KING JAMES VERSION BIBLE VS. MODERN ENGLISH BIBLES

[Lucy-Pevensie]

As I said from the first. The truth comes out when you compare the English texts against the Authorized Version.
You can’t escape noticing the lies told in any language.
You say some ancient foreign text is better?
Well all you have to do is present proof in English.
But when you do then every fair minded reader can decide for themselves.
Thats why all the translation arguments aren’t formidable even if the brightest scholar came here to try and sell some corrupt texts.
Some of the readers might buy it based on the brain power displayed without taking heed, but sooner or later it comes down to what is presented in plain English.
Then all the genius translator baloney is easily disregarded.
The Lord God speaks to the common man plainly with pure words that lovers of truth recognize are of God not of the labor of translators.

So do you WANT plain common English or do you want antiquated King James English?
Make up your mind.

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

There seem to be at least two issues getting mixed together here...

There certainly were spurious gospels around in the early centuries. Some of these we are aware of now... the gospel of Thomas, for example. I think we need to make a category distinction between manuscripts of gospels accepted as canon, and manuscripts of non-canonical texts. Let's focus on the former category.

The game of "Telephone" is a good analogy of the work of copyists. The message begins "pure" but through simple errors it gets garbled. Careful examination of manuscripts reveals what was most likely the original... this is the work of textual criticism (the legitimate kind). In broadly general terms, what is closer in time is also likely closer in accuracy/preservation because there are likely fewer errors. That is not a strict rule though, and it is foolhardy to be dogmatic either way.

Generally, I think it is unnecessary and even slanderous to attribute ill intent to copyists and scholars of early centuries. Sure, there were people like Origen who were eventually cast as heretics. That does not make their work automatically invalid! It just means that it needs extra examination and gets held lightly against the work of orthodox writers.

This is it. Certain people are repeatedly accusing the modern Bible translations of being "Gnostic" or "New Age". They are neither. The so-called Gnostic gospels are a different body of work altogether. It's a pretty dirty ploy to keep bringing these false charges against modern English Bibles.

The Gnostic gospels are forgeries, fraudulently written in the names of the Apostles in order to give them a legitimacy in the early church. Thankfully, the early church leaders were nearly unanimous in recognising them as promoting false teachings about virtually every key Christian doctrine. There are countless contradictions between the Gnostic gospels and the true Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. None of them are included in any of the modern translations of The Bible.

In 1945 a discovery was made in Upper Egypt, near the town of Nag Hammadi. Fifty-two copies of the ancient writings, called the Gnostic gospels were found in 13 leather-bound papyrus codices (handwritten books). They were written in Coptic and belonged to a library in a monastery.


This is the list of the Nag Hammadi texts from Wikipedia

• Codex I (also known as The Jung Codex):
  • The Prayer of the Apostle Paul
  • The Apocryphon of James (also known as the Secret Book of James)
  • The Gospel of Truth
  • The Treatise on the Resurrection
  • The Tripartite Tractate
• Codex II:
  • The Apocryphon of John
  • The Gospel of Thomas a sayings gospel
  • The Gospel of Philip
  • The Hypostasis of the Archons
  • On the Origin of the World
  • The Exegesis on the Soul
  • The Book of Thomas the Contender
• Codex III:
  • The Apocryphon of John
  • Holy Book of the Great Invisible Spirit named The Gospel of the Egyptians
  • Eugnostos the Blessed
  • The Sophia of Jesus Christ
  • The Dialogue of the Savior
• Codex IV:
  • The Apocryphon of John
  • Holy Book of the Great Invisible Spirit named The Gospel of the Egyptians
• Codex V:
  • Eugnostos the Blessed
  • The Apocalypse of Paul
  • The First Apocalypse of James
  • The Second Apocalypse of James
  • The Apocalypse of Adam
• Codex VI:
  • The Acts of Peter and the Twelve Apostles
  • The Thunder, Perfect Mind
  • Authoritative Teaching
  • The Concept of Our Great Power
  • Republic by Plato - The original is not gnostic, but the Nag Hammadi library version is heavily modified with then-current gnostic concepts.
  • The Discourse on the Eighth and Ninth - a Hermetic treatise
  • The Prayer of Thanksgiving (with a hand-written note) - a Hermetic prayer
  • Asclepius 21-29 - another Hermetic treatise
• Codex VII:
  • The Paraphrase of Shem
  • The Second Treatise of the Great Seth
  • Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter
  • The Teachings of Silvanus
  • The Three Steles of Seth
• Codex VIII:
  • Zostrianos
  • The Letter of Peter to Philip
• Codex IX:
  • Melchizedek
  • The Thought of Norea
  • The Testimony of truth
• Codex X:
  • Marsanes
• Codex XI:
  • The Interpretation of Knowledge
  • A Valentinian Exposition, On the Anointing, On Baptism (A and B) and On the Eucharist (A and B)
  • Allogenes
  • Hypsiphrone
• Codex XII
  • The Sentences of Sextus
  • The Gospel of Truth
  • Fragments
• Codex XIII:
  • Trimorphic Protennoia
  • On the Origin of the World

Again none of these books or stories are reproduced in modern English Bibles. Modern English Bibles contain the gospels of Mathew, Mark, Luke and John just like the KJV. Bogus claims to link them to Gnosticism are thoroughly dishonest attacks on legitimate Bibles.

 

[KJV1611]

There seem to be at least two issues getting mixed together here...

There certainly were spurious gospels around in the early centuries. Some of these we are aware of now... the gospel of Thomas, for example. I think we need to make a category distinction between manuscripts of gospels accepted as canon, and manuscripts of non-canonical texts. Let's focus on the former category.

The game of "Telephone" is a good analogy of the work of copyists. The message begins "pure" but through simple errors it gets garbled. Careful examination of manuscripts reveals what was most likely the original... this is the work of textual criticism (the legitimate kind). In broadly general terms, what is closer in time is also likely closer in accuracy/preservation because there are likely fewer errors. That is not a strict rule though, and it is foolhardy to be dogmatic either way.

Generally, I think it is unnecessary and even slanderous to attribute ill intent to copyists and scholars of early centuries. Sure, there were people like Origen who were eventually cast as heretics. That does not make their work automatically invalid! It just means that it needs extra examination and gets held lightly against the work of orthodox writers.

To me it doesn't matter what any of the copies say, it's what I'm reading right now that matters. If what I'm reading matches the character and nature of God then I feel confident that it's God inspired.

 

[KJV1611]

Many words have multiple meanings or shades of meaning. It is a basic principle of Bible interpretation that Scripture does NOT contradict Scripture. When there is an apparent contradiction, it is the duty of the translator/ interpreter to find a reading consistent with common usage that resolves the conflict. I believe that there will ALWAYS be one.

Rule 1 - there are no mistakes in the bible.
Rule 2 - if you think there is a mistake refer back to rule 1.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Even while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

Context is ALWAYS your friend and never your enemy. So is exegesis.

[FONT=&quot]Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,[/FONT][FONT=Helvetica Neue, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif] [/FONT][FONT=&quot]through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand. And we boast in the hope of the glory of God.[/FONT][FONT=Helvetica Neue, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif] [/FONT][FONT=Helvetica Neue, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Not only so, but we also glory in our sufferings,[/FONT][FONT=Helvetica Neue, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][/FONT][FONT=Helvetica Neue, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif] because we know that suffering produces perseverance;[/FONT][FONT=&quot]perseverance, character; and character, hope.[/FONT][FONT=Helvetica Neue, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif] [/FONT][FONT=&quot]And hope does not put us to shame, because God’s love has been poured out into our hearts through the Holy Spirit, who has been given to us. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous person, though for a good person someone might possibly dare to die.[/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot]But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.[Romans 5:1-8]

The ‘us’, ‘we’, ‘our’ & ‘ungodly’, in context, is the elect of God. [/FONT]

 

[SovereignGrace]

So do you WANT plain common English or do you want antiquated King James English?
Make up your mind.

Mind? Srsly? What mind? He posts like he’s minus his. He posts like someone who has someon else thinking for him.

 

[KJV1611]

Understandable.
Just showing that the scholars logic is bent towards claiming that the Alexandrian texts are superior because they are old. When logic suggests large well kept older texts survived by being unused and kept in safe in monasteries.

Put yourself back in the early days.
Your local church has need of the written word of God.
Copies are expensive because of the difficult copying labor and the need for a standard copy being available.
And the great interest and desire for God’s word as churches spread.
No one will accept corrupt copies.
And everyone would be comparing with others if they suspected anything creeping in.

Lo and behold, the scholars today claim ecclesiastical texts better than the copies in the local churches.
I don’t think it’s coincidence.
I think the lofty rise of high church officials in the decaying empire motivated a plot to save Rome.
And the problem with the scriptures is the accountability it forces on all men high or low, rich or poor.
To get power over the common man copies of the scriptures had to be curtailed to prevent comparison of the word of God with the manner of religion the ecclesiastics were promoting.

It was Satan that brought on the dark ages without a common man’s New Testament read freely in widespread free churches.

And where did the reformation come from?
New Testaments flooding into the darkness of Europe from parts unknown. All greatly in agreement as is provable today.

I think it's ridiculous to argue over this stuff any way, I would much rather talk about the cool things in the bible rather than this stuff.

 

[James37]

While that could be true, I think that argument is as lame as "older is more accurate" lol.

If you've had your Bible for some time and it is still fairly new and pristine you probably haven't been reading it a whole lot! LOL

 

[KJV1611]

I am not saying there isn’t meaning. God’s parables are often what I call “living parables” that are historical.

Here’s the thing.
The doctrine of unconditional love is false.

I’ll give you a shocking example.

Answer the following question.

I disagree with you on unconditional love, what makes me more special than Jehu or Esau? We were all just like those two before we got saved and God saved us any way.

 

[James37]

So do you WANT plain common English or do you want antiquated King James English?
Make up your mind.

Give me the best English possible because the is what the King James Bible translators chose.

"Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it." (Psalm 119:140)

 

[KJV1611]

Do I think the dropping off of a sigma by accident, or adding "the Lord" to Jesus conflating it was gnosticism? Of course not! In fact, probably the longer ending of Mark is the only text I can think of that actually creates doctrine that is not there, and not even it is gnostic.

So, where are you finding gnosticism in modern Bibles, anyway? I've read most modern Bibles, the NASB 25 times, HCSB 4 times, NIV 3 times, ESV 8 times, etc, etc, I've even read the NLT (found some things that were just a bit too far from the other Bibles) and most of the Message (way too far, but still some interesting insight, and certainly not gnostic.)

The only time I find gnosticism is when people claim that we are gods, etc, (Word Faith)and they always quote the KJV. Now, I'm not blaming the KJV, but the fact is, being more difficult to understand, heresies are going to arise because the words are not in understandable modern English. In fact, I think certain cults (JWs,and Mormans) actually rely on the fact that the KJV is not accessible to modern people, and use it to try and support their cultic ideas. And seriously, the Mormons directly say there are no contradictions between the KJV and the book of Mormon. It took me 2 pages to find 4 contradictions, as a young Christian, and I had only read the Bible twice at that point.!

Further, what is your source for



I've read so many versions and compared them to the Greek. I actually was assigned the KJV to compare to the Hebrew, when I took Hebrew. In no versions have I ever seen anyone "changing the Word of God" to fit their needs. Let alone the early versions being changed to fit gnosticism. Gnosticism was a heresy of the 2nd century, and in fact, was not that wide spread, tending only to certain educated and elite groups. I know I have read the myth of the Alexandrian school being gnostic, advanced by the KJV Onlyists. But, no one uses just one manuscript, there are 5 complete and distanced schools of Bible manuscripts - the Byzantine, the Western (Spain) Caesarian (Rome) Alexandrian; Egyptian and something called Eclectic.

Category I - Alexandrian

This category includes the earliest manuscripts. Some 4th century and earlier Papyri and uncials are in this category, as are manuscripts of the Alexandrian text-type.The manuscripts are important when considering textual problems and are considered by many scholars to be a good representation of the autography, due to their easy dating.

Category II - Egyptian

The manuscripts this category are similar to category I manuscripts and are important in textual consideration of the autograph. However, the texts usually contain some alien influences, such as those found in Byzantine text-type. (NB ALIEN meaning the Byzantine influences are the issue!)

Category III - Eclectic

The manuscripts in category III are important when discussing the history of the textual traditions and to a lesser degree for establishing the original text. The manuscripts usually contain independent readings,and have a distinctive character. Manuscripts of this category usually present mixed or eclectic text-type.

Category IV - Western

Category I contains the few manuscripts that follow the text of the Codex Bezae (D).These texts are of the Western Text type.

Category V - Byzantine

Byzantine an mostly Byzantine texts fall under this category.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categories_of_New_Testament_manuscripts


So, a variety of texts from a variety of places that are widely separated. Not likely the gnostics changed all those texts. They just weren't that big an influence on the church, and the sect was already in decline by the second century, plus the church (although it probably started there, influenced by Jewish and Greco-Roman mystery religions), but were found all over the Roman empire. It is just as likely the Byzantine texts were influenced by the gnostics as any other family, but in fact, I don't see any evidence of gnosticism in any of the Biblical manuscripts. I believe this is just another KJV Only straw man, created for the naive!

Plus, not capitalizing certain words in the NIV, for example, referring to the deity of Christ, does not point to gnosticism. In fact, the real difference in the gnostics didn't lie in the deity of Christ, but the opposite. They did think Christ was God but they were Docetists, believing Jesus did not actually die, because he had never been a man. So, over realizing of the deity of Christ - Gnostics thought matter was evil, and therefore, Jesus would never have had a real body. The exact opposite of the Arians, who thought that Jesus was only a man, and not God.


Perhaps you could give specific examples of where this happens in modern texts, and then we could compare to the Greek/Hebrew, and some modern versions. Methinks perhaps you have fallen for a straw man, here.

No offence, but I don't want to discuss this any more, it's so dviisive and unfruitful. I believe Satan has always tried to rob God's people of their joy and position in Christ by any means necesary including distorting the word of God.

I could present evidence after evidence from the bible and people will either see it or they wont. I'm not going to argue anybody into seeing my position.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Give me the best English possible because the is what the King James Bible translators chose.

"Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it." (Psalm 119:140)

Then you best learn Hebrew. Psalm 119(and all Psalms) were written in Hebrew, not 17th century Elizabethan English.

 

[MarcR]

So men are fallible and the Word of God is infallible! Right?

I am really trying to have a civil discussion with you; but, almost every other post, yousay something that causes me to question your honesty.

I'm quite certain that you know that I don't agree with that statement. Try to maintain some integrity in your posts; and my responses will be less embarrasisng.

 

[preacher4truth]

Give me the best English possible because the <sic> is what the King James Bible translators chose.

"Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it." (Psalm 119:140)

I see you're really super concerned with proper English, like a mad man!

 

[MarcR]

Rule 1 - there are no mistakes in the bible.
Rule 2 - if you think there is a mistake refer back to rule 1.

That sounds good and looks good on paper; but IMO it doesn't work

I believe that there are indeed errors in transcription [some of which are acknowledged in marginal notes] and errors in translation in all available translations and all existing Hebrew and Greek Mss. I believe that God allows those errors; but does NOT allow his message to be compromised by those errors.

 

[preacher4truth]

Then you best learn Hebrew. Psalm 119(and all Psalms) were written in Hebrew, not 17th century Elizabethan English.

Thou sayest.

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

Give me the best English possible because the is what the King James Bible translators chose.

"Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it." (Psalm 119:140)

Then you best learn Hebrew. Psalm 119(and all Psalms) were written in Hebrew, not 17th century Elizabethan English.

Interestingly .........

This psalm is an acrostic poem, the stanzas of which begin with successive letters of the Hebrew alphabet; moreover, the verses of each stanza begin with the same letter of the Hebrew alphabet.

Most of the modern English Bibles footnote that and include them in the text. The NKJV even has them, The KJV does not.


א Aleph
ב Beth
ג Gimel
ד Daleth
ה He
ו Waw
ז Zayin
ח Heth
ט Teth
י Yodh
כ Kaph
ל Lamedh
מ Mem
נ Nun
ס Samekh
ע Ayin
פ Pe
צ Tsadhe
ק Qoph
ר Resh
ש Sin and Shin
ת Taw

 

[Angela53510]

And here I thought we were having a nice discussion about manuscript evidence, and KJV1611, dismisses it as being divisive, let’s talk about something better. Agreed! Except I never see you on any threads except for the ones posting about the KJV Only.

As for the other 2, and a few others that wander in from time to time, you can’t address madness, rationally, can you? Because only their version is perfect, their translation told them so!

Sad, just sad!

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

May we have some comic relief?


EVERY English word counts!


[video=youtube;hOSYiT2iG08]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOSYiT2iG08[/video]

 

[SovereignGrace]

And here I thought we were having a nice discussion about manuscript evidence, and KJV1611, dismisses it as being divisive, let’s talk about something better. Agreed! Except I never see you on any threads except for the ones posting about the KJV Only.

As for the other 2, and a few others that wander in from time to time, you can’t address madness, rationally, can you? Because only their version is perfect, their translation told them so!

Mad, just mad***!

***FIFY​.........