|
Post by 2fw8212a on Jul 2, 2018 6:33:14 GMT -5
Well, after reading this post from our sister tlsitd ... I decided to create a topic about this.
Some translations, especially English translations, omits very important information that will potentially discourage people to walk according to the will of God.
They may seem innocent omissions at first glance, but if you think about it...
I will talk about these two... But there may be much more:
1 Corinthians 6:20
KJV: -- For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.
NKJV: -- For you were bought at a price; therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God's.
NASB: -- For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body.
ESV: -- for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.
Potentially harmful discussions that may arise from this are:
-- I should glorify God in body only, not in spirit as you claim... Meaning I can walk according to any spirit but I have to glorify Him in my body, I will follow the word.
"But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him." - John 4:23
"Therefore, having these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God." - 2 Corinthians 7:1
"And everyone who has this hope in Him purifies himself, just as He is pure." - 1 John 3:3
Romans 8:1
KJV: -- There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
NKJV: -- There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.
NASB: -- Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
ESV: -- There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
Potentially harmful discussions that may arise from this are:
-- I am in Christ Jesus already, no matter how I walk, live, there is no condemnation for me as I am in Christ Jesus...
-- Then I will just follow my flesh and do whatever is right in my own eyes, I am in Christ Jesus.
"Trust in the Lord with all your heart, And lean not on your own understanding;" - Proverbs 3:5
"nor let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed by serpents;" - 1 Corinthians 10:9
"And those who are Christ's have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires." - Galatians 5:24
"as obedient children, not conforming yourselves to the former lusts, as in your ignorance;" - 1 Peter 1:14
"Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God." - 1 Corinthians 10:31
Now, I want to hear your opinions on this... If you know of more omissions, please tell us.
God bless you all in Jesus' name!
|
|
|
Post by Sister on Jul 2, 2018 8:24:16 GMT -5
1 John 5:7
King James Bible For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
New International Version For there are three that testify:
New Living Translation So we have these three witnesses--
English Standard Version For there are three that testify:
New American Standard Bible For there are three that testify:
Next verse 1 John 5:8
King James Bible And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
New International Version the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.
New Living Translation the Spirit, the water, and the blood--and all three agree.
English Standard Version the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree.
New American Standard Bible the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.
The focus of the scripture in 1John 5:7 is that there are three bearing record in heaven (the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost) and these three are one.....Newer versions show only three that testify or bear witness but not where? Neither do they state that the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost are one? Strange because this is an important factor.
1John 5:8 shows three bearing witness on earth. (the Spirit, the water, and the blood)...and these agree as one.... but newer versions don't mention where these three bear witness? only that these three agree.
|
|
|
Post by John on Jul 2, 2018 8:38:38 GMT -5
Not only do they remove portions of the text, but they discredit things they include, like Mark 16:9-20. It was because of this I became KJV only.
|
|
|
Post by tlsitd on Jul 2, 2018 10:36:39 GMT -5
Well, after reading this post from our sister tlsitd ... I decided to create a topic about this.
Some translations, especially English translations, omits very important information that will potentially discourage people to walk according to the will of God.
They may seem innocent omissions at first glance, but if you think about it...
I will talk about these two... But there may be much more:
1 Corinthians 6:20
KJV: -- For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.
NKJV: -- For you were bought at a price; therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God's.
NASB: -- For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body.
ESV: -- for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.
Potentially harmful discussions that may arise from this are:
-- I should glorify God in body only, not in spirit as you claim... Meaning I can walk according to any spirit but I have to glorify Him in my body, I will follow the word.
"But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him." - John 4:23
"Therefore, having these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God." - 2 Corinthians 7:1
"And everyone who has this hope in Him purifies himself, just as He is pure." - 1 John 3:3
Romans 8:1
KJV: -- There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
NKJV: -- There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.
NASB: -- Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
ESV: -- There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
Potentially harmful discussions that may arise from this are:
-- I am in Christ Jesus already, no matter how I walk, live, there is no condemnation for me as I am in Christ Jesus...
-- Then I will just follow my flesh and do whatever is right in my own eyes, I am in Christ Jesus.
"Trust in the Lord with all your heart, And lean not on your own understanding;" - Proverbs 3:5
"nor let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed by serpents;" - 1 Corinthians 10:9
"And those who are Christ's have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires." - Galatians 5:24
"as obedient children, not conforming yourselves to the former lusts, as in your ignorance;" - 1 Peter 1:14
"Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God." - 1 Corinthians 10:31
Now, I want to hear your opinions on this... If you know of more omissions, please tell us.
God bless you all in Jesus' name! Two things, 2f:
Some of the things that the KJV includes may actually be additions that were made due to human error (like accidentally including scribal notes that shouldn't have been added to the original text, or adding things that weren't in the original Greek or Hebrew manuscripts but were added later because they were desired to be there, a chief example being the so-called "comma johanneum" (1 John 5:7-8)). Some of the things that people believe were omitted from newer Bible translations were not included in them because they weren't found in the majority of the earliest manuscripts from which the newer Bibles are translated.
So the question becomes, are the so-called "omissions" actually corrections of things that were included in the King James translation by mistake on the part of the translators, (or because the translators of the texts that were used for the KJ translation, as they were for earlier Bible translations, believed that those things should be included in places that they were not included in the Greek or Hebrew manuscripts), or is the King James translation the perfect standard by which all subsequent translations should be measured, such that anything that is found in the King James translation is certainly correct and supposed to be there, and any translation that doesn't use the same words or that omits some words or passages has therefore been deliberately corrupted?
Much is made about taking things that should be there away from the Bible, but equal scrutiny should be applied to the addition of things that shouldn't actually be there. Because there are no perfect translations of the original Greek or Hebrew autographs of Scripture, (although some Bible translations, based on translations and copies of those original autographs, are better than others), quibbling over the matter is really a waste of time. The KJV translators did the best they could with the manuscripts they had available to them at the time. There's no objective support for the claim that the Textus Receptus (and there was more than one) was the very best manuscript, in terms of being the truest to the original autographs. It was just the manuscript the KJV translators had to work from, and they did the best they could with that.
As copies of the Greek manuscripts were made, copied by hand by scribes, prior to the creation of the KJV, notes were made, things may have been added to make the text more clear or to suit the ones doing the translating, in minor ways, for various reasons---if they thought a certain verse should read a certain way because similar verses in another gospel read that way, for example. So what the KJV translators were using for the KJV was not a 'pure' manuscript in the sense that it was identical or equal to the original autographs, which had been copied and recopied many times over and by many people by the 17th century. It was just the manuscript they had to work with.
(And if I'm not mistaken, the so-called "Textus Receptus" was compiled by a Roman Catholic priest by the name of Erasmus, and it was dedicated to Pope Leo X. If who translates a text determines its credibility, shouldn't the Textus Receptus be scrutinized on account of the one who compiled it and his affiliations and loyalties, as KJV-only advocates suggest about the translators of translations based on other manuscripts? I don't think much is made about Erasmus being a Roman Catholic priest, but it is his work on which the KJV translators based their work. That doesn't mean that the KJV is 'corrupt' for that reason, only that it is not a perfect translation that perfectly reflects the original autographs of Scripture, which no translation based on the many copies and translations of those original autographs does.)
So when we read verses like Romans 8:1, if we are using the KJV as the perfect standard for all Bible translations, based on the faulty assumption/belief that it contains no errors---rather than using the manuscripts that we believe to be the most accurate, whether based on their age (and thus their closeness to the time at which the original autographs were written) or because they constitute the majority text (in other words, the majority of manuscripts read in a certain way, and far fewer read in a slightly different way), we can only conclude that modern Bible translations have been 'tampered' with, to take away from the words of God.
However, if we are using the ancient manuscripts as our measure of what is truest to the original autographs, based on their age and their abundance and their agreement with each other, then we can conclude that the KJV has things added to it that shouldn't be there, according to these manuscripts, or translated according to the translators' best guesses, based on the manuscripts they had available to them, or because of who they were commissioned by (King James, in the case of the KJV) and the desires or specifications of the one who commissioned them, to some degree.
The good thing about the Bible is that even though various verses may be translated differently in different translations, and even though verses or words may be included in one translation but not in another, the Scriptures, taken as a whole, explain themselves and agree with each other. In other words, you'll get the teaching even if you don't have a verse in one place, because the rest of the Scriptures will explain what may not be clearly explained or included in one verse. Using Roman's 8:1 for an example, there's no way you can get through the whole New Testament and come away concluding that those who are in Christ Jesus, yet choose to walk according to the flesh, rather than according to the Spirit, will not be condemned, because your translation of the Bible doesn't include: who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. Whether that part of the verse was not included in the majority of the earliest Greek manuscripts and was added later by someone as those Greek manuscripts were copied, either as a scribal note or for some other reason, and the error or inconsistency was later discovered and corrected, it's not essential to understanding this teaching of the Scriptures, which you will most certainly understand by reading the rest of the NT.
So some questions to ask yourself are:
Was the word or verse in question included in the majority of the earliest manuscripts, or was it a later addition? (Was something that should be there actually omitted, or was something that shouldn't have been there appropriately corrected and removed, based on improved understanding of the original language and a larger collection of manuscripts to work from than those that the KJV translators had to work with?)
Is the King James Translation the standard of perfection, without any error whatsoever, by which all other translations are to be judged and deemed acceptable or damnable, or should we base our judgment on what the majority of the earliest manuscripts read?
Did the translators of the KJV claim that their translation was perfect? Did God declare this translation to be? (If not, why is this assertion considered to be anything other than a conviction of personal faith or a matter of personal preference on the part of some Christians?)
This is why I like to use several translations when I read the Bible. I don't see them as competing with one another, but as complementing one another, with one having a better translation in one place, and other in another place, with one providing the clarity that another does not. They all teach the same things, just in slightly different wording, and with some having more words than others. It is the overall teaching that I focus on, not just a verse here or there.
We're very blessed to live in a time when we not only have a complete Bible (which many generations of Christians before us did not have), but also several translations of it, and in different languages.
Of course we should use God-given discernment in what translations we choose to use (some of them are perverse, or even blasphemous), but with that discernment applied, there's no reason to doubt or shun a particular translation just because it doesn't read like another.
Bickering over Bible translations is an unnecessarily divisive waste of time. Examine a person's doctrine, rather than what Bible translation they use. If his or her doctrine is sound, God is using whatever translation he or she is using to teach him or her just as He is using the one you yourself use to teach you. Let's not make rules out of matters of personal faith, or go beyond God's authority to make assertions about things which He Himself has not stated.
Some errors in the King James Translation: (This is not to bash the KJV, but to answer your concern about Bible translations that omit things that are found in the KJV, as stated in your original post.)
Unicorns. (Numbers 23:22; 24:8. Deuteronomy 33:17. Job 39:9; 39:10. Psalms 22:21; 29:6; 92:10. Isaiah 34:7.) The English Standard Version and the New American Standard Bible translate this animal as "wild ox".
Satyrs and dragons. (Isaiah 13:21. 34:13,14.) The NASB and the ESV translate these animals as "goats", "ostriches" (or "owls"), and "night monster".
The ESV gives this footnote concerning the translations of the names of various kinds of animals in Isaiah and other Hebrew Scriptures: Identity uncertain, or The identity of the animals rendered (this or that) is uncertain---because the meaning of the original Hebrew words was unclear. I think that's honest, and it's more acceptable to me than translations of unknown animals as mythological creatures like satyrs, unicorns, and dragons. Not that I believe that dragons never existed (I believe that the Leviathan was some kind of fire-breathing sea monster), I'm just not convinced that that is actually what the original Hebrew word meant in these particular places. I don't think the KJV translators knew what the Hebrew words meant, so they guessed, rather than putting "Exact Identity Unknown". Satyrs are creatures from Greek mythology, and I don't believe that that was what the original Hebrew word actually meant.
Easter. (Acts 12:4) The ESV and the NASB translate this word as "Passover".
People can argue about these examples if they want to, in order to prove that the King James translation is the only perfect translation of the original autographs of Scripture (which no translation today is, since those original autographs are long gone and all we have are copies of them), but if you have a premise based on a steadfast belief in something, even if that belief is flawed, you'll fight to support that premise and to defend that belief no matter what evidence or legitimate arguments are presented that contradict your belief. (The theory of evolution is like this. All evidence to the contrary is opposed, hidden, or dismissed by people who embrace this theory as indisputable fact, when it's really a matter of 'faith' for them.)
It's not my intention to try to persuade Christians for whom this is a matter of personal faith that they should give up using the KJV only if that's the translation they believe God wants them to use. But it is my intention to point out to them and to others, that their belief is exactly that---a personal belief, and not fact. They should not be promoting as fact something that is not fact, or claiming that God did something with the King James Bible and its translators that neither He nor they claim that He did.
I suggest we put the matter aside and move on to more important issues, concerning ourselves with Christian doctrine, and the keeping of that doctrine, rather than debating over what translation of the Bible to use. The last thing Christians need is more quarrels over trivial and disputable matters. The Body of Christ is fractured and distracted enough by such things, and His soldiers are more preoccupied with fighting with each other than they are with contending for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints, as it is being attacked and sabotaged from every side and with every strategy by our spiritual adversaries---who are more cunning than most of us are wise and discerning, (to our shame).
|
|
PG4Him
Senior Member
Essay Moderator
Posts: 3,570
|
Post by PG4Him on Jul 2, 2018 11:03:13 GMT -5
I suggest we put the matter aside and move on to more important issues, concerning ourselves with Christian doctrine, and the keeping of that doctrine, rather than debating over what translation of the Bible to use. The last thing Christians need is more quarrels over trivial and disputable matters. The Body of Christ is fractured and distracted enough by such things, and His soldiers are more preoccupied with fighting with each other than they are with contending for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints, as it is being attacked and sabotaged from every side and with every strategy by our spiritual adversaries---who are more cunning than most of us are wise and discerning, (to our shame). ^^^^ This.
|
|
|
Post by 2fw8212a on Jul 2, 2018 11:16:19 GMT -5
or is the King James translation the perfect standard by which all subsequent translations should be measured, such that anything that is found in the King James translation is certainly correct and supposed to be there, and any translation that doesn't use the same words or that omits some words or passages has therefore been deliberately corrupted? Is the King James Translation the standard of perfection, without any error whatsoever, by which all other translations are to be judged and deemed acceptable or damnable, or should we base our judgment on what the majority of the earliest manuscripts read?
I am not exalting or recommending any Bible translation over the other...
But when a Spiritual truth is omitted just for the sake of possibly being closer to the "original", it is something to be aware of.
I do not read the KJV, I know very little about it...
KJV is only important in English speaking countries, the most trusted translation in my country has nothing to do with KJV as far as I know.
And they still are very close to the other. Just that.
And newer updates of that same translation also excluded texts. For what reason?! God knows.
And they seem to be working hard to promote those updated versions, and condemn the older translations as being "inaccurate".
And soon, the older translations will become obsolete here as well... And I can say that such practice is completely unnecessary.
Really, why?!
When you talk to me, I do not care what Bible translation you use... But if you ask me, I cannot recommend you many of the newer translations.
It is true that people can get to the knowledge of the truth by reading those bibles... But I will never agree of omitting important parts like that.
Thank you for taking your time to write a very long post. Appreciated!
God bless you in Jesus' name!
|
|
|
Post by tlsitd on Jul 2, 2018 11:37:25 GMT -5
Now think about this, brothers and sisters:
On the Day of Judgment, do you think Jesus Christ is going to care whether you used the King James translation, or the English Standard, or the American Standard, or the New International, or is He going to be concerned with whether you knew what He taught and wanted of you and obeyed it and did it?
Is He going to be more concerned about the translation of His word that you used than whether you genuinely loved your brothers and sisters who didn't use the translation you used or share your beliefs about it, and how you treated them?
Is He going to be more concerned about the translation of the Bible you taught and preached from, or whether what you taught or preached was correct, (and whether you practiced what you preached)?
Will He praise you for putting a disputable matter of personal faith before pursuing the things that make for peace and the building up of one another (Romans 14:19)?
Will He rebuke you for straining a gnat and swallowing a camel, as He did the scribes and the Pharisees, because of your emphasis on using a particular translation of the Bible above the things that He emphasizes in the New Testament? (Matthew 23:23,24)
If your brother or sister in Christ, who loves Him and desires to do what pleases Him as much as you do, is grieved by your dogmatism about a matter of personal faith that he or she does not share, does the Lord approve, or is He Himself grieved? (Matthew 25:40)
I recommend re-reading the fourteenth chapter of Romans and Romans 15:1-7, and Galatians 5:14-26, that you not be outwitted by the demons or tempted by the flesh into making a good thing that God intended to be used for building up (His written word), and for battling our spiritual adversaries, into a tool for destroying and a weapon for battling with your own brothers and fellow soldiers.
Unless someone's doctrine, conduct or attitude is crooked, you have no reason to find fault with them. (Or do you think Jesus thinks otherwise?) And if those 3 things are right---true to and consistent with the doctrine of the faith and the fruit of the Spirit of Christ---it makes no difference what translation of God's word they are using.
Who are you to judge the servant of another?
|
|
|
Post by frienduff on Jul 2, 2018 11:49:24 GMT -5
The doctrine from which we feed is of dire importance . What we should be asking ourselves IS , WHY were these changes even made n the first place . WHY were such changes and omittngs even made . Therefore if it is in any mans conscious and he sees the dangers , Not only can he warn, HE MUST WARN . HE MUST. What we need to do is understand that deeply . We cant be like the wordly ones , who just go along with some changes , thinking its not big deal. WHEN IN FACT IT IS a big deal . Its huge to omit SOME of the things they did . Leaven , error, inquity , IT ALWAYS starts small, AND IF ITS LEFT unchecked , IT , not might , not maybe , BUT WILL LEAVEN THE WHOLE LUMP. THUS actions must be corrected asap . SO must doctrine . THEIR IS a reason that these changes were made . AND THE REASON is a very wicked one . Small changes , ALLOWED and led for BIGGER changes in MINDSETS about the image of WHO GOD REALLY IS . and its just gotten far worse now . The attack was on the foundation . Start changing the foundation , start changing that , AND IT LEADS to a whole other concept of WHO GOD IS . WHY do we think we got so many that no longer even believe in damanation , they follow OSAS , they follow blindly changed concepts . And when the TRUTH contradicted mens opinions , YOU KNOW WHAT THEY DID , MADE NEW BIBLES with certain things OMITTIED and they cried, ALAS we are wise , these earlier men made errors . NO the earlier MEN DID NOT . THAT IS THE LIE and we cannot BUY THE LIE . THE LIE which leads to a whole other image OF WHO GOD IS and how our WALK should be . WE MUST contend for the true faith . And we must feed from a pure source .
|
|
|
Post by frienduff on Jul 2, 2018 11:59:43 GMT -5
ON the day of judgement all who are and will be cast out are cast out for they followed mans image OF WHO GOD , OF WHO JESUS , OF WHO THE SPIRIT IS . Men and women SIT UNDER what they love and desire . IF what they love and desire contradicts TRUTH . THEN HOW ON EARTH IS THE LOVE OF GOD , THE SPIRIT IN THEM . ITS NOT . ITS NOT . WE must continue it sharpen one another BY the SPIRIT , BY SOUND DOCTRINE . LOOK at what the overall idea has come too now . MANY got so confused under men , who taught things like they HAD the right understanding THEY had the right NEW bible . YET why do the newer versions contradict the OLDER ONE . or omit things . You know what that sets up the mind for , A BELIEF that no man ever really HAD the whole necessary rightly divided truth . IT sets up the people . More and more now believe NO VERSION of the bible or any bible is accurate . More and more are accepting such concepts . THIS IS THE WILL OF SATAN , to create confusion and doubt which will lead all to THE HIGHLY SCHOLARED MEN, WHO KNOW NOT CHRIST . and further and father into delusion , till the mind is ready for thefinal delusion for which the whole world will go under and worship the beast . How come I was just fine reading the kjv, WHY did GOD put me IN THAT BOOK . ITS ALL THE TRUTH we need . FROM pure doctrine , IS WHAT we test all men who teach against . IF men say no bible is accurate , THIS IS ONLY A FALL , its a snare , its deadly and its lethal . WE MUST feed on that bible . IT IS ACCURATE . WE got all we need , IF WE HAVE THE SPIRIT , to grow in grace and learn from that book . SOUND DOCTRINE sure was a huge NECESSITY on the early churches mind . SO IT MUST BE ON OURS TOO . FOR we can only find and have UNTIY with those OF THE TRUTH and the minds must be fed pure truth to build them up .
|
|
|
Post by tlsitd on Jul 2, 2018 12:30:27 GMT -5
or is the King James translation the perfect standard by which all subsequent translations should be measured, such that anything that is found in the King James translation is certainly correct and supposed to be there, and any translation that doesn't use the same words or that omits some words or passages has therefore been deliberately corrupted? Is the King James Translation the standard of perfection, without any error whatsoever, by which all other translations are to be judged and deemed acceptable or damnable, or should we base our judgment on what the majority of the earliest manuscripts read?
I am not exalting or recommending any Bible translation over the other...
But when a Spiritual truth is omitted just for the sake of possibly being closer to the "original", it is something to be aware of.
I do not read the KJV, I know very little about it...
KJV is only important in English speaking countries, the most trusted translation in my country has nothing to do with KJV as far as I know.
And they still are very close to the other. Just that.
And newer updates of that same translation also excluded texts. For what reason?! God knows.
And they seem to be working hard to promote those updated versions, and condemn the older translations as being "inaccurate".
And soon, the older translations will become obsolete here as well... And I can say that such practice is completely unnecessary.
Really, why?!
When you talk to me, I do not care what Bible translation you use... But if you ask me, I cannot recommend you many of the newer translations.
It is true that people can get to the knowledge of the truth by reading those bibles... But I will never agree of omitting important parts like that.
Thank you for taking your time to write a very long post. Appreciated!
God bless you in Jesus' name! I cannot speak about Bible translations that I have not read or do not know about. But as I wrote in my previous post, the reasons why something was included in the KJV is just as important as why that same thing was not included in later translations. Was it original to the majority of Greek manuscripts in circulation close to the time of the apostles, or was it not found in most of them, or even in any of them (like the comma johanneum)? If was not found in these, was it really ever God's word, or was it an editorial addition made by someone copying or translating some of the earlier texts, such as someone in the Byzantine church who wanted to make the Scriptures clearer or more complete according to his belief that such an addition would be appropriate? Was it a scribal note on a manuscript that was accidentally copied into the text by a subsequent copyist who mistook it for part of the original text, and later removed when the mistake was realized?
The argument that the KJV only proponents make is that later translations were deliberately tampered with or corrupted to remove the words of God from what they believe was a perfect translation (the KJV). That premise (the perfection of the KJV, and its Divine inspiration) is entirely man-made, and not God-given truth and an indisputable fact as they claim it to be (which is presumptuous to do, or at the very least misguided). No one is debating the fact that translations after the KJV don't contain everything that the KJV contains, but the debate concerns WHY they do not. And if you are starting with the premise and firm belief that the KJV is the perfect standard by which all later translations should be judged because it contains no errors (which, as I've stated before, and explained at length, is not true), then the only conclusion you can come to is that the newer translations are missing parts of God's word (rather than that the KJV includes some things that aren't in fact part of the majority of the earliest manuscripts, which were copied far fewer times than later ones.)
The point I was making in my first post was that just because something was included in the King James translation does not necessarily mean that what was included should have been. (The apocrypha, for example, were included in the original 1611 KJV, and I don't believe a one of the Bibles KJV 1611 only users use contains them. Why? Because they didn't belong there, so they were taken out. The comma johanneum is another example of something that was added to the Textus Receptus, which the KJV translators used for the KJV, which was not found in any original Greek manuscripts, and was probably a scribal note of explanation that was mistakenly copied into the original text.) And just because something that was included in the KJV is not included in a newer translation does not mean that it should be there. It really depends on why what was included in the KJV was included and what the source of it was, and why something that is not included in another translation is not included. And knowing that requires an objective investigation that I doubt most KJV-only believers have a mind to do, because for them it is an emotional matter and a matter of personal faith (and in some cases, probably even a matter of being accepted by their church or keeping their job and their credibility and approval in the eyes of other Christians), not a matter of reason based on objective examination of all of the facts (and not just selective facts or twisting of the facts). It's a waste of time to debate the matter with someone who is so convinced about the KJV; but I always have and always will regard such devotion to this translation as a matter of personal faith and preference, nothing more.
As for more and more Bible translations being produced every year, I haven't kept up with them, and don't really think they're necessary. We have enough good translations in English at least to get our doctrine from clearly and reliably without needing "New and Improved" Bibles every year that try to repackage the same product in some way that will make them sell. The abundance of Bible translations today has something to do with copyright laws and making money, not with some righteous quest to perfect a translation of the Bible. That's what I know about it. But, as I've said, I'm not familiar with those translations, and I'm very content to use the translations I use, which are doing just fine for my spirituality, as I hope yours is for you.
|
|
|
Post by tlsitd on Jul 2, 2018 12:33:32 GMT -5
(Just thought I'd repost this.)
Now think about this, brothers and sisters:
On the Day of Judgment, do you think Jesus Christ is going to care whether you used the King James translation, or the English Standard, or the American Standard, or the New International, or is He going to be concerned with whether you knew what He taught and wanted of you and obeyed it and did it?
Is He going to be more concerned about the translation of His word that you used than whether you genuinely loved your brothers and sisters who didn't use the translation you used or share your beliefs about it, and how you treated them?
Is He going to be more concerned about the translation of the Bible you taught and preached from, or whether what you taught or preached was correct, (and whether you practiced what you preached)?
Will He praise you for putting a disputable matter of personal faith before pursuing the things that make for peace and the building up of one another (Romans 14:19)?
Will He rebuke you for straining a gnat and swallowing a camel, as He did the scribes and the Pharisees, because of your emphasis on using a particular translation of the Bible above the things that He emphasizes in the New Testament? (Matthew 23:23,24)
If your brother or sister in Christ, who loves Him and desires to do what pleases Him as much as you do, is grieved by your dogmatism about a matter of personal faith that he or she does not share, does the Lord approve, or is He Himself grieved? (Matthew 25:40)
I recommend re-reading the fourteenth chapter of Romans and Romans 15:1-7, and Galatians 5:14-26, that you not be outwitted by the demons or tempted by the flesh into making a good thing that God intended to be used for building up (His written word), and for battling our spiritual adversaries, into a tool for destroying and a weapon for battling with your own brothers and fellow soldiers.
Unless someone's doctrine, conduct or attitude is crooked, you have no reason to find fault with them. (Or do you think Jesus thinks otherwise?) And if those 3 things are right---true to and consistent with the doctrine of the faith and the fruit of the Spirit of Christ---it makes no difference what translation of God's word they are using.
Who are you to judge the servant of another?
|
|
|
Post by John on Jul 2, 2018 13:00:55 GMT -5
It was asked how I think God will view this straining at a gnat? I believe the ones God will be upset with are those defending the removal of part of the established text in the canon. This so called correcting amounts to an open canon. There are portions of Biblical text men of God confidently took their sermon text from being reduced to apocrypha, like Mark 16:9-20.
Contrary to what defenders of modern translations say, with the exception of 1 John 5:7, the majority of manuscripts include what they are removing. What they have done is moved away from the trusted manuscripts and turned to manuscripts found in Egypt and Alexandria. They are touted as older because the parchment itself was older, having been preserved in caves. The text had portions missing, so they ignored the majority and used only those discoveries. If they were missing something from the canon, they left it out. The KJV translators added nothing. The older Geneva Bible agrees with it, including 1 John 5:7. It is only these new abominations that leave verses out. Satan is clearly behind this.
|
|
|
Post by 2fw8212a on Jul 2, 2018 13:07:17 GMT -5
the majority of manuscripts include what they are removing...
This proves nothing.
The majority are false prophets, the majority hates the truth, the majority is against God.
"Test all things; hold fast what is good." - 1 Thessalonians 5:21
And we were taught to hold fast to what is good... And it is exactly what is good that they are removing.
Just warning... People judge what is best for them.
|
|
|
Post by John on Jul 2, 2018 13:20:03 GMT -5
What it comes down to is whether or not you trust the Biblical canon is the Word of God. The people removing portions of the text claim the canon had text added to it, and they are correcting mistakes, thus they have opened a closed canon for scrutiny. What will be challenged next, John 3:16?
|
|
|
Post by tlsitd on Jul 2, 2018 15:22:12 GMT -5
What it comes down to is whether or not you trust the Biblical canon is the Word of God. The people removing portions of the text claim the canon had text added to it, and they are correcting mistakes, thus they have opened a closed canon for scrutiny. What will be challenged next, John 3:16?
No, brother, it comes down to whether you believe that the King James translation was the perfect translation of God's word. If it was, you should put the apocrypha back in there, like they were in the original 1611 KJV, and accept them all, and all that is in them, as the inspired and inerrant word of God.
If you don't believe the KJV has or ever had any mistakes, and that it is Divinely inspired like the original autographs were (which is a purely human invention not supported either by God anywhere in the Scriptures or by the translators of the KJV themselves), you've added something to Christian doctrine that isn't a part of it.
Every word of the original autographs of Scripture was indeed God breathed, and the translations made from the copies of those autographs are the word of God because they are based on those original autographs, but that doesn't make any of the translations perfect, only the doctrine that they contain.
It's crooked to call one translation of the Bible "The Canon" and paint any other translation as other than. That's way overstepping your authority---declaring one translation in one language to be the only legitimate and complete translation of God's word. You'll have to answer to Jesus Christ for stating as fact something that He has not stated as fact. (You'll never hear me touting any Bible translation that way. I wouldn't dare.)
I have complete confidence in the doctrine of God's word, but that does not mean that I believe that every word the human translators used in the KJV, or any other translation, was chosen by Divine inspiration and that their translation of His word is perfect. The only people I have heard claiming such things are Christians of the KJV-only persuasion, and they should not be making a translation of the Bible into something more than what it actually is.
It's bad enough to make such claims about a translation of the Bible without God's authority; even worse to make disagreements with those claims out to be not trusting the truthfulness, reliability and inerrancy of God's word, when it is really a disagreement with the claims that KJV-only advocates make about their preferred translation of God's word.
|
|