The danger in modern versions of the Bible

  • 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.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Jul 17, 2009
353
0
0
#21
[SIZE=+2]DOCTRINAL PROBLEMS IN THE KJV

[/SIZE]

The word "doctrine" simply means "teaching." Thus, "any failure to present the Word of God accurately, completely, and clearly in a translation is a doctrinal problem!" (Dr. Jack P. Lewis). Many people claim that the KJV is "totally free" from any doctrinal problems. Again, this simply is not true. Like any and all other translations and versions produced by mere men, it too has its problems.
In the early 17th century there were many religious struggles going on: Catholics vs. Anglicans ....... the Prelate Party vs. the Puritans ....... Calvinists vs. the Non-Calvinistic theologians ....... and many other such conflicts. These translators brought with them to their work of translation and revision their various religious biases and backgrounds. In fact, no matter how careful a translator is, or how honest and sincere, or how objective and unbiased he tries to be, his biases and beliefs will still affect his work to some noticeable degree. For example, certain passages in the KJV clearly reflect a Calvinistic point of view:

[SIZE=+2]#1[/SIZE] --- In Acts 2:47 the KJV reads, "And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved." The actual Greek verb form here is: "the ones who are being saved." The rewording of the KJV (from "are" to "should be") is felt by some scholars to reflect the doctrines of election and predetermination.
[SIZE=+2]#2[/SIZE] --- In Galatians 5:17 the KJV reads: "...so that ye cannot do the things that ye would." This particular verb appears in the Subjunctive Mood in the Greek text; thus, it is a conditional statement, not an absolute statement! Its correct translation would be, "so that ye might not do..." By failing to correctly translate this verb form the KJV implies a lack of free will, which is another strong Calvinistic doctrine.
[SIZE=+2]#3[/SIZE] --- In Hebrews 6:6 the KJV reads, "If they shall fall away." The word "if" is not in the original Greek text; it has been added by the KJV translators. The text actually reads, "and having fallen away." This is a statement of absolute fact, yet the KJV translators have changed it into a conditional statement. By making it hypothetical, the implication is left with the reader that the statement is unlikely at best, thus upholding the Calvinistic doctrine of The Eternal Security of the Believer or "Once Saved, Always Saved" (the "P" in TULIP theology --- Perseverance of the Saints).
[SIZE=+2]#4[/SIZE] --- In Hebrews 10:38 the KJV reads, "Now the just man shall live by faith; but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him." The words "any man" have been added to the text. The actual subject of the verb "draw back" is "the just man." The Calvinists, however, do not believe that the "just man" can draw back after having drawn near, so the wording of the verse was changed to better reflect their doctrine. The correct reading of the verse is: "...but if he draw back," with the antecedent of "he" being "the just man."
[SIZE=+2]#5[/SIZE] --- There are seven passages where the KJV has the phrase "be converted" (Passive Voice), when these verbs are actually in the Active Voice. This changes the meaning of the verb. Instead of the person performing the action of the verb, the action of the verb is performed upon the person. The Calvinists believed that conversion was passive on man's part. The individual was acted upon from an outside source: the Holy Spirit. Thus, if God chose to save you, you were saved regardless of what your will in the matter might be. This is the "I" in TULIP theology --- Irresistible Grace of God. Acts 3:19 is an example of this.
Men have often ridiculed the Bible because the KJV speaks of mythological animals as if they actually existed. In the early 17th century most people believed that these animals did exist, so that belief also found its way into the KJV. Note the following example:

  • In Deuteronomy 33:17 the KJV speaks of "the horns of unicorns." There are two mistakes in this passage: (1) The animal mentioned here in the original text is the "wild ox" and not the mythical "unicorn," and (2) in the original text the passage speaks of one animal (singular) with horns (plural). Since the unicorn has only one horn, the KJV changed the text so that the animal was plural ("unicorns") instead of singular, so it would fit better with "horns." This is manipulation of the text in order to accommodate one's theory --- a very dishonest and dangerous practice for a translator!!
Notice some other passages associated with the animal kingdom and various mythological beings, and how the KJV translators failed to perceive the true meaning of the original text:

  1. In Matthew 12:40 the KJV tells us that Jonah spent 3 days and 3 nights in "the whale's belly." There is no mention of this creature being a whale. "Huge fish" or "large sea creature" is more correct. It may have been a whale, but it also may not have been. One's assumptions should never be entered into the text. The work of the translator is to translate the original text, NOT try to interpret it. The latter makes the product a commentary, not a translation!!
  2. In Song of Solomon 2:12 the KJV reads, "The voice of the turtle is heard in our land." Again, there are two problems in this passage: (a) Turtles don't have voices! Some unbelievers have even pointed to such passages as this in the KJV to try and demonstrate what they believe to be glaring evidence of the ignorance and unreliability of the Bible. "If the Bible can't even get this right, how can we take it seriously on any subject?!" The passage literally reads: "The voice of the turtledove is heard in our land."
  3. Exodus 22:18, in the KJV, says, "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." This passage led to much suffering and death in places like Salem, Massachusetts. The original word actually means "sorceress," which meant something far different in Bible times than what is conveyed to our minds by the word "witch."
There are also a great many other doctrinal problems connected with the KJV. The following list of ten is merely representative, and does not even scratch the surface of the flaws and failings of this version with regard to sound doctrine:


[SIZE=+2]#1[/SIZE] --- In Exodus 20:13 the KJV reads, "Thou shalt not kill." This rendering has become quite familiar, since we have all memorized the Ten Commandments, and usually from the KJV wording. However, it is incorrect. The actual word used here in the original language is "murder," NOT "kill." The command is against murdering someone, not against killing someone. This is an important distinction since God many times ordered His people to kill others for one reason or another.
[SIZE=+2]#2[/SIZE] --- For hundreds of years the KJV has confused people over the state of the dead through its poor handling of several key words. It translates the word "Sheol" as "grave" 31 times and as "hell" 31 times! Which is it?! The grave or hell? "Hades" is always translated "hell" in the KJV, but so also is "Gehenna" and "Tartarus." Thus, the KJV has all but effectively wiped out all distinctions between these various words (and the distinctions are extremely significant in the original languages). A great many false doctrines about the afterlife and the so-called "intermediate state" can be at least in part blamed on the confusion generated by this extremely poor handling of these key words and concepts. It would not be until almost 300 years later that these distinctions would again be brought to light by more correct renderings in more modern and scholarly English translations. By that time, however, the damage had been done!! False doctrines arising from or bolstered by these false renderings had already planted themselves firmly into the hearts and minds of men. It is with great difficulty that such false teaching is eradicated, even with the use of correct translations. It is simply too deeply ingrained in our Western Theology, and any challenge to it is viewed as heresy.
[SIZE=+2]#3[/SIZE] --- In John 10:16 the KJV reads, "And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold ..... there shall be one fold, and one shepherd" (the NIV makes the same mistake here, by-the-way). There are actually two different Greek words used here in this passage: "fold" and "flock." There is only "one flock" (the church) and "one shepherd" (the Lord), but the "folds" of which Jesus speaks are the Jews and Gentiles. Individuals from both folds shall be added to the one flock. This verse does not imply, as some contend from this incorrect translation, that there are many routes (folds) which lead to God.
[SIZE=+2]#4[/SIZE] --- In Luke 18:12 the KJV reads, "I give tithes of all that I possess." The Law did NOT require one to tithe a tenth of all that he "possessed" (all his capital holdings), but rather a tenth of his increase (that which he acquired in addition to his possessions). This is clearly stated in the Greek word used in this passage. The KJV, by not translating this correctly, has left a false impression concerning the practice of tithing.
[SIZE=+2]#5[/SIZE] --- In Matthew 26:27 the KJV reads, "And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, 'Drink ye all of it'." This is an example of a problem caused by poor sentence construction. Does this mean: (a) they were all to drink from this cup, or (b) they were to drink all of the contents of the cup? Either meaning is possible from the grammatical construction. Some individuals within the church who hold to the second of these two interpretations, for example, teach that it is a sin to leave any of the grape juice in the cup when partaking of the Lord's Supper!! Why? Because the Lord "clearly commanded" that we are to drink "ALL of it."
In the original Greek of this passage, the word "all" agrees in both number (both are plural) and case (both are Nominative) with the word "you." It differs in both number and case with the word "it." Thus, "all" refers to the people to whom Christ was speaking, not to the contents of the cup. To reduce confusion, this passage should have been translated, "Drink from it, all of you."

  • This same problem of extremely poor grammatical construction, leading to serious problems affecting correct interpretation, can be seen elsewhere in the KJV also ....... James 3:2a is another good example.
[SIZE=+2]#6[/SIZE] --- In Isaiah 14:12 we read the following in the KJV: "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning." The teaching that "Lucifer" is a name for "Satan" comes from the KJV. The Hebrew word here actually means "bright one," or "bringer of light." The word "lucifer" is simply the Latin translation of this Hebrew word. The mistake of the KJV translators was in not translating the Latin word into English. By leaving the Latin word in their version, the implication was left in the minds of a great many readers that it was a proper name. The text actually refers to King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon, although there may well be a secondary reference to Satan. The belief, mistakenly derived from the KJV's failure to translate this Latin word into English, that "Lucifer" is a proper name of the "prince of darkness" is so wide-spread that Webster's dictionary defines "Lucifer" as being another name for the being also known as "Satan."
[SIZE=+2]#7[/SIZE] --- The KJV also fails to distinguish between the two different Greek words "daimon" and "diabolos." The former is where we get our word "demon," the latter is the word for "slanderer." The KJV translates both of these words as "devil." Our word "devil" actually comes from the Middle English word "devel" and the Anglo-Saxon word "deofol," which mean "slanderer." Again, by not giving the meaning of the word, we have arrived at another proper name: "The Devil." Further, nowhere in the NT writings is anyone ever said to be possessed by "devils" ....... rather, they are possessed by "demons." Many present day doctrines concerning exorcism arise from this confusion. Although this has led to many notable plots in movies, it has no basis in biblical fact. It is confusion generated by the KJV.
[SIZE=+2]#8[/SIZE] --- In John 3:34 the KJV reads, "For He whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto Him." The words in italics have all been added to the text by the KJV translators. They do not appear in the original text of the Bible. By adding these words the KJV translators make it say something entirely different from the original text. This has led to the false doctrine that Jesus alone receives the Spirit without measure, whereas men only receive very limited measures of God's Spirit. This simply is NOT what the text says. It clearly states, "He gives the Spirit without measure."
[SIZE=+2]#9[/SIZE] --- In Isaiah 35:8 (speaking of the Highway of Holiness) the KJV says, "the wayfaring men, though fools, shall not err therein." This has left two false conclusions in the minds of some who have read this: (a) fools will be found traveling the highway of holiness; actually, the text says they will not be found traveling upon it, and (b) these foolish travelers are unable to sin while traveling the highway of holiness. This sounds very Calvinistic. Actually, the text simply states that wicked fools will not be found walking in the Way that leads to life! The wording of the KJV leaves just the opposite impression.
[SIZE=+2]#10[/SIZE] --- In Acts 12:4 the KJV reads, "...intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people." The Greek word here is "Pascha" which means "Passover," and refers specifically to the day upon which the Passover lamb was slain. "Easter," as defined by Webster, is "a Christian festival celebrating the resurrection of Jesus" --- a much different event than the Jewish Passover! This was something which the KJV translators were well aware of, and for them to render "Passover" as "Easter" is inexcusable!
 
R

Reesegirl

Guest
#22
And from zianet...
[SIZE=+2][/SIZE]
Although some have very heatedly, and even unkindly, contended that the KJV has NO inaccuracies .... that it is absolutely PERFECT ..... that it always accurately renders the original Hebrew & Greek texts and never misses the intended meaning of the original, this is simply not true! Notice the following examples:
Ryan:

Your examples have been duely noted. As I said before, get a King James Bible, pray about it, open it up and read it every day, study it with a meek spirit toward God, and there will be no doubt in your mind, this book is without error. The seeming inconsistencies will work themselves out, because not one word is miswritten in english. I don't say that every word is EXACTLY the same as every word in the Greek and Hebrew...only that they are perfect and the meaning is perfect because God designed it that way. as for the other languages, i know nothing about ancient Greek or Hebrew...except this: There remain NO originals. All of the seeming imperfections that you find between Greek and English, are simply based on your interpretation of a bunch of copies that, quite frankly, you have probably never even laid eyes on yourself. You must simply take it by faith that whoever taught you that they were accurate wasn't lying or misinformed themselves. And I as well, must take it by faith, my friend, that God's promise in the word about the word was true, and that he preserved this book in its entirity until the day of judgement.

If you have further questions, visit www.graceandtruthchurch.org where you can find information on the King James Bible Institute. I'm sure the pastor there, Michael Cesar, will be happy to help you in any way that he can.
 
Jul 17, 2009
353
0
0
#23
Ryan:

Your examples have been duely noted. As I said before, get a King James Bible, pray about it, open it up and read it every day, study it with a meek spirit toward God, and there will be no doubt in your mind, this book is without error. The seeming inconsistencies will work themselves out, because not one word is miswritten in english. I don't say that every word is EXACTLY the same as every word in the Greek and Hebrew...only that they are perfect and the meaning is perfect because God designed it that way. as for the other languages, i know nothing about ancient Greek or Hebrew...except this: There remain NO originals. All of the seeming imperfections that you find between Greek and English, are simply based on your interpretation of a bunch of copies that, quite frankly, you have probably never even laid eyes on yourself. You must simply take it by faith that whoever taught you that they were accurate wasn't lying or misinformed themselves. And I as well, must take it by faith, my friend, that God's promise in the word about the word was true, and that he preserved this book in its entirity until the day of judgement.

If you have further questions, visit www.graceandtruthchurch.org where you can find information on the King James Bible Institute. I'm sure the pastor there, Michael Cesar, will be happy to help you in any way that he can.
Thanks for the comments. I usually read from a lot of different versions. However, being Orthodox, the way in which we understand what we read is much different from the protestant world. In regards to the Greek, the Greek Orthodox studies are awesome. Really takes the study to a new level. I don't have any problem with the various interpretations. The words often just help us to arrive to the Truth which rest behind or through the words.

In regards to the "originals", you're correct. We just don't have them. We do, however, have a smattering of early "copies". There are several places online where you can read the Septuagint. They just recently took hi-def photos of the earliest documents and you can check those out online too. How the bible was preserved is similar to how the good news (gospel) was originally preserved - Oral Tradition. In fact, many of the "additions" to the bible are actually just oral traditions that have been written into the text. That's why we have various early copies that read differently. There are also differences in the gospels (first four NT books) that conflict on a literal level. However, these things were never an issue for the early Christians/Jews because of the way they preserved what was handed down to them - The Truth. There was even, at one period in time, a discussion as to whether or not they should not just combine all four gospels to make one to erase the "conflicting" reports. However, in their wisdom, led by the Holy Spirit (I believe) they left well enough alone. Why? Because they knew that the four books, despite the conflicting reports were more importantly, illustrations of Theological truths that are not in conflict.

I'm also not a sola scripturaist so I am not bound to word studies and my ability to understand what I read. I also have Holy Tradition and the Early Church Fathers I can use to help put passages/teachings into context. This is great news for the illiterate and for those that have poor reading comprehension skillz.

I have prayed for wisdom about versions and translations of the bible.

I have a KJV, NKJV, NRSV, Young's Literal Translation and a brand new Orthodox Study Bible (OCC). I hope the Greek Orthodox get together sometime and come out with an English translation/study bible b/c that would rock.

Thanks again.

God bless
 
Jan 31, 2009
2,225
11
0
#24
I am going out on a limb here, for a cause. a cause that Jesus said that he was the Truth, the Way,and the Life. He also said that that He would send the Holy Ghost that would remind His Disciples all that he had done. He also said that there would be other false prophets some would say that Jesus is in the wilderness or He is over here , but for us not to listen for when he came back he would take us with Him. this is truth but all the other stuff, that was inspired By God through His Spirit to the writers of the Bible would also have to be true, Alittle leaven will leaven the whole lump, If all Bibles agreed then we would not have no need for this post, but it is very clear that the statement told back in the 50' and 60's that all they where doing to the Bible with the new translations was to take out the thee's and the Thou's, was obviously a lie, in order to apply for a copywright the Niv people had to change a certain portion of it , how do you obtain a copywright on something that has existed for thousands of years. now why do you need a copywright on the Holy Scriptures so you can make extra money than just to sell it the first time, we publish a bible but we want to contiue to make money from it after we have sold it . you can't have to masters, so do any think that all translations agree? NO!! so can all translations be true? NO!! You have to attack the Authorized Bible for nearly 400 years now in order to sell yours. I have a new and improved Bible to sell you, you say that there is nothing wrong with the one I have so no thanks, so you have to convince me that mine is outdated that it doesn't apply to todays people or it is inaccurate , in order to have me lay mine down and buy yours either way you attacked the very Word of God itself. look Jesus in John chapter one was the Word, if the Word Jesus was truth then His Word must be truth, or it is not His Word. so yes it is very important that we have these discussions. No, all translations do not say the same thing. there are alot of different religions that claim they worship Jesus but it is not the same Jesus that I worship. simply because they call their great prophet or great teacher JESUS does not make it the only Begotten son of God , does not make it Jesus the Christ. just because someone puts Holy Bible on the front cover of their translation does not make it the Word of God. the truth Is God said that he would preserve His Word , He is not the author of confusion, when there was one Bible that was authorized was there confusion as to which bible to use, for the 350 years it was used before another translation came along to cause confusion? the good ole King James Translation of the Holy Bible is the one for me. and I will give up My King James Bible when they proir my cold dead fingers from around it.
 
Apr 23, 2009
2,253
5
0
#25
Bring me a pile of PhD's and I'll consider your linguistic skills and opinions vaild. Polycarp is not God. He is man, therefore fallable.

Incidently - has anyone bothered to look up the definnition of the word begotten? Enjoy.
According to strongs it means exactly what you would think it means. Only born, or only/sole. Like I said I think you are listening to the wrong people.
 
Jul 6, 2009
318
2
0
#26
You guys are seriously scaring me. You can sit there and see how the King James Version is inaccurate and then ignore all and insist it's without error.

God forbid any of you become teachers of the Word.
 
Apr 23, 2009
2,253
5
0
#27
You guys are seriously scaring me. You can sit there and see how the King James Version is inaccurate and then ignore all and insist it's without error.

God forbid any of you become teachers of the Word.
first of all God's word is infallible, secondly I am a teacher of the Word, God's Word, and finnally I do not think you have the right to tell a true christian anything.
 
Last edited:
Jul 6, 2009
318
2
0
#28
first of all God's word is infallible, secondly I am a teacher of the Word, God's Word, and finnally I do not think you have the right to tell a true christian anything.
We're supposed to tell the brethren when they're wrong, man. I'm trying to tell you this for your own good and for the good of those you're teaching: your devotion to one translation of the Bible above all others is dangerous and harmful, probably idolatrous, and frightening.

Why should I not have the right to speak my mind on this?
 
B

broken

Guest
#29
I am right because my traditions tell me I am right. Sound like any group of people we know?

God Bless. I'm out. I've gotta stop comming to this 'bible discussion'. It is anything but edifying.
 
B

broken

Guest
#30
Broken: I have no idea what you believe the word of God to be, I was simply commenting on the fact that you made no reference to it. Aside from God's word, all that we have IS man's knowledge.
You very clearly stated that in your opinion I am assuming that the word of God is not insipired by God.

It is my point exactly that as humans, all we have is mans knowledge. That is why no translation is infallable, as all are filtered through humanity. No transl. You know what, never mind. I'm not going to partake of this sin any longer.

God Bless you.
 
Jan 8, 2009
7,576
23
0
#31
first of all God's word is infallible, secondly I am a teacher of the Word, God's Word, and finnally I do not think you have the right to tell a true christian anything.
Watchmen, a true Christian believes in the Trinity.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.