A lot of comments, but not really saying anything backing with Scripture. What the Lord gave from Hebrew to Greek was perfectly translated. It does not need to be word for word to be perfectly translated and inspired by God. What Paul was given in Greek is exactly the words to be used as if the "original" was given in Greek and not Hebrew. That's 100% possible with God. My faith is in God's ability and not man's ability to translate. God is the authority, not man.
New world order Bible Versions (NIV ESV NKJV etc)
- Thread starter Paisley_buddie
- Start date
-
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.
Interesting, the KJVO cultists go to the extreme and pronounce those not saved under the preaching from the "KJB" as in fact lost.
Correction of KJVO's is not violating any law of love, and that is a foolish indictment on your part. You need to be corrected because you are off track and into myths and fables, and gather these false teachers who preach the same to yourself to scratch your ears.
You should really spend time denouncing the fact KJVO's pronounce others lost as stated instead of falsely stating that correction is a violation of love. You don't have any Scripture for that unfounded accusation.
There are better more accurate modern versions.
There are better more accurate modern versions.
Don't blame that mess on God. The KJVO teachings are teachings of men, they are not Biblical teachings, nor are they special revelation, which is what you are implying.
That said, your teaching then steps outside of Sola Scriptura, is divisive, untrue, fabricated, unfounded and pure mysticism.
Correction of KJVO's is not violating any law of love, and that is a foolish indictment on your part. You need to be corrected because you are off track and into myths and fables, and gather these false teachers who preach the same to yourself to scratch your ears.
You should really spend time denouncing the fact KJVO's pronounce others lost as stated instead of falsely stating that correction is a violation of love. You don't have any Scripture for that unfounded accusation.
There are better more accurate modern versions.
There are better more accurate modern versions.
Don't blame that mess on God. The KJVO teachings are teachings of men, they are not Biblical teachings, nor are they special revelation, which is what you are implying.
That said, your teaching then steps outside of Sola Scriptura, is divisive, untrue, fabricated, unfounded and pure mysticism.
Last edited:
The fact that God "can" ensure that His word is translated accurately does not logically or factually ensure that God "did" ensure that the KJV was translated accurately. The existence of the New World Translation is proof that He doesn't ensure accuracy in every translation.
Also, since you have not yet responded, what is your source reference material for your assertion that what Jesus and the apostles had in hand were "copies of copies of copies" of the original scriptural autographs?
Also, since you have not yet responded, what is your source reference material for your assertion that what Jesus and the apostles had in hand were "copies of copies of copies" of the original scriptural autographs?
Evidently you know little or nothing about the translation of the King James Bible. But a little serious research will show that that God did in fact ensure that the KJV would not only be an accurate and faithful word-for-word translation, but He guided all the circumstances surrounding this translation.
1. There were already several English translations in circulation, out of which William Tyndale's was outstanding. Tyndale also translated directly out of the Hebrew and Greek, and much of his work is evident in the KJV.
2. In spite of this it was the Puritan faction of the Church of England -- the most conservative, Bible-believing and biblicist Christians from Reformation -- who petitioned King James I to authorize a new translation (given the fact that the king of England was also the head of the Church of England).
3. Evidently 54 translators were commissioned to do the work, but it is said that only 47 actually followed through. All these men were extremely devout and extremely learned in all the languages necessary to translate the Scriptures. As is perfectly clear from "The Translators to the Reader" (the Preface) their stated goal and objective was to bring forth ONE EXCEPTIONAL TRANSLATION -- out of the many English translations already present.
4. They had all the necessary materials at hand, including printed copies of both the Hebrew and Greek texts [including the Textus Receptus of Stephanus (1550) and editions of the Elzevir brothers]. But they were led by God to eventually make slight modifications to the TR based on their study of all the other printed texts, versions, writings, etc., and their TR is now printed as Scrivener's TR of 1894. Also, the printed Hebrew Bible of Jacob ben Chayyim was consulted, along with all the other Hebrew materials available. The Latin Vulgate was also at hand, and was useful in a few places (Jerome also translated directly out of the Hebrew and Greek).
6. The translators worked in small groups over many years, and cross-checked each other's translation to ensure accuracy, and prevent any single person's bias to come through. Where the translators had to supply words in order to make translational sense, they inserted appropriate words IN ITALICS, so you and I could distinguish between the Word of God and the words of men (even though these words were carefully selected).
7. Subsequent textual research has confirmed that the MAJORITY of Hebrew and Greek manuscripts, versions, lectionaries, and the writings of the Early Church Fathers support the readings of all Reformation Bibles (including the KJV). All these manuscripts extend over 1500 years.
8. The translators were fully aware of all the Catholic translations and their blunders, and were very conscious as well as conscientious about accuracy and faithful translation. Their reverence for the written Word of God was second to none. As a result the KJV was wholeheartedly accepted by all English-speaking theologians, professors, clergymen, and ordinary Christians as the standard English Bible for over 300 years. Strong's Exhaustive Concordance -- for example -- is a monumental work which was based strictly on the KJV. Commentaries by well-known commentators such as Matthew Henry, James Gill, Jamieson, Fausset, a& Brown etc. were all based on the KJV. Word studies such as Vine's Expository Dictionary etc. are also based on this translation. For hundreds of years, the English-speaking world treated this bible as the very Word of God, and the conversion of millions of people over the centuries is a testimony to God's hand upon this Bible.
In view of all of this, why would any Christian today even question the accuracy and reliability of this translation? Once again we need to study the history of anti-KJV propaganda beginning with Westcott & Hort and others in 1881,at the same time when Roman Catholicism was trying to bring the Church of England into captivity (and did succeed to a large degree).
The Roman Catholic Church hated all translations into the vernacular (the common language of the people) and they murdered John Wycliffe and William Tyndale because of this. Immediately after the KJV started to gain popularity, the Jesuists decided that they must have a competing translation, which led to the Douay-Rheims version. And so we come to the 19th century and John Newman and the Oxford Movement. W&H were caught up in this infatuation with the Catholic Church, and they also hated the KJV and the TR (and there is documentary proof for that). So Westcott & Hort made it their life's work to destroy confidence in the KJV and the traditional texts which underlay this translation. This trend of denigrating the AV and elevating modern versions trend was continued into the 20th and 21st century by so-called scholars (who ignored the bulk of manuscripts and idolized a handful of corrupt ones), as well as Bible publishers who could not enforce copyright laws on the KJV, but could come up with "new and improved" copurighted versions every year (just like automobiles), and thus increase their revenues. Unfortunately the of evangelical and fundamentalist Christians fell for this ruse. And "while men slept" the enemy came and sowed the "tares" of corrupt Bibles. So today we have Christians mocking those who hold strictly to the KJV, not realizing hat actually Satan has them bamboozled!
That is the wrong conclusion to be drawn. What it simply means is that God allows the enemy to work. and he has allowed false Christrianity and the cults to flourish until the final reckoning.
I will respond to this since it is really quite simple. The Tanakh (Hebrew Old Testament) was written between c 1500 and c 400 BC. So it stands to reason that "copies of copies of copies" of the Tanakh were being used by Christ and His apostles. But the beauty of the strict accuracy of the Hebrew Scriptures was assured by the existence of the "scribes" (the Sopherim and others including the Masoretes). They counted every letter of their copies from generation after generation, and therefore retained the Scriptures as given in the autographs. Proof? The Masoretic Text of the OT which is back of our English translation dates from around 900 AD. But when the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, they found an Isaiah scroll dating from approximately 200 BC. The amazing fact was that after comparing the two texts, scholars discovered that they were PRACTICALLY IDENTICAL. Given the fact that over 1,000 years separated those two texts, this was a very strong proof of the Divine preservation of Scriptures, through copies of copies by scribes and monks over hundreds of years.
1. There were already several English translations in circulation, out of which William Tyndale's was outstanding. Tyndale also translated directly out of the Hebrew and Greek, and much of his work is evident in the KJV.
2. In spite of this it was the Puritan faction of the Church of England -- the most conservative, Bible-believing and biblicist Christians from Reformation -- who petitioned King James I to authorize a new translation (given the fact that the king of England was also the head of the Church of England).
3. Evidently 54 translators were commissioned to do the work, but it is said that only 47 actually followed through. All these men were extremely devout and extremely learned in all the languages necessary to translate the Scriptures. As is perfectly clear from "The Translators to the Reader" (the Preface) their stated goal and objective was to bring forth ONE EXCEPTIONAL TRANSLATION -- out of the many English translations already present.
4. They had all the necessary materials at hand, including printed copies of both the Hebrew and Greek texts [including the Textus Receptus of Stephanus (1550) and editions of the Elzevir brothers]. But they were led by God to eventually make slight modifications to the TR based on their study of all the other printed texts, versions, writings, etc., and their TR is now printed as Scrivener's TR of 1894. Also, the printed Hebrew Bible of Jacob ben Chayyim was consulted, along with all the other Hebrew materials available. The Latin Vulgate was also at hand, and was useful in a few places (Jerome also translated directly out of the Hebrew and Greek).
6. The translators worked in small groups over many years, and cross-checked each other's translation to ensure accuracy, and prevent any single person's bias to come through. Where the translators had to supply words in order to make translational sense, they inserted appropriate words IN ITALICS, so you and I could distinguish between the Word of God and the words of men (even though these words were carefully selected).
7. Subsequent textual research has confirmed that the MAJORITY of Hebrew and Greek manuscripts, versions, lectionaries, and the writings of the Early Church Fathers support the readings of all Reformation Bibles (including the KJV). All these manuscripts extend over 1500 years.
8. The translators were fully aware of all the Catholic translations and their blunders, and were very conscious as well as conscientious about accuracy and faithful translation. Their reverence for the written Word of God was second to none. As a result the KJV was wholeheartedly accepted by all English-speaking theologians, professors, clergymen, and ordinary Christians as the standard English Bible for over 300 years. Strong's Exhaustive Concordance -- for example -- is a monumental work which was based strictly on the KJV. Commentaries by well-known commentators such as Matthew Henry, James Gill, Jamieson, Fausset, a& Brown etc. were all based on the KJV. Word studies such as Vine's Expository Dictionary etc. are also based on this translation. For hundreds of years, the English-speaking world treated this bible as the very Word of God, and the conversion of millions of people over the centuries is a testimony to God's hand upon this Bible.
In view of all of this, why would any Christian today even question the accuracy and reliability of this translation? Once again we need to study the history of anti-KJV propaganda beginning with Westcott & Hort and others in 1881,at the same time when Roman Catholicism was trying to bring the Church of England into captivity (and did succeed to a large degree).
The Roman Catholic Church hated all translations into the vernacular (the common language of the people) and they murdered John Wycliffe and William Tyndale because of this. Immediately after the KJV started to gain popularity, the Jesuists decided that they must have a competing translation, which led to the Douay-Rheims version. And so we come to the 19th century and John Newman and the Oxford Movement. W&H were caught up in this infatuation with the Catholic Church, and they also hated the KJV and the TR (and there is documentary proof for that). So Westcott & Hort made it their life's work to destroy confidence in the KJV and the traditional texts which underlay this translation. This trend of denigrating the AV and elevating modern versions trend was continued into the 20th and 21st century by so-called scholars (who ignored the bulk of manuscripts and idolized a handful of corrupt ones), as well as Bible publishers who could not enforce copyright laws on the KJV, but could come up with "new and improved" copurighted versions every year (just like automobiles), and thus increase their revenues. Unfortunately the of evangelical and fundamentalist Christians fell for this ruse. And "while men slept" the enemy came and sowed the "tares" of corrupt Bibles. So today we have Christians mocking those who hold strictly to the KJV, not realizing hat actually Satan has them bamboozled!
That is the wrong conclusion to be drawn. What it simply means is that God allows the enemy to work. and he has allowed false Christrianity and the cults to flourish until the final reckoning.
I will respond to this since it is really quite simple. The Tanakh (Hebrew Old Testament) was written between c 1500 and c 400 BC. So it stands to reason that "copies of copies of copies" of the Tanakh were being used by Christ and His apostles. But the beauty of the strict accuracy of the Hebrew Scriptures was assured by the existence of the "scribes" (the Sopherim and others including the Masoretes). They counted every letter of their copies from generation after generation, and therefore retained the Scriptures as given in the autographs. Proof? The Masoretic Text of the OT which is back of our English translation dates from around 900 AD. But when the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, they found an Isaiah scroll dating from approximately 200 BC. The amazing fact was that after comparing the two texts, scholars discovered that they were PRACTICALLY IDENTICAL. Given the fact that over 1,000 years separated those two texts, this was a very strong proof of the Divine preservation of Scriptures, through copies of copies by scribes and monks over hundreds of years.
Last edited:
And evidently you are quick to draw unfounded conclusions.
You have drawn an unsupported conclusion from the evidence. You cannot "prove" that God "did in fact ensure..." (He can, but you can't). That many errors of translation have been identified is adequate evidence that God did not do as you claim.
Evidently you don't even know the history of that about which you write with such confidence. The Elzevir brothers (not Stephanus) published their compilation, called the "Textus Receptus" in 1633, well after the completion of the KJV. They also probably used the term, "Textus Receptus" as a marketing gimmick. I suspect by "editions" you mean the five editions of Desiderius Erasmus, not the Elzevir brothers.
Your claim that they had "all the necessary materials" is merely your opinion. You have provided no criteria by which to call these "necessary" (in the sense of "sufficient").
Evidently you believe in a democratic view of truth, otherwise you wouldn't make the silly appeal to the majority. You also evidently overlook the fact that the spread of Islam resulted in the destruction of untold numbers of manuscripts across the Middle East, and of the deaths of untold numbers of believers involved in copying.
... except for the Puritans. That would make it "not all" and therefore your point is refuted.
Again, numbers are irrelevant. Has the KJV been employed in the salvation of many? Sure. Have other newer translations? Also, sure.
Because we, too, do our homework, and our conclusions differ from yours, and the evidence which convinces you does not convince everybody. Perhaps you should consider that it is the KJV-only adherents who are on the attack here. I'm simply pointing out the numerous flaws in your reasoning.
It's not the wrong conclusion at all; it's adequate evidence that God did not preserve His word the way the John146 was asserting. That there are additional conclusions to be drawn is irrelevant to my point.
It is evident that you don't know the history of the challenge I made to John146. Your response does not answer my question to him.
Also, it is evident that you don't understand the concept of "proof". It is only used in legal cases, which this is not, and in mathematics and logic, parts of which deal in absolutes. Even if you are convinced of something, it doesn't mean that it is "proven". It only means that you find the evidence adequate. Others may not, and they are not wrong for seeing things differently.
In conclusion, it is evident that you have much more homework to do. Perhaps you should not mock others so freely, especially after claiming in another post that it is unChristian to do so.
You have drawn an unsupported conclusion from the evidence. You cannot "prove" that God "did in fact ensure..." (He can, but you can't). That many errors of translation have been identified is adequate evidence that God did not do as you claim.
Evidently you don't even know the history of that about which you write with such confidence. The Elzevir brothers (not Stephanus) published their compilation, called the "Textus Receptus" in 1633, well after the completion of the KJV. They also probably used the term, "Textus Receptus" as a marketing gimmick. I suspect by "editions" you mean the five editions of Desiderius Erasmus, not the Elzevir brothers.
Your claim that they had "all the necessary materials" is merely your opinion. You have provided no criteria by which to call these "necessary" (in the sense of "sufficient").
Evidently you believe in a democratic view of truth, otherwise you wouldn't make the silly appeal to the majority. You also evidently overlook the fact that the spread of Islam resulted in the destruction of untold numbers of manuscripts across the Middle East, and of the deaths of untold numbers of believers involved in copying.
... except for the Puritans. That would make it "not all" and therefore your point is refuted.
Again, numbers are irrelevant. Has the KJV been employed in the salvation of many? Sure. Have other newer translations? Also, sure.
Because we, too, do our homework, and our conclusions differ from yours, and the evidence which convinces you does not convince everybody. Perhaps you should consider that it is the KJV-only adherents who are on the attack here. I'm simply pointing out the numerous flaws in your reasoning.
It's not the wrong conclusion at all; it's adequate evidence that God did not preserve His word the way the John146 was asserting. That there are additional conclusions to be drawn is irrelevant to my point.
It is evident that you don't know the history of the challenge I made to John146. Your response does not answer my question to him.
Also, it is evident that you don't understand the concept of "proof". It is only used in legal cases, which this is not, and in mathematics and logic, parts of which deal in absolutes. Even if you are convinced of something, it doesn't mean that it is "proven". It only means that you find the evidence adequate. Others may not, and they are not wrong for seeing things differently.
In conclusion, it is evident that you have much more homework to do. Perhaps you should not mock others so freely, especially after claiming in another post that it is unChristian to do so.
Last edited:
Actually my posts have demonstrated that I have done my homework, and I am fully conversant with the issue. Your questions were answered fully and properly, but you rejected the answers because they did not suit you. So that's your problem, not mine.
People who want the truth are willing to give up their mistaken ideas, one of them being that the Authorized Version is inferior to modern Bibles. Since the historical, textual, and spiritual facts support the KJV and the traditional texts, you can either choose to go back to it, or choose to use any corrupt translation you please. We will all give account for our choices.
People who want the truth are willing to give up their mistaken ideas, one of them being that the Authorized Version is inferior to modern Bibles. Since the historical, textual, and spiritual facts support the KJV and the traditional texts, you can either choose to go back to it, or choose to use any corrupt translation you please. We will all give account for our choices.