S
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
K
kyng_james
Guest
I ask again which no one has answered literally? Do you not believe that God being the Perfect Word would not given us His Perfect Word in English? He is the Word of God, therefore my Bible which is the KJV is Perfect.
K
kyng_james
Guest
S
Shwagga
Guest
Why do you have to assume that the KJV is the *perfect* English translation? Wouldn't the original languages, maybe, I don't know... More accurate ?
K
kyng_james
Guest
S
Shwagga
Guest
S
Shwagga
Guest
Not dodging anything, you assume 1) God will give His perfect word in English. 2) the KJV is the "perfect" word.
I asked why you make these assumptions, so I can follow your understanding of why it's the one perfect English bible and we should completely disregard all knowledge of Biblical languages because we have a "perfect" bible.
Let me ask you, do you think the KJV (a translation) is better than the original languages in thousands of thousand copied manuscripts?
C
Consumed
Guest
my sister showed me a print out from the web about the different versions of the bible,KingJames came out on top as did Douay Rheims Vulgate(I'm not RC) they are both the same. KJV originally had the Apocrypha in it. Any way, with the more later translations the article showed by scripture references the difference in certain words used to take away from the Deity of Jesus, even some had verses missing altogether lol. NIV,it stated, was one of the worst for taking away the Deity of Jesus ever so subtly yet systematically. I'm trying to get a hold of her to find out which web site, when i read it then made comparisons of verses i was shocked.
and that post about wearing robes??wow ever been in120 deg heat, those linen robes keeps one cool(body temperature) lol
Jesus is Lord and Saviour
and that post about wearing robes??wow ever been in120 deg heat, those linen robes keeps one cool(body temperature) lol
Jesus is Lord and Saviour
Last edited:
K
kyng_james
Guest
The King James Version are those manuscripts that was translated. Yes, the Bible has been torn and burned down through the centuries but my God is able to preserved His Perfect Word.
K
kyng_james
Guest
The Scriptures
We believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Bible, "as it is in truth, the Word of God..." (I Thessalonians 2:13). We believe in verbal, plenary inspiration in the original writings, and God's preservation of His pure words to every generation (II Timothy 3:16, Psalms 12:6-8).
The Masoretic Text of the Old Testament and the Received Text of the New Testament (Textus Receptus) are those texts of the original languages we accept and use; the King James Version of the Bible is the only English version we accept and use. The Bible is our sole authority for faith and practice.
C
Consumed
Guest
amen kyng,
douay rheims latin vulgate is reported to be the original ancient texts of hebrew aramaic and greek into latin then english around the same time as KJV. When i first got saved and immersed myself in reading His Word i ended up with i think it was seven or eight different translations of the bible, man i got upset with God, i screamed "you promised me no confusion and now this is confusing me, what is it with all these versions, all slightly different in the style of laungauge, some verses are different all together,( eg 23rd ps is the 22nd in the DRV), Holy Spirit said "have a look at the "first published in dates" and that in itself was a lesson in christian history, took me way back to 342ad(i think it was)to the texts being written into latin....
blessings
Have we got any Manuscript experts on here? Hebrew and Greek experts? or should I say have you's read anything from experts on these matter from eperts? I was summize not. Only a 'King James only' team mate write something like that above consumed.
Yes we all know Jerome wrote the D-R and it is still looked at even by modern translations. However, you are postulating a Roman Catholic ideology. The Roman Catholics brought the D-R out in an English translation because of the widespread reformation and especially the stronghold it was taking in England. The English translation of the D-R (douay rheims latin vulgate) was completed in around 1609 the new testament being completed a few years before. So can you tell me that this did not have an anti reform slant????
I will give you an example of how translators work:
Good translators, therefore, take the problem of our language differences into consideration. But it is not an easy task. Romans 13:14, for example, shall we translate "flesh" (as in KJV,NRSV,NASU,ESV, etv) because that is the word Paul used, and then leave it to an interpreter to tell us that "flesh" here does not mean "body"? Or shall we "help" the reader and translate "sinful nature" (as in NIV,GNB,NLT, etc) or "disordered natural inclination" (NJB) because these more closely approximate what Paul's word really means?
word for word does not always work.. because of language differences an example below: 1 Cor 7:36
KJV: But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin
NIV: If anyone thinks he is acting improperly toward the virgin he is engaged to
Which one tells the reader what is actually being said.. check the greek out if you want to
it is obvious it is not the KJV.Ok another example: 1 Cor 6:20 (this is especially for you consumed)
KJV: For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.
NIV: you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body.
I can hear the King James only can spitting through their teeth already, How dare those devil worshippers change the only perfect scripture as in 1 cor 6:20. But, hold on! This example was chosen to illustrate that, on occasion, changes to the original text where made by copyists for theological reasons.
The words " and in your Spirit, which are God's" though found in most of the late medieval Greek manuscripts, do not appear in any early Greek evidence or in the Latin - speaking church in the west. Had they been in Paul's original letter, it is nearly impossible to explain how/why they would have been left out so early and so often!
But their late appearance in Greek manuscripts can be easily explained. all manuscripts of the time where copied by hand in monastaries by monks in a time when Greek philosophy, with its low view of the body, had made inroads into Christian Theology, So some Monks added "in your spirit" and then concluded that both body and spirit are God's. While this is true, these additional words deflect Paul's obvious concern with the body in this passage and are thus no part of the Spirit's inspiration of the apostle.
The King James problem is they never had the early texts. and when King James onliests say there are pieces of the bible being removed, well that is very true for they should never have been there in the first place.
What the King James onliest's forget to tell you or don't know, is that the translators of the original King James only had late medieval copy's of the Greek text... I'll say that again, the translators of the Original King James only had late medieval copy's of the Greek text which had accumulated over a thousand years of copyists mistakes. Few of these mistakes - and we must note that there are many of them, make any difference to us doctrinally..But they often make a difference in the meaning of certain texts.
Taken from "How to read the Bible for all it's worth" G D Fee and Douglas Stuart. (Bible translators.)
I will say again I have a King James, infact more than one, But I would certainly not give one to a friend, and I don't really use that much, I like checking with a few translations on verse, which can be done online at biblegateway a lot quicker.
Phil
K
karuna
Guest
Re: To Karuna
Even if the NIV is corrupted, this doesn't mean that your preferred translation is perfect, which is your main argument. You're claiming the a particular translation was supernaturally protected - this is an additional claim on the activity of God and is not supported within the scriptures themselves.
Even if the NIV is corrupted, this doesn't mean that your preferred translation is perfect, which is your main argument. You're claiming the a particular translation was supernaturally protected - this is an additional claim on the activity of God and is not supported within the scriptures themselves.
K
karuna
Guest
Out of curiosity, are there perfect translations in other languages or did this only occur in English?
W
Wootie
Guest
My question about all this DISCUSSION is-What if the Bible had never been written, would we have to interpert God's word in our own way? God has always made Himself very clear in anything He has done or wanted done, right? So why so much worrying about the translation of KJV/NKJV/NIV etc....We are to learn God's word & the Bible is our teaching tool. Tools come in various types..........
C
Consumed
Guest
thanks for the info on that Phil, i will say this
Php 2:1 If there be therefore any consolation in Christ, if any comfort of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any bowels and mercies,
Php 2:2 Fulfil ye my joy, that ye be like minded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind.
Php 2:3Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves.
Php 2:4 Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others.
Php 2:5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
Php 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
Php 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
Php 2:8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
Php 2:9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
Php 2:10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
Php 2:11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
King James Version,
i can post the 1611 KJV version vowels are different though lol
maybe hopefully this can put an end to the backbiting of Christian denominations here on cc.........
question- is a half glass of water half full, or half empty
with love respect for all in Christ Jesus
Alex
Php 2:1 If there be therefore any consolation in Christ, if any comfort of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any bowels and mercies,
Php 2:2 Fulfil ye my joy, that ye be like minded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind.
Php 2:3Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves.
Php 2:4 Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others.
Php 2:5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
Php 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
Php 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
Php 2:8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
Php 2:9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
Php 2:10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
Php 2:11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
King James Version,
i can post the 1611 KJV version vowels are different though lol
maybe hopefully this can put an end to the backbiting of Christian denominations here on cc.........
question- is a half glass of water half full, or half empty
with love respect for all in Christ Jesus
Alex
Without even addressing the veracity of what you wrote, it is to be admitted that the NIV has some faults, as do all bible translations. The KJV certainly has more than most modern versions. It must be understood that we have none of the originial autographs of bible writings. All that we have are copies. When dealing with copies, textual criticism is the means by which we determine what is most likely the originial writings. Textual criticism has been developed over time and is the recommended standard of all reputable scholars.
Jesus said that His words would not pass away. God has provided providentially many means of preserving His word throughout the centuries. As humans, we are expected to use every means at our disposal to determine the originial writings, including reasoning and sound logic.
In the early 1900's, it was recognized that a revision of the KJV might be needed. This was because earlier manuscripts, (Vatican and Sinaitic among them) that would be more accurate do to their closer date to the originals, and the fact that many of the words used in the KJV were obsolete, or had changed meaning over the centuries. Also, the study of the ancient Greek and Hebrew languages was in it's infancy at the time of the writing of the KJV. Studies in these languages have added much to our understanding of the bible. A committee of eminent scholars, from every denomination was set up for this task. It included such scholars as B.F. Wescott, F.J.A. Hort, J.B. Lightfoot, R.C Trench, and A.B. Davidson. The American scholars included Phillip Schaff, J.H. Thayer, and William Henry Green. These committees included such diverse men to keep individual bias out of the translation.
The American Standard Version followed, to give the language more of an American flavor, and take some of the stuffiness out of the English version, which as Charles H. Spurgeon said was "strong in Greek, but weak in English". The American ASV included in it's committee the above American scholars. Following this came the RSV, which included on it's committee such well known scholars as Edgar Goodspeed, and James Moffatt.
The question becomes do we accept the findings of textual criticism, a tool which is indispensible in translating a correct bible, or do we just accept the copies without any effort to determine their accuracy? Do we accept the findings of eminent scholars, who are experts in the original languages, and have spent their lives devoted to finding the truth and in developing techniques to determine that truth? Or do we accept the findings of those, who while not experts and knowing only a small fraction of what the scholars listed above know, are absolutely sure, based on their own personal bias, that the KJV is the most correct version?
For me, it is a slam dunk.
Jesus said that His words would not pass away. God has provided providentially many means of preserving His word throughout the centuries. As humans, we are expected to use every means at our disposal to determine the originial writings, including reasoning and sound logic.
In the early 1900's, it was recognized that a revision of the KJV might be needed. This was because earlier manuscripts, (Vatican and Sinaitic among them) that would be more accurate do to their closer date to the originals, and the fact that many of the words used in the KJV were obsolete, or had changed meaning over the centuries. Also, the study of the ancient Greek and Hebrew languages was in it's infancy at the time of the writing of the KJV. Studies in these languages have added much to our understanding of the bible. A committee of eminent scholars, from every denomination was set up for this task. It included such scholars as B.F. Wescott, F.J.A. Hort, J.B. Lightfoot, R.C Trench, and A.B. Davidson. The American scholars included Phillip Schaff, J.H. Thayer, and William Henry Green. These committees included such diverse men to keep individual bias out of the translation.
The American Standard Version followed, to give the language more of an American flavor, and take some of the stuffiness out of the English version, which as Charles H. Spurgeon said was "strong in Greek, but weak in English". The American ASV included in it's committee the above American scholars. Following this came the RSV, which included on it's committee such well known scholars as Edgar Goodspeed, and James Moffatt.
The question becomes do we accept the findings of textual criticism, a tool which is indispensible in translating a correct bible, or do we just accept the copies without any effort to determine their accuracy? Do we accept the findings of eminent scholars, who are experts in the original languages, and have spent their lives devoted to finding the truth and in developing techniques to determine that truth? Or do we accept the findings of those, who while not experts and knowing only a small fraction of what the scholars listed above know, are absolutely sure, based on their own personal bias, that the KJV is the most correct version?
For me, it is a slam dunk.
Re: To Karuna
I would say that having gay translators would be sufficient cause to toss out a Bible, for sure! Godly men ought to translate a Bible, not just anyone skilled in the craft. Simply put, there can be an agenda in motion - by people who dislike what they read - to modify God's Word.
Of course, people will probably argue that King James was homosexual too, but that's debatable. I just pulled up a website now and the suspicion from this author is that the accusation against King James is part of an agenda to turn people away from the KJV.
Quest
I would say that having gay translators would be sufficient cause to toss out a Bible, for sure! Godly men ought to translate a Bible, not just anyone skilled in the craft. Simply put, there can be an agenda in motion - by people who dislike what they read - to modify God's Word.
Of course, people will probably argue that King James was homosexual too, but that's debatable. I just pulled up a website now and the suspicion from this author is that the accusation against King James is part of an agenda to turn people away from the KJV.
Quest
K
karuna
Guest
Re: To Karuna
There are only three possibilities I see here.
First, we can accept that the personal sins of the translator are not sufficient reason to toss out a Bible and that we should actually read the text before deciding. I can still get good dietary advice from a fat doctor, after all. Translation is not significantly different.
Second, we can argue that any personal sin will have a ruining effect on the translation. This is the dangerous sort of theology I was talking about, because it calls into question any translation. Do godly men exist? Perhaps. They're still sinners with their own pet sins.
Finally, we can single out homosexuality as a special sort of sin which ruins a text. This is precisely what we've done here, because we didn't mention the pet sins of the other translators. Perhaps we're not privy to them, but undoubtedly they do exist.
There are only three possibilities I see here.
First, we can accept that the personal sins of the translator are not sufficient reason to toss out a Bible and that we should actually read the text before deciding. I can still get good dietary advice from a fat doctor, after all. Translation is not significantly different.
Second, we can argue that any personal sin will have a ruining effect on the translation. This is the dangerous sort of theology I was talking about, because it calls into question any translation. Do godly men exist? Perhaps. They're still sinners with their own pet sins.
Finally, we can single out homosexuality as a special sort of sin which ruins a text. This is precisely what we've done here, because we didn't mention the pet sins of the other translators. Perhaps we're not privy to them, but undoubtedly they do exist.
Re: To Karuna
1 Timothy 3:1 It is a trustworthy statement : if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do. 2 An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money. 4 He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity 5 (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God ?), 6 and not a new convert, so that he will not become conceited and fall into the condemnation incurred by the devil. 7 And he must have a good reputation with those outside the church, so that he will not fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
The above is Paul's recommendations for being an elder in the church. Paul considered this very important because of the influence the elders had on the life of the local church.
Should we consider the influence a translation has on it's readers and use the same standards for translators?
This is an open question because I am undecided. What do you think?
1 Timothy 3:1 It is a trustworthy statement : if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do. 2 An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money. 4 He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity 5 (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God ?), 6 and not a new convert, so that he will not become conceited and fall into the condemnation incurred by the devil. 7 And he must have a good reputation with those outside the church, so that he will not fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
The above is Paul's recommendations for being an elder in the church. Paul considered this very important because of the influence the elders had on the life of the local church.
Should we consider the influence a translation has on it's readers and use the same standards for translators?
This is an open question because I am undecided. What do you think?