a copywrite, correct? I mean it's not the original so it must have been copied from somewhere.

    There is now the New King James Version, which I like much better than the KJV.
  4. NO, the KJV is NOT copywrite. Copywrite is a relatively new thing and was brought about to protect one's writing, photography and much more.
    I truly believe that the KJV has been providentually preserved to be the WORD of GOD in English. Not long after I first believed, I purchased several modern versions. After comparing by reading, I came to the conclusion that all this does is add confusion. Do they contain the word of God or only most of it. Now the so called apocrypha is another issue and was removed from the KJV as it was believed to be error early in the Reformation. All bibles that came out of the reformation were all translated from the Jewish Masoretic text for the OT and the Greek koine text (original greek) for the NT. This included English, German, French and most others that came out of the Reformation. Martin Luther translated his own version in German.
    Read the Wikipedia treatise on: The History of Copywrite Law.
    There will be more on this issue.
  5. It's sad if a person can't read in English. :(

    Too bad for them, huh?
  6. A few years back, I used to spend long lunches in the various Smithsonian museums (I had a very early meeting on the same day I briefed my project lead after the close of business). In the fairly new museum of Native American Museum there is a wall displaying a large number of Bibles in the various languages of Native Americans. I really had a warm feeling that these had been provided to the peoples here. I really don't suppose they would had ,much use for the King James Version.
    JCT likes this.
  7. Just to perhaps provide an alternative consideration...

    Most translations (if not all) have a fairly consistent style/feel throughout. However, since the Bible is not one book but many, it seems unlikely that the style throughout the entire Bible would be completely uniform. The KJV does sound beautiful, and it was written with eloquence for public readings in mind. However, does accurate translation mean creating a beautiful style to reflect what we think a text should sound like, or do we aim for actually understanding and making a accurate reflection of the style of the original text? In other words, if a text is written in common language, what do we lose if we alter that style to a loftier, more eloquent rendering? Alternatively, we could as easily lose meaning if a text written in eloquent language is rendered in common language in translation. I am not offering a criticism of the KJV exactly (or any other translation), just asking if translators should aim to reflect the style of the original text, or decide on a rendering based on what would sound a certain way (eloquent, authoritative, accessible, etc).

    I don't necessarily disagree that copyright is symbolically opposed to the gospel offered freely (but so is selling Bibles), but what is the particular problem with copyright compared with, say, letters patent for the KJV, or the other profit and political-related considerations surrounding the KJV's publication (i.e., litigation between Barker, Norton, Bill, etc)? Again, not a criticism, I'm just curious why copyright would stand out over other gain-related concerns.

    I used to be concerned with finding the "right" translation, but in that process, I discovered that having multiple translations available for our comparison and evaluation is actually the ideal situation for accuracy. More importantly, whatever God uses to draw people to Himself, God uses to draw people to Himself, and I think His kingdom is best served by simply participating in that work of the Spirit, far over insisting on the particular merits or shortcomings of any translation, provided the gospel of salvation is found within.
  8. I did say: All bibles that came out of the reformation were all translated from the Jewish Masoretic text for the OT and the Greek koine text (original greek) for the NT. This included English, German, French and most others that came out of the Reformation. Martin Luther translated his own version in German.
    Now, there would have been and are now, translations for the worlds various tribes, tounges and nations. When the English, Scottish, Welsh, Cornish and some Protestant Irish, first went to America they would first use the KJV bible to teach English to various Indian peoples and tribes. Many Indians were converted and learned English in the process. PRAISE GOD from Whom ALL Blessings Flow!
    The American accent originally came from: Irish, Welsh and Cornish immigrants
  9. The most critical and important aspect about the Authorized Version - our beloved KJV - is that the scholarship is of such impeccable
    standards - really not matched by others - later scholars spent much time arguing over the original texts and what should be in
    and what should be out. Look at the mess they made of the last 12 verses of Mark chapter 16.
    Unbelief had crept in by the late 1800s, especially as many scholars allowed themselves to be fooled by fairytales of evolution.
    Darwin caused quite a challenge to faith, many succumbed to unscientific and unGodly propaganda.
    The rot of not believing the scriptures as inspired and God given influenced and corrupted later translators.
    Doctrinal errors began to creep in due to poor scholarship and theological biases.

    If you love the King James then have a look at www.av1611.com website put up by Brandon Staggs.
    John 3:16
    KJV : For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish,
    but have everlasting life. [begotten = procreated by a father]
    ESV : For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
    this wording "his only son" is indicative of many modern translations; and creates conflicts in actual doctrinal Biblical teaching
    by this sloppy effort at readability...
    Romans 8: 14-16 KJV
    For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. [impossible if Jesus is God's only son!!!]
    For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.
    The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
    John 1: 12-13 KJV
    But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
    Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. [not begotten by flesh].
  10. BRAVO! To God be the Glory!
  11. For starters, to me anyway, the two versus compared - KJV and NIV says the same things, words are arranged differently and more/less are used.
    I've had similar discussions with many people before.
    The word of God is the word of God.
    Now, we may stand on a street corner and have a chat. Hypothetically speaking. I may say something to you and would use a number of words and arrange such words in a particular fashion.
    You most likely would have said the same thing, but have structured it differently. Why?
    Quite simple, you and me, we are different beings, with different ways and means to reach an end.
    And there is the secret of bible translations.
    For me, the KJV frustrates. I have bibles in NKJV, NIV, HCSB and others are floating around our house.
    In your house, things may look much different.
    The topic of bible translations according to me is not a topic and should not be a topic because it is the word of God, no matter the translation.
  12. The problem is with omissions - leaving out far too many words, even up to partial verses.
    Yes the KJV is hard to read being old English - BUT get some old dictionaries from 2nd hand shops (usually cheap).
    Get hold of a hard or electronic copy of Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of Hebrew and Greek Words for study help.
    Compare what you read in the KJV with other translations to get the gist of the meaning, yes that's fair enough.
    But real Bible needs to be based on the older Bible translations, preferably before 1900 for substance and content.

    Another true value of the most venerated King James is that [unlike most contemporary versions] the KJV is a
    word for word translation. That is every word in the original languages is translated into the KJV.
    Not even the Revised Version of 1888 managed to do that.
  13. Waggles...Well Stated! Bravo!
  14. The KJV has a copyright as well: The Crown, in the UK. In the rest of the world, it's public domain.

  15. I never really liked Shakespeare or the vernacular used at that time. I'll stick with the modern versions which are both easier for me to read and remember.

    Not to mention my wife who cannot read the KJV because of cognitive decline and also finds the modern versions easy to read and remember, plus they aren't as distracting as the KJV for her.
    Euphemia likes this.
  16. Now, do not quote me on this, but I believe that this "so called" copywrite may apply to: any KJV bible printed in the UK must be printed by a company or companies approved by the Crown. I.E, Cambridge University Press
    In the rest of the world any printer can print and distribute. For me? I only would buy an English printed and bound KJV bible. Both of my KJVs came from the Trinitarian Bible Society and I have had one for over 30 years and it shows. Leather bound, just, and yellowing, well read pages.
    Waggles likes this.
  17. #18 calvin, Mar 29, 2015
    Last edited: Mar 29, 2015
    In my opinion, (not copyrighted :)):
    God's word should be free of copyright, though since we are not to muzzle the translators, but let them eat, there is no harm in paying for a printed version to cover the costs. Anyone wishing to host an online service should pay royalties as required.
    That out of the way, the worth of a translation such as the Kjv and others or paraphrases such as the niv or the net, can not fairly be judged just on a single verse, rather they must be assessed on the spiritual insight of those who have worked to produce that work.
    I'll give you an example and invite that any translation or paraphrased version be assessed by the spiritual insight of the scholar/s whose labour it is.

    Deut 22:22. "If a man is found lying with the wife of another man, both of them shall die, the man who lay with the woman, and the woman. So you shall purge the evil from Israel.
    Deut 22:23. "If there is a betrothed virgin, and a man meets her in the city and lies with her,
    Deut 22:24. then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones, the young woman because she did not cry for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbor's wife. So you shall purge the evil from your midst.
    Deut 22:25. "But if in the open country a man meets a young woman who is betrothed, and the man seizes her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die.
    Deut 22:26. But you shall do nothing to the young woman; she has committed no offense punishable by death. For this case is like that of a man attacking and murdering his neighbor,
    Deut 22:27. because he met her in the open country, and though the betrothed young woman cried for help there was no one to rescue her.
    Deut 22:28. "If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found,
    Deut 22:29. then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days.

    In the above text, the three basic sexual sins are dealt with: Adultery--V22,23,24, Rape--V25,26,27. And finally Fornication/ premarital sexual relations--V28,29.
    The similarity of the language used in V25 and verse 28 lead some to conclude that V28 is talking about rape, however the overall context simply does not support that.
    That is why I suggest that the value of a translation or paraphrase be assessed on the spiritual insights of the translators rather than just on their scholastic attainments.
  18. Actually I read the NKJV into dutch then. I like to tead that Bible which is the closed to the origional language of the Bible.
    But why discusdong about copyrights? God's Word should be shared anyway. If you tell the version you used it will be obvious that you don't wrote this by yourself. The main thing is do you read God's Word and do you understand it. By the way I should use the second vers of the KJV mentioned in the opening discussion of this Item.
    It might be usefull to read diffetent translations together to understand it more. So use the translation which is the vest for you. Sometimes I use the Bible The Life Application Bible in my study but the main Bible woukd be NKJV into dutch.
  19. That's what I said.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page