KJV Only...which one!

[JesusFan1]

I mentioned Proverbs 18:13 because you were not willing to click on the links to check out the points I made.

Did thre Holy Spirit inspire their translation decisions, in same way inspired the Bible ?

 

[JesusFan1]

The answer to your question (which is a good question) is complex and multifaceted. Bear in mind, we are talking about translations of the Greek and Hebrew text, not the texts themselves. And those who favor the KJV are also, inadvertently favoring the English language. Who is to say that a Spanish translation or a French translation is NOT the word of God? Should I tell my brothers and sisters living in Italy they don't have the word of God? Should we tell the Wycliff translators to give up and go home?

Where was the word of God before the coming of the TR and the Kjv then?

 

[JesusFan1]

I don't understand your objection. Was this a knee-jerk reaction to my statement concerning my experience? The subject of this discussion is the claim that modern translations can't be trusted. The argument is basically an attack on loyal, Christian men and women who serve the kingdom of God by making the Bible accessible to EVERYONE. In defense of such noble and glorious people, I make a statement concerning MY OWN experience translating the Bible. The best translations are those that convey the ideas found in the original writings, such that other brothers and sisters and even uncovered peoples of all nations can hear the gospel message. So please forgive me for my enthusiastic support of fellow brothers and sisters, know that Jesus said, "in the way you treat these you treat me."

Grace and Pease to you also.

Are not the Nas and esv and Nkjv just doing what the Kjv itself did, improve upon prior translations, and bringing them into the updated language of their times?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Excellent Evidence, once again. Appreciate so much those diligent Bible
students who "do their homework." Also shows me how "little I know."
Our "labor In The LORD is not in vain." Thanks again; will "add this" to
my own studies...

GRACE And Peace...

You are most welcome.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

No, that is not an implication of my view. My point is simply to say that whatever can be said of the KJV can be said of the ASV, NASB, NIV etc. From my perspective, Christian men and women of good will, did their best to be faithful to the Lord and the Holy Scriptures. Nonetheless, I am taking my cues from the apostle John who wrote,

These things I have written to you concerning those who are trying to deceive you. As for you, the anointing which you received from Him abides in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you; but as His anointing teaches you about all things, and is true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you abide in Him. 1 John 2:26-27

John let's us know that although men might come along to deceive us, we have the anointing that abides with us. In other words, even if it were true that a nefarious group of people came along and made a translation based on false teaching, the anointing would help us see through it. No one is going to lose their salvation because they purchased a bad translation.

I have a close Christian brother who is not KJB Only. So I don't believe that reading Modern Bibles is a salvation issue, but I do believe it can lead one to falling away from the faith in certain cases. I believe those young in the faith can fall away from the faith when attending Bible college when they learn of Textual Criticism or Modern Scholarship in that God's Word cannot be trusted and it is up to the scholars or scribes to fill in the gaps of what God said and did not say. So the scholar becomes the REAL authority and not the Word of God or the Bible. The Bible just become second fiddle or second place. The Bible then becomes a.... Choose Your Own Adventure Bible and you get to pick and choose what parts to believe or not believe in because not all bibles say exactly the same thing. But God is not the author of confusion. God has made His Words known and we don't have to piece them together with a bunch of scholars (Who still have not figured out God's words yet exactly). 70% Christians fall away from the faith when they attend Bible college and I believe this is because of Modern Scholarship that they learn at Bible college that gets them to doubt God's words. It's why all the footnotes are in Modern bibles getting the reader to doubt whole sections of Scripture.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

No, that is not an implication of my view. My point is simply to say that whatever can be said of the KJV can be said of the ASV, NASB, NIV etc. From my perspective, Christian men and women of good will, did their best to be faithful to the Lord and the Holy Scriptures. Nonetheless, I am taking my cues from the apostle John who wrote,

These things I have written to you concerning those who are trying to deceive you. As for you, the anointing which you received from Him abides in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you; but as His anointing teaches you about all things, and is true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you abide in Him. 1 John 2:26-27

John let's us know that although men might come along to deceive us, we have the anointing that abides with us. In other words, even if it were true that a nefarious group of people came along and made a translation based on false teaching, the anointing would help us see through it. No one is going to lose their salvation because they purchased a bad translation.

As for the Anointing: Well, the Holy Spirit is given to those who obey Him.

“And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.” (Acts of the Apostles 5:32).

So how can one obey if commands are changed in their Bible?

A List of Commands Changed in God's Word:
(Between the KJB and Modern Translations):

#1. One Aspect of the Great Commission Command Is Changed.
As a part of the great commission: Matthew 28:19 in the Modern Translations slightly alters the command of Jesus to say: “make disciples.” The original words in Matthew 28:19 in the KJV say: “teach all nations,” and not “make disciples. ” We cannot make disciples. Only God can truly do that. For one person plants, another person waters, but it is God that gives the increase (See: 1 Corinthians 3:6). We cannot force a person to be a disciple. We cannot truly mold and make a disciple. It is God who works upon the hearts of men to follow Him. We simply teach (i.e. we plant and water) but it is God that gives the increase.

#2. The Details of the Command of The True Way To Test a Spirit of Antichrist is Changed:
The command says, “Believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God” (1 John 4:1); Many of your Modern Translations fail the details of this test that is explained in verse 3. The KJV says “every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist,” but Modern Translations do not say this. Therefore, they fail to pass this test by not admitting this truth. Why is admitting that Jesus is come in the flesh important? Because it is about the Incarnation. Can a person deny the Incarnation of Jesus Christ and be of God? Modern Translations water down the Incarnation in 1 Timothy 3:16, as well. The King James correctly says "God was manifest in the flesh," and yet the watered down version bibles say "He was manifested in the flesh." Here again, many Modern Translations fail the test of how we check to see if a spirit is of the spirit of Antichrist or not by denying how God was manifest in the flesh (i.e. a denial of the Incarnation). How does this affect us? Well, if I wanted to show forth the truth to a person who denied the Incarnation, my battle would be severely crippled if I had a Modern Translation. Also, if Rick ran into a false spirit claiming to be Jesus, then Rick could test this spirit with the proper test from 1 John 4:3 in the KJV. But if Rick was a Modern Translations fan and he hated the KJV, he could potentially be deceived because he did not have the proper test.

#3. The Command To Study God's Word To Show Yourself Approved Unto God is Changed:
2 Timothy 2:15 says, "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." Modern Translations are confusing on this point and they say "work hard to present yourself approved unto God." The context is rightly dividing the Word of truth (Scripture). Why is this important? Well, we are living in the last days where men of God are questioning the Bible, or they are looking to something extra in addition to the Bible (like visions, dreams, revelations, prophecies, other holy books, etc.). God's people are destroyed for lack of knowledge (Hosea 4:6).

#4. The Command To Not Exercise Authority Like the Gentiles Do is Subtly Altered.
The Command:
“It shall not be so among you:”
"let him be your minister"
"let him be your servant.”

Matthew 20:25-27 says, “You know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant.”
Matthew 10:27 correctly says in the King James “whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant.” Modern Translations say, “and whoever would be first among you must be your slave,” Okay. There is a big difference between a ”servant” and a “slave.” One is obligated to do servitude and the other is a servant by choice. I can imagine how this verse could be misused by certain Christian cults, or really bad people, etc.; How is this possible? Because they would be using a Modern Translation as the basis for their authority and not the King James.

#5. The Command “Do violence To No Man” in Luke 3:14 is Changed.
The King James Bible correctly says “Do violence to no man” in Luke 3:14. Yet, Modern Translations say, ““Do not extort money from anyone…”; The Bible already covers the topic of extortioners and how we are not to have fellowship with any brother who is an extortioner (1 Corinthians 5:9-11), for extortioners will not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:9-10). It is no surprise that when I bring up the teaching of Non Resistance to a Christian today, they are appalled by the idea. I believe this is because most of them (not all) are reading from a Modern Translation, and or they are influenced by their experience in the army, or their use of physical combat, etc.

Bonus: A Doctrine That Relates to the Lord’s Commands is Changed:

#1. A Doctrine on the Lord’s Commands in 1 Corinthians 14:37 is Subtly Altered.
In the King James it is correctly stated, “If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.” (1 Corinthians 14:37) (KJV). The King James Bible says “commandments” plural, and Modern Translation Bibles say “commandment” as in reference to a singular command. The Modern Translations are erroneously suggesting that Paul’s most recent discussion is a command of the Lord here when in reality the truth (according to the KJV) is that all of Paul’s writings should be regarded as the commandments (plural) of the Lord (and not just one command based on his most recent discussion). This is important to understand because some Christians today falsely think that Paul writings are not always backed by the authority of our Lord (Note: Yes, I am aware of 1 Corinthians 7. I believe Paul in this instance is merely relaying the difference between the Lord’s specific command that He gave us vs. what Paul commanded us. This does not mean some of Paul’s teachings are not authoritative Scripture).

 

[Jim B]

Why are people compelled to consider the KJV the only true translation? Do they really think that the translators of four centuries ago had some great insight into the true meaning of the (limited) sources that they had (plus the earlier Englyshe translations)?

We are not told to worship the writings of a few scholars. The English language has changed a lot in 400+ years, so that the meanings of words have changed over the centuries. Additionally, many more manuscripts have been discovered, giving insight into the actual meanings of the ancient languages. The best translation is the one that most clearly conveys what God intended us to understand.

If the KJV Englyshe is the supposed true language of God, why don't modern believers, including some who post on this forum, use it? It may sound "holy" but that is a false assumption. Jesus, when He was on earth, spoke Aramaic, a "people's" Hebrew dialect. He didn't pontificate, using antiquated phraseology and obscure meanings. And He didn't have anything to do with unicorns!

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Okay, so you just defeated your point about the Nestle-Aland. What you just said about the preface to the KJV can also apply to the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament. God can use people despite their beliefs or intensions.

There is a huge difference of the KJB translators' views on the work they were doing vs. holding to false beliefs whereby they could be able to freely influence the Scriptures to fit their personal beliefs. King James did not like the Puritans and their Bible, and he also did not like the Bishop's Bible, either. So a new work needed to be created that was in small committees that was peer reviewed by another group and was also reviewed by King James himself. So it was not a translation that was influenced by any one particular religion or belief.

With the Nestle and Aland Critical Text, the committee did not work in such a way that would prevent a person's false beliefs influencing the text or words of the Bible. The individuals working on the committee had free reign to influence the text as they saw fit. As I have pointed out to you before, the Vatican supervised the Nestle and Critical Text, and a Catholic cardinal was one of the editors. Nobody was making sure this Catholic cardinal (Carlos Maria Martini) was not trying to put Catholic beliefs subtly into the Bible. Then there was Kurt Aland of which you can see in photos being friendly with the pope, as well. In addition, the Nestle and Aland leans heavily upon Westcott and Hort's Critical Text. Westcott and Hort were into Catholicism (Which is shown by their own statements). Seeing this was the case, we can actually see 14 places in Scripture that favor the Roman Catholic church (Which actually shows that the Vatican did actually influence Modern Bibles).

Here is an NIV (Which favors the Critical Text that is influenced by Rome):

Source used:
http://www.keithpiper.org/storage/books/NIV-Omissions-Cimatu-7July2018-pdf.pdf

In the King James Bible, I don't see any clear influence like this by the KJB Translators's personal beliefs.

Also, Catholicism is against Sola Scriptura. So they naturally want you to look to another source besides the Bible Alone as your authority. This is why Catholics used to kill even their own people for just possessing the Scriptures at one point in history. They wanted the priests to tell the layperson (or regular guy) what the Bible said. I have even run into Catholics who told me I should not try to study the Bible on my own and I should go to their priests to understand the Bible instead. The whole concept of Textual Criticism or Modern Scholarship favors this concept. Modern Scholarship wants you to trust the footnotes in Modern Bibles and the scholars over what the Bible says or they want you to trust their view or interpretation on what the Bible says. But instead of a Catholic priest to trust, they have gotten you to trust a scholar over the Bible. This is one step closer to Rome in how they want you to interpret and understand the Bible.

 

[Jim B]

The NIV is the best-selling translation for a good reason: most readers want a Bible that a) is an accurate translation of the best manuscripts available and b) is written in their own native language, not a version of it that was in use over 400 years ago (which is clearly subject to misinterpretation). People want to feel that they are more religious than others because they use an archaic translation but that is nonsense. Personally, I primarily use both the NIV and the NET, both of which are excellent.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Why are people compelled to consider the KJV the only true translation? Do they really think that the translators of four centuries ago had some great insight into the true meaning of the (limited) sources that they had (plus the earlier Englyshe translations)?

We are not told to worship the writings of a few scholars. The English language has changed a lot in 400+ years, so that the meanings of words have changed over the centuries. Additionally, many more manuscripts have been discovered, giving insight into the actual meanings of the ancient languages. The best translation is the one that most clearly conveys what God intended us to understand.

If the KJV Englyshe is the supposed true language of God, why don't modern believers, including some who post on this forum, use it? It may sound "holy" but that is a false assumption. Jesus, when He was on earth, spoke Aramaic, a "people's" Hebrew dialect. He didn't pontificate, using antiquated phraseology and obscure meanings. And He didn't have anything to do with unicorns!

See my post #53 within this thread of how the Nestle and Aland Critical New Testament Greek (Which is used for all English Modern Bibles) is influenced or supervised by the Vatican (i.e. the Roman Catholic Church).

Then look back more carefully at the points in Scripture in post #348 that are altered in the NIV that shows favoritism towards the Catholic Church's beliefs.

 

[Jim B]

I'm waiting for the day when Catholics believe the Word of God (both Jesus -- the Word became flesh) and the Bible instead of all the additional stuff (euphemism) that they add on to what it says. There is no value in being "religious" while denying the truth. I am deeply grieved that the RCC has become such a distortion of the reality found in Christ.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

The NIV is the best-selling translation for a good reason: most readers want a Bible that a) is an accurate translation of the best manuscripts available and b) is written in their own native language, not a version of it that was in use over 400 years ago (which is clearly subject to misinterpretation). People want to feel that they are more religious than others because they use an archaic translation but that is nonsense. Personally, I primarily use both the NIV and the NET, both of which are excellent.

Which NIV? Not all NIV's even say the same thing because they are too busy changing it to get copyrights and make money off people. Then there is the new NIV that shows thousands of changes to make gender neutral changes.

The New NIV Controversy: Gender Neutral Language

The New International Bible and other modern versions have removed verses and words found in the King James Bible.

Also, there are approximately 55-60 thousands words that are missing in the NIV when compared to the KJB (Depending on what source you go by).

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I'm waiting for the day when Catholics believe the Word of God (both Jesus -- the Word became flesh) and the Bible instead of all the additional stuff (euphemism) that they add on to what it says. There is no value in being "religious" while denying the truth. I am deeply grieved that the RCC has become such a distortion of the reality found in Christ.

I use Modern Bibles but only to help update the 1600's English in the King James Bible. I also use older dictionaries, etcetera instead. But the point here is that Modern Bibles are not my final Word of authority. Meaning I do not ultimately trust Modern Bibles because they are influenced by the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Obviously the NIV committee failed to read Revelation 22:18-19.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Anyways, the KJB was not influenced directly by the Vatican unlike Modern Bibles.

 

[Michiah-Imla]

People want to feel that they are more religious than others because they use an archaic translation

You haven’t paid much attention to this thread I see…

 

[Michiah-Imla]

The NIV is the best-selling translation for a good reason

Actually, it’s because of many BAD reasons!

All rooted in the following:

“And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.” (Matthew 24:11)

 

[JesusFan1]

I have a close Christian brother who is not KJB Only. So I don't believe that reading Modern Bibles is a salvation issue, but I do believe it can lead one to falling away from the faith in certain cases. I believe those young in the faith can fall away from the faith when attending Bible college when they learn of Textual Criticism or Modern Scholarship in that God's Word cannot be trusted and it is up to the scholars or scribes to fill in the gaps of what God said and did not say. So the scholar becomes the REAL authority and not the Word of God or the Bible. The Bible just become second fiddle or second place. The Bible then becomes a.... Choose Your Own Adventure Bible and you get to pick and choose what parts to believe or not believe in because not all bibles say exactly the same thing. But God is not the author of confusion. God has made His Words known and we don't have to piece them together with a bunch of scholars (Who still have not figured out God's words yet exactly). 70% Christians fall away from the faith when they attend Bible college and I believe this is because of Modern Scholarship that they learn at Bible college that gets them to doubt God's words. It's why all the footnotes are in Modern bibles getting the reader to doubt whole sections of Scripture.

I know of none who use the Nas or esv or Nkjv and have turned away from their faith!

 

[JesusFan1]

Anyways, the KJB was not influenced directly by the Vatican unlike Modern Bibles.

None of the modern translations such as esv and nas and Nkjv were "influnced by Rome", as none of them teach doctrines of the Catholic church!

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Okay, we have two issues here: 1) the phrase "only begotten" and 2) Your interpretation of John 1:14.

Only begotten:
This phrase translates the single Greek word "monogenes." The same word is used in Paul's epistle to the Hebrews.

By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was offering up his only begotten son; it was he to whom it was said, “In Isaac your descendants shall be called.” He considered that God is able to raise people even from the dead, from which he also received him back as a type. Hebrews 11:17-19.

Here we see the same phrase "only begotten son", wherein Paul highlights the profundity of Abraham's faith. Abraham trusted God so much that he was willing to go through the sacrifice of Isaac, believing that God would raise him from the dead. And Abraham was right and wise to think this about God because he knew that God would never fail to keep his promise concerning Isaac.

In other words, in order for God to keep his promise concerning his son, Isaac needed to be alive. If Isaac was killed, then God's promise would fail. But with Isaac alive God's promise would come true. And if Abraham were to kill Isaac in a ritual sacrifice, Abraham knew that God would bring him, Isaac, back to life.

In order to see the depth of Abraham's faith, we need to bear in mind that Isaiac was NOT Abraham's only son. Isaiac had a brother, Ishmael. The difference between Isaac and Ishmael is the fact that Isaac, not Ishmael was the son of promise -- the son whom God chose to promise.

With the above written work you stated here, you are not telling me anything new that I have not already believed for a very long time now. Where we disagree is in your next statement, though.

From this context we come to understand the meaning of monogenes:only begotten. Monogenes means "one-of-a-kind son" focused on the uniqueness of the son. Among all of Abraham's sons, Isaac was unique in that God chose Isaac to be the son of promise. Monogenes isn't focused on birth; it's focused on status. Isaac wasn't the only son born to Abraham but he was the only son whom God promised to bless.

Sometimes a good ole fashioned dictionary will just simply get you out of trouble here.

Now, let's look at the Bible in how it is used.

The natural way to translate this word begat above in order for it to make sense in context would be: “gave birth to”; And it would not make any sense to translate it in the way that you suggested.