# KJV or NIV



## Woody52 (Jul 31, 2005)

This thread is in reference to interpreting the Bible, which I read in another thread.
I have been raised Southern Baptist and been taught nothing but the King James Version of the Bible.  Many Christians are turning towards the NIV or New International Version.  Now there are several different versions.  Many churches frown on this saying that text is lost and words are left out in translation.  I have always agreed.  A few weeks ago I heard a SOUTHERN BAPTIST preacher say this:  The original Bible, when written in Hebrew/Greek had over 10,000 different words.  The King James Version has less than 8,000 (I don't know the exact numbers, but the KJV was thousands of words less).  Newer versions of the Bible (such as the NIV) have a chance to add in a part of what was left out.  Just think, 2,000 different words could make a huge difference!  I know, many words had more than one meaning and many meant the same thing as other words, but you see where I'm going, right?  So, if the KJV has words that were lost in translation, is the NIV able to possibly replace what was lost?  To me, I still like to read the KJV and always will, but I now have to argue for what I have have usually stood against.  If nothing else, the NIV breaks the parables into "edible" pieces which are easier to relate to, espescially for someone new to Christianity.  To me, as long as you worship in spirit and truth, believe in the trinity, repent and are saved, your heart should be where it needs to be.  If this is the case, God will show you how he wants it to be translated.  All this being said, what are yall's opinions, or did I just step on a lot of toes?


----------



## Woody's Janitor (Jul 31, 2005)

If what I have been taught in a Bible College is true, the KJV is not as accurate. It seems that King James was a little miffed at the Greeks and ordered an English translation. They had a limited number of material to work with and since the original transcripts were written in Hebrew and a little Aramaic(spelling?)(OT) and Greek(NT), a lot of words were left out that are key to translating the Bible. If I am wrong, please correct me. The translation of the Bible has come a long way and you have to use your favorite verse in context with the passage, chapter and book that it is in. A great and cheap book to buy to help you out is: "How to Read the Bible for All It's Worth" by Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart.


----------



## Jriley (Jul 31, 2005)

I have a degree in English Literature (the worst mistake I ever made). Anyway, one of my assignments was to grammatically analyze and diagram sentences from the Oxford Bible, which is the bible used before the King James Version. Believe me, the KJV is a big improvement. I love the poetry that was used in the KJV. I believe that the translators commissioned by King James were not only doing a job, they were called by the Lord to write what they did.
Nevertheless, the fact remains that early modern English is difficult for people who are uneducated, or for whom English is not their first language. Other translations are easier to read and understand. Therefore, it is easier to witness to someone who is lost when they can read and understand the Gospels. I would rather someone read a simplified version of the Bible than not read it at all.
With all of that said, I still prefer the King James Version.


----------



## FESTUSHAGGIN (Jul 31, 2005)

i am with thunter on this.  i believe that newer translations are just someone trying to simplify the word.  if you cant understand how aor what somethin means.  the only way you can and should get the answer is by praying about it.  if you are meant to understand the good lord will provide an explanation.  the only bible to enter into my house hold is and always will be the authorized king james version.  nothin anybody can say or do will change my mind.  the only way i would ever read a different book is if my lord and savior asked me too, and i know he wont.  i dont even like reading other books that are meant to explain certain things, or books that explain the bible.  the only explanation i get comes from between the covers of my bible.  and alot of time bowed on my knees searching for that explanation.  there are a lot of things i dont understand, and i am sure i will never understand alot of things.  we are meant to know what the lord provides for us.


----------



## labman (Jul 31, 2005)

Guys I'm not as educated as y'all sound about the english language but I believe the KJV is the best the others are as one preacher says perversions they leave out some of what is in the KJV like one never says mary was a virgin it just leaves it out. I don't know how true all the stuff y'all were taught in gollege is because all of it is mans inturpretation (sp) of what was and has been passed on over the centuries and we all know what happens when things get passed on they get changed around. I believe in the KJV and These are just my opinions for what they are worth. I went to a Assy of god for a while and told the paster not to push his tounges on me and told him how I believed in it. he got mad and told me he had a book he wanted me to read I asked him who wrote the book he told me and I told him I wouldn't read it because that was just that mans opinion of what the bible said to him. Don't know if this made much sense but, Im done now.


----------



## gordon 2 (Jul 31, 2005)

Ever think about what the King James version's equivelent is in chinese, japanese, iranian, punjabi,french, german, spanish, etc. 

When I get serious about readin the bible for really hard to get at areas I like the New Jeruselum bible in both english and french...and if you get the anotated ones you get thousands of yrs of study to dig into.

I have never met up with a bible I did not like, like guns I have many makes and use them all.


----------



## matthewsman (Jul 31, 2005)

*NIV /King James?*

No comparison....If Jesus wanted someone to understand something,he spoke as they spoke...At the day of Pentecost,everyone that came to be taxed were amazedwhen they heard the Disciples speak to them in their own languages...The Lord did not speak to them in King James's english then,nor does he now........

I used to get tickled when I heard someone speak in tongues,then someone would interpret in King James English with a "backwoods "flavor....  "Because I have tarried with thee,and y'all hasn't listened.I hast turned y'all over to a reprobate spirit"

I know in my heart,and through the Biblical example of the way Jesus simplified his teachings for the common man,he wants to be understood,and frankly(despite the poetic Shakespearian overtone)the King James just doesn't cut it......

The NIV was interpreted directly from the Aramic and Greek texts,not from the King James,and without the political influence of his time........

Did you know the "Eye of the needle" was a small gate in the outer wall,instead of a true needle?A camel could get through the gate,eyeof the needle,but obviously can't get through a literal eye of the needle..Kinda changes the meaning doesn't it?Now a rich man can get into Heaven,he just has to unburden himself and get through on his knees,the same way camels used to get through the gate.............

Turning the other cheek,doesn't suggest we should be pacifistic,but there was a custom being referred to...If you offended someone,they had the right to slap you to show displeasure.If you offered the other cheek,and they slapped it too,they were in the wrong or the agressor,and you defended yourself.........

The customs,the context,and the interpretation all go together to understand the Bible as a whole......

I have heard people twist both translations to suit their purposes....Festus and others,worship as you please,but I can assure you that your head will not spin around or Crucifixes turn upside down if a NIV Bible was in your presence....donnie


----------



## Dudley Do-Wrong (Jul 31, 2005)

I don't remember where I saw this, but because I did I stick with my New King James Version.  But, there is one of these "newer" versions that was actually written by a specific church of today (which I will not mention).  The article I read showed where certain words were added or changed that did alter the meaning of certain verses.  These changes are real indiscreet, but the meanings were changes to suit their doctronal beliefs.


----------



## matthewsman (Jul 31, 2005)

*Hopefully this is not too far off topic??*

What about translations in other languages?Do those people have it wrong if it's not King James?Does the God of the whole planet limit his communication to one language?Should we all ignore the original scrolls and trust only in the King James?

I don't expect anyone to change their mind and admit it in public,especialy not a bunch of hard-headed men(like me),but pray about it,worship in Spirit and Truth...I think God will speak to you,in a manner you will understand.....with all sincerety,donnie


----------



## Dudley Do-Wrong (Jul 31, 2005)

Donnie, you can have the KJV in every language on the planet.

The original manuscripts were written in ancient languages (Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek).  I may be mistaken, but I don't believe Aramaic is spoken today and the Greek and Hebrew was an ancient form.  In some cases, there were no direct words to match the ancient language in the interpretation, so the best word or one with a very similar definition, was used.

There actually were English translations befor the KJV.  More than 200 years before KJV, John Wycliffe first produced an English New Testament and some years later, an Old Testament (using the 4th century Vulgate of St. Jerome as the source).  This was considered heresy in those days.

William Tyndale produced an English version of the New Testament and after that, there were 6 other English versions, all before the KJV.


----------



## RThomas (Aug 1, 2005)

The KJV is one of the least accurate bibles used today.  The fact is, there have been many new discoveries as well as advancements in translation.  The KJV is great for its poetic style, but if you want a book that is more accurate to the oldest transcripts, then one of the newer versions is a much better choice (though, still not 100% accurate- there are no original manuscripts, and some texts differ, ect).

(edited for trying to post after my bedtime)


----------



## dutchman (Aug 1, 2005)

I, like many of you, was raised on the KJV. I have used other versions over the years. I currently use the Holman Standard and the NIV. The NIV gets knocked by some for being a perversion of the original text. And the original text was not, as has already been pointed out, the KJV.

I don't really have a problem with other translations, provided they are done by a reputable group of scholars who are trying to be correct in their translation from the original text. 

Come on guys, even the KJV is a translation of the original.


----------



## No. GA. Mt. Man (Aug 1, 2005)

I use the KJV.Having said that if someone wishes to post the daily Bible verse in another version they are welcome to do so. That thread is not my thread I felt led to get it started and it belong to God.


----------



## GeauxLSU (Aug 1, 2005)

Interesting stuff Donnie.  Thanks.  
I probably have a half dozen around the house.  Not even sure what 'version' any of them are (but they are not the same).  
People will jump up and down about literal meanings yet readily admit different text can easily portray different meanings.  Then talk about how He and the Word doesn't change and then look for the translation that best suits them.  We keep making God narrower and narrower when we supposedly know he is all encompasing.  If you are defining the Word by a particular translation, then you have clearly defined God by that translation.  It could be argued in the extreme, your God is different than the brother next to you reading a different version.   Not good.....
I can't comment on the two specifically.  The one in my hand at the time, coupled with prayer, is hopefully telling me what He wants me to know.


----------



## Branchminnow (Aug 1, 2005)

Alright fellas this is my opinion 

Take it for what it is worth. 

It aint costing you a thing.

The KJV was originally translated from the language that it was written if you want to see the original "King's" english then go buy a 1611 version I have one and there is a book or two in that version that was translated that is left out by all current Bible publishers today and from years ago.

I would encourage you to read it and figure out that there was no meaning lost or changed in the writings that we currently read today.

I would also say that King James was led by the spirit to have it done and make it happen the way he did if ever a natural born king did anything good ever it was to compile all the writings of the profits to make it available to us today.

I use KJV because it has not been added to from its inception and any other translation in my opinion just will not do for me.

I encourage everyone to read the word and pray for your answers from the Almighty God who will give you the understanding and the interpretation that is the truth.

................................The letter killeth but the spirit maketh alive.......................

Greg


----------



## Uncle T (Aug 1, 2005)

We're in the process of looking for a church and we visited a slew of Southern Baptist Churches and all seem to use the NIV and alot of priase and worship music.  I use the KJV and like the old hymns so we're in a church now that we feel comfortable in.  Have you guys ever rocked and rolled with a 90 year old couple next to you in church?  It seemed really odd.

"Maybe instead of re-writing the bible, it should be re-read"


----------



## Hunting Teacher (Aug 1, 2005)

I have an idea.
Let's all criticize each other for which bible we read.  I'd hope we'd just be encouraging each other to be reading one.
In my very humble uneducated opinion we are pushing the envelope of being a lot like the pharisees about this. 
The NIV is a perversion of the word of God? That's pretty strong don't you  think? According to who? A pastor that likes the KJV?
My wife uses the Living Bible heaven forbid! ( Guess she is bound for Big Toe Big Toe) She uses it because she understands God's words better from it. And fellas, I'd venture to say she is a lot smarter than most of us. (I know she's a lot smarter than me!  And she sure as heck isn't lazy!!
 She feels like she's grown more in her understanding of God and his plan for her life since she started using the Living. As long as what she's saying she's learning is biblically correct what's the problem? Is God not capable of getting his message across to his children in more than one translation?
   Now don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying any translation should be automatically acceptable, but if it doesn't change the basic biblical truths about Jesus and who he was and what he expects from us I sure don't think I can feel comfortable telling others that "my" version is superior to theirs.
Teach


----------



## bravosfreak (Aug 1, 2005)

*A newbie's two cents on the issue*

Hey guys, I'm new to these message boards and find this thread very intriguing.  I am very excited about this forum because it is good to see Bible believers who share the same love of the outdoors that I do.

I go to an independent Baptist church who uses the KJV from the pulpit but does not discourage members from using whatever text they prefer.  While I would never condemn anyone for using any other version - I would rather you read any text than none at all - I prefer the KJV for a few reasons but here are two specific reasons:

1.  Some of the greatest preachers in history who have experienced real, wide-spread revival used the KJV.  Preachers such as Spurgeon, Moody, Sunday and others used the KJV.  Some of these men were not very well educated but never complained about the language used in the KJV.  God used these men mightily.  Our churches need this same type of revival today, and while I am not limiting God by saying he can only use the KJV for revival, if it was good enough then, it is good enough for us today!
2.  God wants us to meditate and study to know Him better.  I do not believe we should over-simplify Scripture so that everything can be instantly understood, Phillip had to explain the Scripture to the Ethiopian eunuch in the book of Acts.  I enjoy reading Scripture in the morning and meditating on it throughout the day.  It seems that the Holy Spirit will uncover the meaning of the Scripture throughout the day.  I believe the time we spend studying the Word to find its' meaning is honoring to God.

Just my two cents...thanks for the discussion.
Joe


----------



## BowArrow (Aug 1, 2005)

I use the New American Standard Bible because it is a literal translation in modern english that I understand. I could never understand some of the verses in the KJV written in Elizabethan English. I will say that the best Bible teacher that I have ever heard used the KJV.

I believe some preachers think the KJV is the bible Jesus used and all other translations are of the Devil. There were several translations before and after the KJV. The Wycliffe version was one of the first available to the common man followed by the Gutenberg, Tyndale,  Coverdale, Cranmer, Geneva, Bishops, English, NAS, American Standard, Amplified, and others.

Many of these translations copied other translations that preceded them. The KJV of 1611 copied several of these different translations and almost ninety percent of the KJV New Testament is found word for word in the Tyndale version of 1525. The newer translations have the advantage of several discoveries in the twentieth century the most famous being the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947.

Something I can't understand about the KJV the Book of Revelation is titled 'The Revelation Of St. John The Divine' yet Revelation starts out 'The Revelation of Jesus Christ'.

In KJV Acts 9:7 and Acts 22:9 did the men traveling with Saul hear God's voice.

In conclusion, use the translation that suits you best but don't think yours is the only true translation. They are all translations and translating from the various languages must be difficult.


----------



## leroy (Aug 1, 2005)

I have 1 of each kjv, nlv. the nlv is in the Life Application Study Bible it has commentary on each verse and it helps out, sometimes I cross reference the 2.


----------



## blindhog (Aug 1, 2005)

Well I stick with the KJV, or the NKJV for my family.  Always watching the NKJV in comparrison with the meaning in the KJV.

It boils down to;  do you think God controlled His Word being delivered to the saints over time?

If any bible is the Word of God, then it is to be authorative and 100% true.

So....how do you handle the 14 or so verses left out in the NIV compared to the KJV? (words deleted from the book)

Did God withhold better transcripts for 300 yrs (while the KJV was the pre-dominate printing), to later release them to newer translators?(NIV)

Does He respect modern saints over older ones, by this releasing?
His word says He is no respector of persons.

I was into a study of both sides of this issue for about two years, and decided to have faith in Gods providence, not man's intellect.


----------



## dutchman (Aug 1, 2005)

Hunting Teacher said:
			
		

> The NIV is a perversion of the word of God? That's pretty strong don't you  think? According to who? A pastor that likes the KJV?



Hunting Teacher,

Since you seem to have taken a little something out of my post, I guess I will respond to the statement quoted above. Please re-read my post carefully and I think that you will see that I use the NIV even though it is knocked by many as being a perversion of the original text. And I am repeating the words as they were stated in my hearing. I do not disagree that this is strong language. I recall being offended by it when I heard it. People are entitled to their opinions, however.


----------



## Flash (Aug 1, 2005)

See what y'all think of this link? 
http://www.biblebelievers.com/Floyd_Jones/Jones_Ripped_index.html

 Or this one
http://www.biblebelievers.com/NIV_Challenge.html


----------



## SADDADDY (Aug 2, 2005)

*KJV for me*

I was raised reading KJV but through the years I used a few other versions, I found the "People's Parallel Edition" King James Version and The Living Bible, in which I found it ot be a good tool for when I need a quick translation or an understanding.

our church uses the KJV and nothing else in our teachings, which makes it tough for a new christian to pick up on at times or understand the word, My daughter uses the NIV but she gets upset when she tries to read along with the pastor and it does not quite match up, she gets lost in the translation between the two, so I recently bought her a KJV to use.


----------



## Dudley Do-Wrong (Aug 2, 2005)

Flash, thanks for the link.  The differences delineated on that website are very significant.  Ya'll need to take a look at the websites Flash has linked.


----------



## Branchminnow (Aug 2, 2005)

David is right and if you cannot read and see the difference then your opinion will cloud the outcome.


----------



## FESTUSHAGGIN (Aug 2, 2005)

It was good for me to see the difference between the two.  i never have really even looked at anything other than the KJV othe rthan just to maybe compare a scripture or two just to see how they differed.  i did not realize that it was that different.  as i was reading these examples i was reminded of scrip[ture in the last part of Revelation.

    For i testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto thesethings, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
    And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Revelation 22:18-19  KJV

and thats enough for me.


----------



## GeauxLSU (Aug 2, 2005)

Festus,
But that's in all versions.   
Also, is it referring to JUST the book of Revelations?  After all, it says the PROPHECY of THIS book.....


----------



## RThomas (Aug 2, 2005)

> So....how do you handle the 14 or so verses left out in the NIV compared to the KJV? (words deleted from the book)



blindhog,

Most newer texts have added passages that are not contained in the oldest known text.  The older the text, the more likely that it was truer to the original texts.  Older texts have been discovered since the writing of the KJV.



> For i testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto thesethings, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:



Actually festus,  most scholars agree that this passage refers only to revelation, not the entire bible.  The bible did not exist as a complete work until nearly two centuries after revelation was written.
It is also likely that some of the other books of the new testament were composed AFTER revelation was written.


----------



## Flash (Aug 2, 2005)

This is what I've been taught over the years: (Below copied from a web site)

Over the past few decades, new Bible translations have been popping up like popcorn. Many strong Christians have stood their ground and continued to believe, read, and study only the Authorized King James Bible. Many others, however, have forsaken the Book that God has used for centuries. Such people have fallen for smooth advertising schemes and have actually started believing that the modern versions are superior to the King James Bible. It's very sad that most Christians today have not taken time to study the subject thoroughly enough to see what is really happening.

Originally we published only one tract about the King James Bible. The tract is titled How I Know The King James Bible Is The Word Of God, and it presents some rather strong arguments for the KJV. Then we offered a second tract, titled Let's Compare Bibles. This tract shows how the modern Bible translations are literally attacking God's word! Both of these tracts are still available, and are free upon request. 

Now, by the grace of God, we are able to offer a third tract on the King James issue. We call it Fables And Facts About The King James Bible. It's purpose is to better educate Christians about the KJV by clearing up some of the fables that have been spread by the critics. Far too many Christians are accepting the Authorized Version by faith alone, rather than working and studying to become more grounded in some of the basic FACTS about this important issue. The following information should be helpful to the believer who desires to be readily armed with TRUTH.


FABLE: The King James Bible was revised several times before 1800, so modern translations are just additional revisions of the original King James Bible of 1611.


FACT: The so-called "revisions" of the King James Bible prior to 1800 were to correct typographical errors, add notes, and omit the Apocrypha from between the Testaments. There were no changes in the actual TEXT of the King James Bible. The REAL changes (over 36,000 of them) didn't start until the modern revisionists came on the scene. 


FABLE: The modern translations are more accurate because they have been translated from older and better manuscripts.


FACT: It is truly amazing how so many Christians have bought into this lie without ever checking to see WHAT these manuscripts are, WHERE they came from, and WHO wrote them. It's also strange that no one seems to be asking the question, "Has God honored these 'older' and 'better' manuscripts throughout Church History?"

The modern translations are based on the work of two nineteenth century Greek scholars from England--B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort. Westcott and Hort, who were deeply involved in the occult, hated the Textus Receptus Greek text, from which the King James Bible was translated, so they conjured up THEIR OWN Greek text. This Westcott and Hort Greek text was based primarily on two very corrupt fourth century ROMAN CATHOLIC manuscripts: Codex Vaticanus (discovered in the Pope's library in 1481) and Sinaiticus (discovered in 1859 in a trash can at St. Catherine's monastery on Mt. Sinai). These are usually the "older" and "better" manuscripts that we keep hearing so much about. These manuscripts support most of the attacks in the new versions. 

The Vaticanus is considered to be the most authoritative, although it is responsible for over thirty-six thousand changes that appear today in the new versions. This perverted manuscript contains the books of the pagan Apocrypha, which are not scripture; it omits the pastoral epistles (I Timothy through Titus), the Book of Revelation, and it cuts off the Book of Hebrews at Hebrews 9:14 (a very convenient stopping point for the Catholic Church, since God forbids their priesthood in Hebrews 10!). The attacks on the word of God found in these manuscripts originated in Alexandria, Egypt with the deceitful work of such pagan Greek "scholars" as Origen and Clement of Alexandria. Then in 313 A.D. the Roman emperor Constantine ordered fifty copies of "the Bible" from Eusebius, the Bishop of Caesaria. Eusebius, being a devout student of Origen's work, chose to send him manuscripts filled with Alexandrian corruption, rather than sending him the true word of God in the SYRIAN text from Antioch, Syria. So the corrupt Alexandrian text (also called the "Egyptian" or "Hesychian" type text) found it's way into the Vatican manuscript, then eventually into the Westcott and Hort Greek Text, and finally into the new "Bible" versions in your local "Christian" bookstore. Therefore, when you hear or read of someone "correcting" the King James Bible with "older" or "more authoritative" manuscripts, you are simply hearing someone trying to use a ROMAN CATHOLIC text to overthrow the God-honored text of the Protestant Reformation and the great revivals. God has never honored this corrupt text and He never will.


----------



## FESTUSHAGGIN (Aug 2, 2005)

GeauxLSU said:
			
		

> Festus,
> But that's in all versions.
> Also, is it referring to JUST the book of Revelations?  After all, it says the PROPHECY of THIS book.....


Well that depends.  everything in the bible might be delivered to you in a different way.  things that mean something to me may mean something completely different to you.  that is why i believe there shouldnt be just an easy and quick understanding of the word of god.  he meant for us to study and pray for the understanding. and if you forgo that process i believe you are only getting what someone else wants you to see.  the lord dont work in your mind he works in your heart and that is where things have to be understood.  if i dont understand something i have to pray about it.  the understanding will come when he is ready for me to understand.  if you even take the KJV bible and just sit there and read it word for word and try to cypher through in your mind.  alot of it will mean something completely different from what it the lord actually intends for it to mean to you.  somethings are literal and have literal meanings.  others are meant to be spiritual and may mean something other than what they are literally saying.


----------



## FESTUSHAGGIN (Aug 2, 2005)

RThomas said:
			
		

> most scholars agree that this passage refers only to revelation, not the entire bible.  The bible did not exist as a complete work until nearly two centuries after revelation was written.
> It is also likely that some of the other books of the new testament were composed AFTER revelation was written.



If you want your faith and understanding to be based on something that a scholar said to you thats fine by me.  but my god lets me understand things and the way i see it is that that book was not compiled all at the same time.  but he has a plan and an order for everything.  i believe he lead all of those men who wrote the various books.  man may have penned the words in the bible but no man wrote it.  everything in that book was sent down from GOD ALMIGHTY he is an unchanging God and he knows all.  when John wrote the book of revelation it was sent to him through the channels of the lord.  he saw what he saw right down to the very last thing because he was granted that opportunity by th lord.  and i dont care how many SCHOLARS try to break down analize and interpret the word of my god.  i get my understanding from him the same way john and mark and peter and luke and Moses and Abraham and any other man in the Bible.  by faith and prayer.  yall people can believe what you want to and if you depend on someone else to lay things out before you to simply understand then may God have mercy on you.  i believe what i believe with the utmost of faith and ill carry it right down to my grave.  it wouldnt matter if all the bibles in the world burnt to ashes.  my lord will provide the word for me.  sorry for the long winded post but this is something i am pasionate about and no matter how long the discussion i will always stick to my guns on this issue even if it meant giving my life for it.  i love my family and i love my life but i love my lord and master even more. for every thing i have belongs to him any way hes just lettin me borrow it for a while.  so if i had to give it all up to serve him i would gladly lay it all down including my family.  i didnt get any of that understanding and faith because somebody told me thats how i should be.  thats how the lord wants me to be.


----------



## RThomas (Aug 2, 2005)

> It is truly amazing how so many Christians have bought into this lie without ever checking to see WHAT these manuscripts are, WHERE they came from, and WHO wrote them.


This is the one thing that I do agree with.  Research it for yourself.


----------



## Dudley Do-Wrong (Aug 2, 2005)

If ya'll don't mind me chimming in, I'd like to offer my worthless 2 cents.

First, I believe if one person thinks any part of the Bible says one thing, and another person thinks that same part says something else (meanings in contradiction), somebody's wrong!!!  The Word of God cannot stand in contradiction of itself.  What I think differs is putting it into application.  I may be struggling in one area of my life whereas another person isn't, therefore the application is somewhat different.  A verse or verses may have numerous applications which all should follow the same direction.  I have reread verses and sometimes it's meaning expands but the expansion is upon the original thought.  I believe this goes along with what Festus is saying; I believe as well that as one grows as a Christian, God reveals these expanded applications and meanings of His word.


----------



## FESTUSHAGGIN (Aug 2, 2005)

David Mills said:
			
		

> If ya'll don't mind me chimming in, I'd like to offer my worthless 2 cents.
> 
> First, I believe if one person thinks any part of the Bible says one thing, and another person thinks that same part says something else (meanings in contradiction), somebody's wrong!!!  The Word of God cannot stand in contradiction of itself.  .


when i posted what i said about it meaning something different i may have worded that wrong and i just want to clear that up.  my mind was typing the end of my post before i even got started.  what i meant by that was if you read the bible word for word it can mean different thngs to peoples perception.  you have to read it and study on it and by study i mean by referencing and prayer.  only then can you get the true meaning of gods word.  when i said what i said i was directing it to phils and rthomas saying that the last verse of revelation were meaning only the book of revelation.  if you read it literally it very well could be looked at in that way.  but thast not what i get out of it.


----------



## Throwback (Aug 2, 2005)

Both. I like them both. I read the NIV normally. Some "modern" improvements, like "The message" are genrealizations, it seems. My preacher read out of "the message" version one day and it was way off from the NIV and I'm sure the KJV. 


T


----------



## FESTUSHAGGIN (Aug 2, 2005)

Flash i appreciate you postin that.  i enjoyed that.


----------



## Branchminnow (Aug 2, 2005)

GeauxLSU said:
			
		

> Festus,
> But that's in all versions.
> Also, is it referring to JUST the book of Revelations?  After all, it says the PROPHECY of THIS book.....


Are we now to beleive that phil now knows the mind of God?


----------



## Branchminnow (Aug 2, 2005)

RThomas said:
			
		

> blindhog,
> 
> Most newer texts have added passages that are not contained in the oldest known text.  The older the text, the more likely that it was truer to the original texts.  Older texts have been discovered since the writing of the KJV.
> 
> ...


Do you not beleive God had Foresight?


----------



## Throwback (Aug 2, 2005)

So will someone go to hades for NOT using the King James Version?

T


----------



## RThomas (Aug 2, 2005)

Festus,
I respect what you believe and you are obviously very passionate about your beliefs.
I believe, however, that the only way to understand the bible is to know the context in which it was written and to understand its history.
Some rely on faith, others scholarship, and some a mixture of both.  To each his own.
The point is, if I were to have to choose the most accurate translation, the KJV would not be my first choice.  However, I understand why you and others prefer the KJV over others.


----------



## GeauxLSU (Aug 2, 2005)

Branchminnow said:
			
		

> Are we now to beleive that phil now knows the mind of God?


    I don't even know my OWN mind!    
Just asking probably the most common question when that verse is quoted in this context.  It specifically addresses PROPHECY and THIS book and was obviously written before the Bible was compiled.  Reasonable question.  No?


----------



## GeauxLSU (Aug 2, 2005)

Throwback said:
			
		

> So will someone go to hades for NOT using the King James Version?
> 
> T


It appears.


----------



## FESTUSHAGGIN (Aug 2, 2005)

Throwback said:
			
		

> So will someone go to hades for NOT using the King James Version?
> 
> T


the only way you can go to hades is if you have not been saved by the grace of god.  the bibe doesnt save people.  its just a compilation of words.  unbelief in the lord god almighty will send you to hades.


----------



## Throwback (Aug 2, 2005)

FESTUSHAGGIN said:
			
		

> the only way you can go to hades is if you have not been saved by the grace of god.  the bibe doesnt save people.  its just a compilation of words.  unbelief in the lord god almighty will send you to hades.



Just checking!!   


T


----------



## Branchminnow (Aug 2, 2005)

RThomas said:
			
		

> blindhog,
> 
> Actually festus,  most scholars agree that this passage refers only to revelation, not the entire bible.  The bible did not exist as a complete work until nearly two centuries after revelation was written.
> It is also likely that some of the other books of the new testament were composed AFTER revelation was written.


And still another who knows the mind of God and What John saw.

Most of Revalation has already happened .


----------



## Branchminnow (Aug 2, 2005)

GeauxLSU said:
			
		

> I don't even know my OWN mind!
> Just asking probably the most common question when that verse is quoted in this context.  It specifically addresses PROPHECY and THIS book and was obviously written before the Bible was compiled.  Reasonable question.  No?


Obviously you are correct about the date and time but if you will my faith lets me know that John the Revelator saw it all and saw the compilation that is what we know as the KJV.


----------



## Branchminnow (Aug 2, 2005)

GeauxLSU said:
			
		

> It appears.


Absolutly wrong if you have been saved by the grace of God then you will get there same as me.

Doesnot even matter what religion you are as long as you have salvation.


----------



## Throwback (Aug 2, 2005)

Branchminnow said:
			
		

> Obviously you are correct about the date and time but if you will my faith lets me know that John the Revelator saw it all and saw the compilation that is what we know as the KJV.



What about the people that don't speak english? What about the folks born before the KJV?

T


----------



## Dudley Do-Wrong (Aug 2, 2005)

I need to ask a question, and I’m trying to recall some history that’s stored somewhere in my few remaining brain cells.

I think it has been clearly established that there were English versions of the Bible before the KJV, I believe that’s historical fact; any arguments?  Now, it seems to me that I remember, and perhaps it has been mentioned here, that when King James commissioned for the KJV, that the commissioned scholars used the most original manuscripts available to produce the KJV Bible, true?

What are the most original manuscripts?  The Dead Sea scrolls?  The Dead Sea scrolls contain only Old Testament Texts, none complete.  I believe the most complete was the book of Isaiah which to my understanding, after translation, matches today’s scripts nearly word for word  I say today’s scripts because I don’t remember what they are comparing it to, I believe it is Jewish scripts used in Israel today (whatever they are called).

Forgive me, I am trying to recall all this from memory but I believe I am fairly accurate on this.


----------



## RThomas (Aug 2, 2005)

> Do you not beleive God had Foresight?


Revelation was a separate work.  To the people who were reading it as such, it would clearly only apply to the book of revelation, and not the entire bible (as it didn't exist at the time)


> And still another who knows the mind of God and What John saw.


And you as well by stating that you believe the passage refers to the entire bible.  This claim could be made about anyone who has a belief or opinion concerning the bible.


> Most of Revalation has already happened .


Yep.  Though, we probably believe differently.


----------



## Mechanicaldawg (Aug 2, 2005)

The link below should be of great interst to this conversation.

William Tyndale


----------



## Branchminnow (Aug 2, 2005)

Ok Ok please dont anybody get me wrong. I will say this to you all I beleive what I beleive because it is in my heart and it will stay there, I have already gone against my own "pet peve" if you will and started arguing the Bible I will now stop. 

I will make this statement one more time If you beleive in that Jesus Christ came and died on the cross for our sins in your heart then Ill get to see you one day after awhile


God do bless you all.

Greg


----------



## RThomas (Aug 2, 2005)

The below link is to a great article concerning the writing of the KJV and some of the problems that the authors had to deal with.  It is fairly long, but very interesting.
http://journalofbiblicalstudies.org...slation_Problems_in_the_KJV_New_Testament.doc.


----------



## FESTUSHAGGIN (Aug 2, 2005)

I would just like to say that i have said my piece and i am done.  i dont want this discussion to get out of hand and i know that i have control enough over myself that it wouldnt.  but i dont know how some of yall feel.  as it has probably been revealed to all of you i am very hard headed.  and i believe what i believe its just the way i was brought up.  but i believe that this discussion has the chance to eventually do more harm than good.  my only goal in life is to serve my lord and hopefully live that i may lead lost souls to him.  and i cant do that if i am getting involved in an argument about his teachings.  i believe what i believe and you believe what you believe.  as long as you are at peace with the lord on how you live your life then may god bless you.  if not i suggest you get some calouses on yer knees.  if my path ever leads me any where other than in the lords work i would ask that he call me on out of here because i am no good anymore.  may god bless all of you.


----------



## dutchman (Aug 2, 2005)

I agree with the sentiment that this thread has the potential to get out of hand. I hope that nobody here has been offended by what I have had to say (type) regarding my opinions. If so, I offer my apology.

But we have more important things to do than to slap each other around regading which translation of God's Word we prefer or think is the "true" translation. There may be lost people reading our words and thinking to themselves, 'If that's what being a Christian person is all about, count me out.'

Again, if I have offended with my opinions here, I am truly sorry.


----------



## GeauxLSU (Aug 2, 2005)

*That's all I'm saying....*



			
				Branchminnow said:
			
		

> I will make this statement one more time If you beleive in that Jesus Christ came and died on the cross for our sins in your heart then Ill get to see you one day after awhile


I'm glad our list of requirements is equally short.


----------



## Branchminnow (Aug 2, 2005)

dutchman said:
			
		

> There may be lost people reading our words and thinking to themselves, 'If that's what being a Christian person is all about, count me out.'


That is excactly what I thought about and is why I said what I did I do think all have an equal chance of getting to heaven.









And I thank you flash for the post you made.







Glad to hear we agree Phil.


----------



## PWalls (Aug 3, 2005)

GeauxLSU said:
			
		

> I'm glad our list of requirements is equally short.



I'm even more glad that is all that is required by our Lord to get to Heaven.


Oh, and just to throw my $0.02 in since I have been outta town the last few days, I do like and think that the KJV is a better translation, but I do use concordances, study bibles and other versions sometimes to help me gain a better understanding of some passages. Although, prayer is by far the first, best and last authority on the Bible and its knowledge.


----------

