Translations of the Bible

M

murdog Sep 14, 2006

Members,

I am not looking to get a controversy going, I just wanted to make an observation.

I use an NIV translation and I am thinking about getting a KJV translation. (Krispy would be so proud, LOL).

I was reading the purpose driven thread and how Rick Warren used so many translations and paraphrases to get the quotes that fit his purposes.(Ha Ha). But it really surprised me to see how different the newer translations were in their interpretation of the scriptures.

That's all for now!

Murray

sermonindex Sep 14, 2006

I know that there were 2 strains of manuscripts, the older and more complete were done at "antoich" which are commonly called the Textus Receptus. The KJV version was translated from that manuscript strain. ALL other modern day translations have been taken from the other strain of manuscripts called the "Alexandrian". I think it is worthy for the church to decide on which "strain" is the best and stick to it, I have decided that the manuscipt from "antioch" is best and therefore my choice of using the KJV version. I use NIV to get alternative readings in a more contemprary langauge so that is useful but the KJV is my main platform that I teach, read and do devotions from.

M

murdog Sep 14, 2006

Greg,

That is so cool, right after I posted my translations of the bible statement. You posted Spurgeon's article about altering the Word of God. God is so amazing!

Murray

I

IRONMAN Sep 14, 2006

bro Murray
i read the good news, i also use the NIV and have been learning to use the KJV. our Lord has ministered to me through them all and i've found that although some things are lost in translation, Holy Spirit communicates exactly what the Father intends irrespective of what version i use. on s.i. i do use the KJV when i have to quote scripture since most people use that version and it has Krispy's seal of approval! :-P

D

Dougmore Sep 14, 2006

Hi Murray,

I also read the NIV but found verses missing. I didn't want anything to with a "Bible" that was missing verses. So I switched to the NASB, "Not Always Scriptural Bible", Ha! And left it to. I didn't like the KJV so I went to the NKJV. After all this the Lord spoke to me and I accepted the KJV and haven't looked back. I find that I have a more sure faith in what it says. The problem... Now I have memory verses from NLT, NIV, ESV, NKJV, and KJV. I get them confused sometimes with other translations and the end result is frustrating. I stick with the KJV now.

I also had one of those guys that writes Chick tracts call me a rebel for using a modern translation. That was funny!

bro Doug

P

PaulBenson Sep 15, 2006

I have a book I offer for free to all who request it. It is titled 'Is the Bible you read: The True Sayings of God?' In it I show almost 500 places the bibles founded upon the alexandrian manuscripts delete or alter the Word.
If interested send your request to:
True Witness Press
P.O. Box 5519
Kalispell, MT. 59903
or e-mail paulbenson@fastmail.fm
P.S. I also have a booklet showing the error of a pre-trib rapture. Lord Bless :-)

sermonindex Sep 15, 2006

Dougmore, thats funny I went through nearly the same process, 1st english bible,then nkjv then niv then nasb then nkjv and now resting in KJV.To all I have said this before I am KJV "PREFERED" not KJV ONLY. Big difference in my book.

sermonindex Sep 15, 2006

Oh boy... this just made my day. I got up this morning with a lot of personal things rolling around in my head. Nothing bad, just a lot going on with football and everything. So as is my custom, I checked in to SI to see if there was anything being discussed... and I found this thread. And as I read thru the posts, y'all made me chuckle right out loud! So thanx for the humor! ;-)

Just call me "Good Housekeeping" (seal of approval!)

I dont have anything to add at this point, but I do give glory to God that He has used me to bring this issue to the forefront, and that people here have actually given consideration to the things I have brought up concerning the KJV and the modern versions. The more I dig into the Word of God (using the KJV) the more the rich treasures come alive in my soul. Captain Jack Sparrow has nothing on the Bible when it comes to buried treasure!

Let's keep in mind that there are two types of KJV-Only.

1.) KJV is THE Word of God, and is perfect in everyway, and there need be no other translation. It is so perfect that it actually corrects errors in the Greek & Hebrew. Anyone who rejects the KJV as God's perfectly preserved Word of God is not saved.

2.) The Textus Receptus is the preserved Word of God, and the KJV is the most excellent translation in English that we have. Since Engish is an ever evolving language, a retranslation of some passages today would be beneficial for clearer understanding so long as the retranslation was based solely on the Textus Receptus. It also recognized that people can be saved using a modern version, and that those who hold to modern versions are our brothers.

I fall into catagory #2. I think catagory #1 is wrong, especially when it comes to how they view other believers who do not stand on the KJV. I believe with all my heart that modern versions are grossly corrupted, and as long as I draw breath I will work to show and convince others of the same... but as I have demonstrated on this forum since the day I arrived here, I do not break fellowship with those who disagree with me.

Krispy

L

lovegrace Sep 18, 2006

I suggest the NASB. It correctly translates words in ways that the KJV fails. (Likewise the other way) but in my studies NASB has shown itself as a better translation than KJV. So I recommend the NASB. (New American Standard Bible)

K

Kedric Sep 18, 2006

As a student of New Testament Greek I have to also make sure that it is mentioned that the Alexandrian texts are found to be much older than the Byzantine text (Textus Receptus).

The Alexandrian text are from the 4th Century A.D. These text were the text believed to be read by the earliest church fathers. When studying these texts compared with the other found text families (Byzantine, Western, Caesarian) it can be seen how the other texts evolved from the Alexandrian.

The verses in the KJV that people say were "deleted" or "cut out" were not in the newer translations because they were not in the Alexandrian text. Nor are they found in the other text. So it is believed that these verses came from monk scholars who wrote notes next to the text. Then when the next generation was copying the text they couldn't distingush between some of the notes and the text and included these notes in the new manuscript. They were added in. However I am not denying that it couldn't have been the work of the Holy Spirit.

I just thought it would be a good idea to cover the tradition of the manuscripts. I didn't like the idea of just mentioning that "newer translations use the Alexandrian text" and "newer translations exclude some verses" without explaining why.

I personally use the NIV. NIV is used almost everywhere in America. When I am preaching and I use a verse, I want the church to be able to follow along in the pew Bibles.

Kedric

sermonindex Sep 18, 2006

Uuuuhhhh....????? Kedric I'm confused by your post. If Alexandrian texts are "older" And yet from the "4th" century a.d.,that dosen't make sense.
Secondly if they are from 4th century a.d. then the claim they were read by the earliest church fathers dose'nt make sense either. The "early" church fathers writing's start at around 90 a.d. to 300-350 a.d. Lord bless, John

C

ccchhhrrriiisss Sep 18, 2006

Hello...

I really appreciate the description of the ~~[i]~~KJV-only[/i] ideas as mentioned by Krispy. His assessment seems to be the dividing line. Sadly, it seems that there are many more that take the first view rather than the more sensible second view.

Personally, I have not found any concrete evidence of an overall supremacy of either text sources (either the Textus Receptus or the Alexandrian sources) -- even after much serious and unbiased study of this issue.

My conclusion is that I prefer to use the KJV because of the immense amount of resources available for study. Like Krispy, I consider the KJV the best translation derived from the Textus Receptus. However, I also refer to the NIV (1978). In my opinion, I consider it the best translation derived from the other sources. The argument often used against the NIV is that it deletes verses. However, it does not delete anything -- since those verses or words are not found in the sources used for translation.

When giving a Bible to new believers, I prefer to give them an NIV -- because they often tend to have difficulty understanding the archaic language of the 17th century usage found in the KJV. I also explain the differences in versions, and tell them that it is important that they eventually grow accustomed to the KJV (since it is the best translation from the Textus Receptus).

:-)

L

lovegrace Sep 18, 2006

Chris, is "However, I also refer to the NIV (1978)." different from the NIV Teen Study bible?

Because I now completly dislike the NIV because of many 'missing words' and mistranslations.

I don't have 'specific' examples, but when I first starting reading the bible it was NIV for 4 months. I read that more than I ate. Studied with other believers (and thats were the curve ball comes in) When I was in a study others would quote a psalm that has the word 'blood' in it and in my NIV nothing EVEN close was in my bible. After about 5+ examples, I prayed about a different translation.

I don't mind paraphrase (even though some do, but I dont) but when a scripture isn't on the same topic, I don't care how you translated, I don't want to hear it.

(The studies that we had were diverse but the translations they used was KJV, NKJV, NASB, and AMP)

sermonindex Sep 18, 2006

Thats good reasoning Chris. I would probably give them a New KJV and encourage them to get used to the KJV and do there scripture memorizing from the KJV. I memorised All of Jude and Matt chap 5 in NASB several years ago. Now that I have settled in on KJV it's a challenge to re memorise those scriptures in the new text maybe I'm just lazy. But whats also good about KJV is the text won't change. Even New KJV differ from publication to publication. God bless, John

sermonindex Sep 18, 2006

As a student of New Testament Greek I have to also make sure that it is mentioned that the Alexandrian texts are found to be much older than the Byzantine text (Textus Receptus).

I do respect your expertise on this matter, however it should be noted that you (we all are, really) a product of those who teach us. Yes, it is true that the oldest manuscript evidence for the Alexandrian Text is older than the evidence for the TR, however... your assumption is mistaken when you take that to mean it was around longer. Not true.

The Alexandrian text are from the 4th Century A.D. These text were the text believed to be read by the earliest church fathers. When studying these texts compared with the other found text families (Byzantine, Western, Caesarian) it can be seen how the other texts evolved from the Alexandrian.

The Alexandrian Text came out of Alexandria Egypt. Therefore, just by the names of the texts you can see the origin of the TR is from the area from where the apostles came out of... for instance, Caesarian. Also, the earliest church fathers wrote much about the gnostics who were at that time destroying the Word of God with there variances, omissions, etc. This is fact. Even Paul mentioned about those who were perverting the Word. Where were most of the Gnostics? There were a ton of them in... Alexandria.

The verses in the KJV that people say were "deleted" or "cut out" were not in the newer translations because they were not in the Alexandrian text. Nor are they found in the other text. So it is believed that these verses came from monk scholars who wrote notes next to the text. Then when the next generation was copying the text they couldn't distingush between some of the notes and the text and included these notes in the new manuscript. They were added in. However I am not denying that it couldn't have been the work of the Holy Spirit.

It's interesting that you say all of this... which is somewhat true... but you leave out the fact that what is called the Alexandrian Text is comprised of mainly TWO manuscript witness. Both of which dont even agree with each other. Yet, there are over 5,000 manuscript evidences supporting and comprising the TR... and with the exception of minor variances in grammer... they argree over 98% of the time.

I just thought it would be a good idea to cover the tradition of the manuscripts. I didn't like the idea of just mentioning that "newer translations use the Alexandrian text" and "newer translations exclude some verses" without explaining why.

Explanation is great, and your welcome at any time to give your point of view on this. Hope you dont mind if I counter you on it. :-)

I personally use the NIV. NIV is used almost everywhere in America. When I am preaching and I use a verse, I want the church to be able to follow along in the pew Bibles.

Just because something is popular doesnt make it right. In my opinion, the NIV is perhaps the worst offender. Abortion is legal in all 50 states... does that mean it's ok?

Have you ever tried to witness to a JW using an NIV? Do you realize they have a guide in the back of the Bible they carry door to door that helps them to argue with people who try to counter their claims with a MODERN VERSION? Did you know they can eat you alive if you come at them with an NIV especially?

But they seem to run to the hills when I pull out my ol' KJV. The KJV seemingly shuts the door on their false doctrine.

So let me ask you... given that I can take all the modern versions available, and I can show you where they all differ from one another... either in omissions, additions, or meaning... My question is: What is your final authority? If you say "the Word of God", my reply will be "Which one? NIV, NASB, RSV?" ... your reply will be "I believe the original autographs were inspired." And then my reply will be "The original autographs no longer exist... so again, what is your Final Authority!"

If you're intellectually honest, you'll have to admit that you have no Final Authority because you dont know what it is for sure.

Thats a scarey place to be.

I believe God preserved His Word. He's God. He can do anything. Is anything to big for God? I believe the evidence points to His preservation of His Word, and it also involves faith. Without faith it is impossible to please God. I get mocked by believers when I say that I believe God preserved His Word like He said He would. Everyone wants iron clad evidence. Well, I believe He has left evidence for us, but it also involves faith.

I am confident that I have a Final Authority... and it IS the Word of God. Preserved in the TR, and translated into English via the KJV, brought to us by men who gave their lives like William Tyndale.

Krispy

M

mamaluk Sep 18, 2006

KrispK,

Great post, learned a lot from it.

fellow KJV-er

Praise Him!

K

Kedric Sep 20, 2006

Thanks for your time in replying to my post. I like a lot of from what you had to say. Yet I still don't understand why it is believed that the KJV is "The word of God" and modern translations are not. I have explained what I have learned both in school and in personal studies.

You asked if I have ever tried to witness to a JW with a NIV and I did last summer in Africa. However, they were so completely close minded they were not even willing to look at my Bible.

Being intellectually honest, as you have asked, I would have not replied with any of the replies that you believe I would have made. This brings me to the question about final authority. I would have to say scripturally as an authority would be my Greek Bible. It shows the differences between major text families in the notes. However if this was my final authority would I be forced to accept everything in it? For example, I don't believe that the earth is in the center of the universe but the Bible certainly implies in.

For my authority I turn to the Wesleyan quadrilateral. The base is scripture then the other three sources are reason, tradition, and experience. Does anybody see anything wrong with this, let me know.

Your friend Kedric

P

philologos Sep 20, 2006

I am confident that I have a Final Authority... and it IS the Word of God. Preserved in the TR, and translated into English via the KJV, brought to us by men who gave their lives like William Tyndale.

Although most of the KJV agrees with the Tyndale version, Tyndales several versions made it clear that for him translation was always 'a work in progress'. The KJV translators consciously altered several key doctrinal points by their change of words from Tyndale's translation.

Have you ever tried to witness to a JW using an NIV? Do you realize they have a guide in the back of the Bible they carry door to door that helps them to argue with people who try to counter their claims with a MODERN VERSION? Did you know they can eat you alive if you come at them with an NIV especially?
But they seem to run to the hills when I pull out my ol' KJV. The KJV seemingly shuts the door on their false doctrine.

I think I mentioned this before but I actually bought my first bible, a KJV, from the JW's at the door. No JW 'scholar' will run from the KJV.

I

IRONMAN Sep 21, 2006

brethren
i hope that whatever version one decides to use or is led to use that we consult the Final Final authority, Holy Spirit. irrespective of the text used, without Him we're not going to learn anything of any use to God anyway.

M

MR_CPK Sep 21, 2006

Funny thing, I saw Ron's post about Tydale so I decided to google "Tydale's translation" to do some studying on it and the FIRST hit was a copy of Tydale's translation at some Weslyan school of applied theology made available by none other than Ron. So thanks for making that available Ron.

-quote"The KJV translators consciously altered several key doctrinal points by their change of words from Tyndale's translation."

Hey Ron,I was wondering what some of the "key doctrinal points" are. If there's a good website or something with good info I'd be most apprectiative. I am also curious as to what you would consider to be the best english translation of the Bible.