Bible translation

[HealthAndHappiness]

It's up to each individual to decide for themselves.
I noticed that KJV users get a lot more criticism from some who look to the higher critics than the other way around..
The couple of non,-kjv churches I attended, pastors liked to single out our Bible with their own "corrections" and expanded translations. I suppose that the only way to know God is to go through these mediators who claim to know common Greek better than native Greeks and the translation committee of the KJ sponsored translation.
I admire anyone who wants to study Greek to the degree that it's actually useful. I know of guys who spent time going to a Greek speaking country to share the gospel. That's the kind of missionary motivation that pleases the Lord.
The only thing it did for their congregations is to exalt their pastors while undermining their faith in God's Word. It seemed like they were trying to puff themselves up more than clarify tough passages. Maybe that was just them.

After much consideration, I decided that there were some important reasons to choose the KJBible....scholarly reasons, and doctrinal reasons.

 

[Nehemiah6]

How many of you use the kjv

Many including myself. So don't be afraid to tell others that you use this Bible. And then stick with it.

 

[Nehemiah6]

It's up to each individual to decide for themselves.

Most people are ignorant about the Great Bible Version Hoax. That is why it is up to the pastors and teachers in all the churches to provide factual information. Unfortunately most have failed to do their due diligence, particularly those on TV and radio.

 

[HealthAndHappiness]

Clarification from the original contemporary English.....😉

When I went back to re-read this....

(I admire anyone who wants to study Greek to the degree that it's actually useful. I know of guys who spent time going to a Greek speaking country to share the gospel. That's the kind of missionary motivation that pleases the Lord.
The only thing it did for their congregations is to exalt their pastors while undermining their faith in God's Word. It seemed like they were trying to puff themselves up more than clarify tough passages. Maybe that was just them.)...

I realized that my thought didn't distinguish between these two paragraphs. I didn't even separate them. The first one here refered to those pastors who went to Cypress, a Greek speaking country, to share the gospel with their Koine Greek Received Text N.T. that was used for our English KJV. People understood that New Testament got saved.
I admire that.

On the other hand, I've had a pastor that after 5 years he's read enough commentaries and went with a handful of opinions that the last half of Mark 16 isn't in their original text.
Strange that it was in his version, but they decided to include it even though they did not believe it. The reason is because of the love of $. They knew that they couldn't sell near as many if they weren't sly about the missing verses. See Genesis 3:1
My other pastor started out as a KJV only, then went to a couple other versions. As years went by, the book of the month club to where his own "corrected and expanded" translation. When someone takes a verse in the Greek, mocks the KJV, then turns it into a long paragraph, he's not being honest. That is a step beyond a paraphrase, because he calls it a literal translation. Stringing synonyms together with attached definitions didn't clarify anything other than his ego.
He quit using the word "hell." I finally left the church for a better one. Eventually he taught Universalism. This issue of which Bible is an important one for me.

 

[Jocund]

Um, it is an archaic form of English, and the only way it is “more precise” is in its use of third-person pronouns.

My impression is that there is more to it than that.

Are you suggesting that modern translations are tainted by politics?

Yes, there are absolutely some modern translations that have political tainting. NIV is included in that boat.

Are you suggesting that the KJV was not tainted by 17th-century politics?

The hope is that if there were political tainting in a given old edition, that the political content would be outdated and that society in general would have been able to have enough time to develop thoughtful criticism of anything that would be present. When Napoleon Bonaparte made waves back in his time, he was allegedly was called an antichrist. Currently, we are able to soberly look back in time with more or less indifference because we have the bigger picture relative to someone back in that day that would have been in the thick of the murky politics. And the same hope applies to a well put together version of the Bible that is centuries old like KJV. The time it's been around for gives time for sober reflection.

So in short, the concept is that even if hypothetic political tainting were to exist in KJV, it's impact and potency would be lessened.

 

[Dino246]

Yes, there are absolutely some modern translations that have political tainting. NIV is included in that boat.

Perhaps you could explain of what you think the political tainting in the NIV consists.

So in short, the concept is that even if hypothetic political tainting were to exist in KJV, it's impact and potency would be lessened.

It's not hypothetical, it's real, and it resulted in certain words being chosen in the English version that people take today as being "the word of God". Because of the modern ignorance of political influence on the translation, the impact is heightened, not lessened. People can "read around" what they know is there, but can't do so when they don't know.

 

[Jocund]

Perhaps you could explain of what you think the political tainting in the NIV consists.

The translation of some OT instances of singular "seed" as "descendants" irrespective of Gal 3 is an example of modern political tainting that is present in NIV.

It's not hypothetical, it's real, and it resulted in certain words being chosen in the English version that people take today as being "the word of God". Because of the modern ignorance of political influence on the translation, the impact is heightened, not lessened. People can "read around" what they know is there, but can't do so when they don't know.

Perhaps you could explain what you think the political tainting in the KJV consists.

 

[Dino246]

The translation of some OT instances of singular "seed" as "descendants" irrespective of Gal 3 is an example of modern political tainting that is present in NIV.

From what political interest, and by what means?

Perhaps you could explain what you think the political tainting in the KJV consists.

One example is baptizo being translated as "baptism" (essentially an invented word) instead of "immersion". This was the influence of the English church which practiced sprinkling and still does today.

 

[Jocund]

From what political interest, and by what means?

Since NIV was written after the creation of the modern geopolitical state that calls itself Israel, the choice to translate singular "seed" into "descendents" irrespective of Gal 3 clearly serves the purpose of trying to attribute the Abrahamic seed promises directly to those that aren't Christ, such as land promises, etc. This contradicts Gal 3:16. The land promise would be accessible through righteousness looking forward to Christ rather than by their own inherit bloodline. This political tainting in NIV serves the interests of Talmudic Jews and Dispensationalists, and is a disservice to the true message of the Christian Bible.

One example is baptizo being translated as "baptism" (essentially an invented word) instead of "immersion". This was the influence of the English church which practiced sprinkling and still does today.

I've never actually seen the sprinkling baptism happen, but I've seen plenty of partial immersion baptisms.

One benefit of leaving it as "baptism" is that it retains the ability to have a conversation about what "baptism" is supposed to mean. It's not just as simple as "full submerging a person under water".

There are also considerations for the sick and dying. A rite that involves partial immersion can be done for someone that is physically unable to sustain a full bodily submersion.

A requirement for full bodily submersion in order for salvation in a sense comes down to the concept of salvation by works, which is arguably at odds with scripture. If the intention is there when a rite is performed, is it not the intention that matters? The intention of service rather than the quality of service? I know people that recieved baptism on their deathbed that could not have physically received a full bodily submersion baptism. That's a hard topic to tackle. Are they unsaved because they were unable to partake in an instructed rite to an expected standard of performance?

If you look at different sources for the Greek outside of Strongs, we might even start to wonder whether it is really the Strongs concordance that has the political tainting rather than KJV and other translations.

It's hard to navigate through, but even if it was translated into English as "John the Immerser" performing "immersions" into the river, don't you think that would be more misunderstood rather than less misunderstood? Leaving it as "baptism" wouldn't change the meaning, it just provides less precision (it's more ambiguous). You are confident in your opinion on this, so we can leave it as it is for our purposes here. If we concede the premise that the word "baptism" were a political tainting, are you stating that you see an unnecessary introduction of ambiguity to be more significant than an intentionally changed meaning such as that of the seed promises in NIV?

I agree with the concept of being critical of translations, but some of them are worse offenders than others. An introduced ambiguity is easier to address than an intentionally opposite meaning.

I generally find KJV to be trustworthy and honest in its approach, even if it were the case that we ought be mindful of some parts. I can't say the same about NIV and many other translations.

If I were fluent in the original Greek, I would be reading the original Greek instead. Translations into English are always just going to be a medium between the original manuscripts and a language we readily understand.

 

[Dino246]

Since NIV was written after the creation of the modern geopolitical state that calls itself Israel, the choice to translate singular "seed" into "descendents" irrespective of Gal 3 clearly serves the purpose of trying to attribute the Abrahamic seed promises directly to those that aren't Christ, such as land promises, etc. This contradicts Gal 3:16.

Correlation is not causation. You have to demonstrate a specific connection and motive for your criticism to be valid.

I've never actually seen the sprinkling baptism happen, but I've seen plenty of partial immersion baptisms.

One benefit of leaving it as "baptism" is that it retains the ability to have a conversation about what "baptism" is supposed to mean. It's not just as simple as "full submerging a person under water".

I agree with the bolded statement.

There are also considerations for the sick and dying. A rite that involves partial immersion can be done for someone that is physically unable to sustain a full bodily submersion.

Of course. God is not a monster who demands something that is physically impossible.

It's hard to navigate through, but even if it was translated into English as "John the Immerser" performing "immersions" into the river, don't you think that would be more misunderstood rather than less misunderstood? Leaving it as "baptism" wouldn't change the meaning, it just provides less precision (it's more ambiguous). You are confident in your opinion on this, so we can leave it as it is for our purposes here. If we concede the premise that the word "baptism" were a political tainting, are you stating that you see an unnecessary introduction of ambiguity to be more significant than an intentionally changed meaning such as that of the seed promises in NIV?

The supposed ambiguity only exists because of our familiarity with the word, "baptism". Were that word not used, there would be no confusion.

I agree with the concept of being critical of translations, but some of them are worse offenders than others. An introduced ambiguity is easier to address than an intentionally opposite meaning.

Such as?

If I were fluent in the original Greek, I would be reading the original Greek instead. Translations into English are always just going to be a medium between the original manuscripts and a language we readily understand.

Agreed.

 

[Snacks]

Actually, it’s written at a 5th grade level.

Then I must be stuck at the 1st grade level.
Just sayin. 😊

 

[Jocund]

The supposed ambiguity only exists because of our familiarity with the word, "baptism". Were that word not used, there would be no confusion.

I disagree.

Correlation is not causation. You have to demonstrate a specific connection and motive for your criticism to be valid

Yes. The NIV case is easily demonstrated. The connection and cause are clear. Please demonstrate your opinion of political tainting in KJV.

And perhaps through your explanation of KJV, I could understand your standard of evidence and explain to your satisfaction the tainting present in NIV.

 

[Dino246]

I disagree.




Yes. The NIV case is easily demonstrated. The connection and cause are clear. Please demonstrate your opinion of political tainting in KJV.

And perhaps through your explanation of KJV, I could understand your standard of evidence and explain to your satisfaction the tainting present in NIV.

As you first introduced the idea of political tainting, you are welcome to present your evidence first. I don't accept your burden-of-proof reversal.

 

[Jocund]

As you first introduced the idea of political tainting, you are welcome to present your evidence first. I don't accept your burden-of-proof reversal.

Actually, my first claim was that KJV was untainted by modern politics, which is self-evident and needs no explanation. You proposed the idea that KJV was tainted by 17th century politics in post 17. My initial claim is self-evident, your follow up claim was unsubstantiated.

Since your KJV 17C-politics claim came first, before my NIV modern-politics claim, please provide evidence for your claim first.

 

[Pray_without_ceasing]

How many of you use the kjv

All christians use the King James Version. Because they are born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. Any version in english that is worded differently than the King James Version is not the Word of God. Because all scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

---
The King James Version says that God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

But the English Standard Version says that God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

Which is a lie. Because Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God. Not the "God's only son". For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.
---

---
The King James Version says that in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God.

But the New International Version says that in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning.

Which is rank heresy. Because there was no one in the beginning with God. God hath said, I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand. God's Word is not a person. God's Word is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. And it is forever settled in heaven.
---

---
The King James Version says that there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

But the New American Standard Bible says that there are three that testify.

Which is also error. Is it not written, ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you?
---

He that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out. And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice. And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

 

[ResidentAlien]

All chistians use the King James Version.

I'm trying to look at the bright side. At least this gave me a good laugh.

 

[Pray_without_ceasing]

I'm trying to look at the bright side. At least this gave me a good laugh.

Fools make a mock at sin: but among the righteous there is favour.

 

[ResidentAlien]

Fools make a mock at sin: but among the righteous there is favour.

Does that mean you're a sinner??

 

[Dino246]

All christians use the King James Version.

What an utterly moronic claim. Paul didn't use it. Luther didn't use it. No Christian prior to 1611 used it. Christians who don't read English don't use it. Most Christians who do read English don't use it. Only among KJVo cultists is such tripe actually believed.

 

[Pray_without_ceasing]

What an utterly moronic claim. Paul didn't use it. Luther didn't use it. No Christian prior to 1611 used it. Christians who don't read English don't use it. Most Christians who do read English don't use it. Only among KJVo cultists is such tripe actually believed.

The hearing ear, and the seeing eye, the LORD hath made even both of them. It is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.