I have heard so many debates about this. I beleive that the KJV version is the only Bible we should read. I, though, own many other versions. I thikn that the other versions of the Bible are good for explaining a little, more like a commentary then a reading Bible. This is because While I was reading one night I came across this verse from 1 John 4:4 Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.- King James Version look at the difference between this and the one from the NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION. You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them, because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world. This one isn't much differnet but it does change al ittle more.The passage is switched a little and instead of little children it says dear children, how do the people who translated this know that John meant that in this passage? Look at the NEW LIVING TRANSLATION VERSION. But you belong to God, my dear children. You have already won a victory over those people, because the Spirit who lives in you is greater than the spirit who lives in the world. I like reading this version as a commentary instead of as a Bible because it adds a bit of information to the verse that wasn't there before I just don't get it. How do I know if other versions in the Bible don't do it the same way, and what if they are saying different then what they mean? Please undersatnd that I am not turning down any other version I read them a lot, they have helped me understand more about the Bible if you read them in the right way.If I am wrong can you please tell me.

Cheecha, I can see where you are coming from, and I appreciate your interest in discerning the truth of God’s word. But let me offer some information to help you think this matter through. In order to figure out which translation to use, one must first take notice of how translations come about. Within the first three centuries after the Greek New Testament was written, many copies were made by scribes who wanted to reproduce on a large scale the original manuscripts passed down to them. The copies were made rather freely, and it was only a matter of time before minor variants began to appear in them. For example, a particular scribe might have intentionally or unintentionally added or removed a word that had the effect of altering the what the original said. This would produce a change in the manuscript that was then reproduced on a large scale. Instances like this eventually gave birth to whole families to copies that share the same variants, otherwise known as families. Today these families are known as the “Alexandrian,” “Western,” and “Byzantine” text types. This classification is based upon the agreement of a group of manuscripts in a large number of variant readings. Most changes made to the original manuscripts would have probably been made within these first three centuries of copying, since in the fourth century the church determined which 66 books were the official Bible, thus scribes and copyists were less likely to make alterations. The first Greek New Testament to be printed using a printing press was produced in Spain in 1514 and was issued on 1522. Meanwhile, a famous humanist scholar named Erasmus of Rotterdam was putting together his own Greek New Testament, and it was printed in 1516 after only six months of hasty preparation. This text provided the Greek basis for Luther’s translation of the New Testament into German in 1522. By then, Erasmus’ Greek New Testament was in its third edition and was used for Tyndale’s translation of 1525, the language of which is still embedded in the KJV. Erasmus’ text was based on a few late Byzantine manuscripts (widely known to be suspected of alteration in the fourth century) that were available to him at the time, and he was forced to supply missing portions of the Book of Revelation. This same text was later used by the Elziver brothers of Holland, whose translation contained the famous words in their preface, “Textum ergo habes, nun cab omnibus receptum,” (“You have therefore the text now received by all”) from which we get the label, “Textus Receptus,” or “Received Text.” This is the text underlying the KJV of 1611 and remained the main Greek text until the publication of the English Revised Version (ERV) of 1881. But since the work of Erasmus, a significant number of ancient manuscripts of the New Testament (and of the Old Testament in Greek) have been discovered and brought to light. They come from an earlier period than those used by Erasmus. Not only are they older, but they differ in numerous places from the texts that have been previously used. The work done by the great Cambridge scholars B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort brought into existence a new era of textual criticism. They published an updated and improved text in 1881 called the “New Testament in the Original Greek.” Since 1881, recognizing the superiority of the Westcott-Hort (W-H) text, the majority of English translations (including the NASB, NRSV, NIV, and REB ) have used a text much closer to the W-H than that of Erasmus. In the 20th century, the New Testament in Greek has been edited by both Protestant and Catholic scholars alike. The most widely used forms of the text are the Nestle-Aland and the United Bible Society’s GNT. However, there are still some scholars who argue that the Textus Receptus is the text that most closely resembles the earliest manuscripts. While recent discoveries and modern scholarship has shed light on the massive shortcomings of the Textus Receptus (and the English translations that come from it, i.e. the KJV), the debate rages on. In the end, no group has the original manuscripts, and whether it is the KJV or the NIV, you’re looking at an English translation that comes from a collection of Greek manuscripts, none of which show up onto the scene at least until the 17th century. So, what does this mean? For starters, the KJV is no more “the Bible” than the NIV, NASB, or NRSV. It is an Englsh translation. Popular? Yes. But a translation nonetheless. As one who has studied Greek for three years both in college and Seminary, I would suggest that the KJV is not a reliable English translation. I believe that modern scholarship has shown that the United Bible Society’s GNT (the Greek New Testament I use) is the most accurate and reliable we have. Therefore, English translations based on this text are the most accurate and reliable. If you’re looking for an English translation that comes as close to the original as you can get, I would say to look no further than the New American Standard Bible. While not the easiest to read, it is a great literal translation of a reliable Greek text, and is far superior to the KJV in every respect – something agreed upon by nearly every scholar (both liberal and conservative) on the subject there is. I hope this makes sense. I don’t want to come across the wrong way. You asked for correction, and hopefully I have offered something for you to think about. The KJV is valuable and has meant a lot to many Christians for hundreds of years. But by no means is it somehow superior to any other English translation. Instead, it is quite inferior and must be approached with a healthy dose of skepticism. Please note that I am not a liberal. I am conservative and I attend one of the few remaining institutions in America that fights for the integrity and inerrancy of Scripture. I assure you that as you do your research into this matter you will soon discover for yourself that, unless you want to learn Greek and the principles of textual criticism, you would do yourself a favor by embracing something other than the KJV. P.S. One of my professors in Seminary, and a good friend, is Dr. John Oswalt. Dr. Oswalt was on the translation team for the New Living Translation that you mentioned in your previous post. Dr. Oswalt is, in my mind, the finest Old Testament scholar in America and an incredible scholar of the Hebrew language. I can guarantee you that if Dr. Oswalt worked on the NLT it is a very trustworthy translation. It is by no means a "commentary," and neither are the other English translations.

Post edited by: sscribner, at: 2007/03/13 01:05

wow i hope that i am not changing any of your beleifs or anything. i am really confused on this topic look at this verse from Job 17:6 the KJV says: He hath made me also a byword of the people; and aforetime I was as a tabret. a tabret, i beleive(correct me please if i am wrong), is a drum but look at what it says in the NIV: God has made me a byword to everyone, a man in whose face people spit. It doesn't even mention a tabret. i don't understand what if the writer of this book didn't mean what the NIV changed it into? How would you know,this is kinda weird for me, does anyone know what the truth is?

Cheecha, this is answered very easily. The Hebrew word in question in Job 17 is [size=4]תּפת[/size] (tôpheth). The word means "a smiting," or, figuratively "contempt." Yes, it is translated into the King James as "tabret," but that's because the word tôpheth derives from the Hebrew word [size=4]תּפף [/size](tâphaph), which means "drum" or "tambourine." While the King James translation may be [i]adequate[/i] in its translation, I'm afraid the NIV does a better job in preserving the meaning the author was trying to convey. You see, while tâphaph means drum, the word that derives from it (tôpheth) means something more figurative than a literal drum. It means someone who has been scorned or someone toward whom people have contempt. This actually is a perfect example of one of the KJV's weakness. You see, just because something is the most "literal" doesn't exactly mean it is always the most accurate. (This is even true of the NASB.) In the attempt for the translator of the KJV to be literal he missed the true meaning of the text, a meaning that we now can better understand due to the improvements in our understanding of the Hebrew language and greater strength in Biblical studies. Look, I don't deny that different translations say slightly different things. That is what makes them different. The challenge of the Bible student is to utilize all the resources available to determine what the author originally intended to say, and which translation does the best job of helping us do that. Contrary to what some people think, the KJV is [b]not[/b] the first Bible. Yes, it was the first widely accepted [i]English translation[/i], and yes, it has played an important role in the lives of many Godly men and women. But for crying out loud, it is NOT the ONLY English translation, and it DEFINITELY is not the best. The only people who still think that are ultra-fundamentalist-conservative types who are ignorant of Biblical studies and believe that any formal education is of the Devil. Forgive me for the sting of that comment, but it is absolutely true. I am not a liberal. I am not uneducated. I attended a private conservative holiness Bible College and I currently attend a conservative holiness Seminary. My life's work is to battle liberals who don't believe God's Word is inspired and who seek to dismantle it word for word. But, unfortunately, I'm also forced to expend a lot of time defending the Bible from the radical conservative types too, who make no effort to figure out what the truth is, but instead are content to perpetuate generational ignorance by taking people at their word as though it is infallible and never questioning its veracity. While I love these people as a brother in Christ, I do not respect their opinions, for they are ignorant (not stupid, just ill-informed), dogmatic, and intellectually dishonest. I believe that the Spirit reconciles and draws us to Christ and to one another. I love Jesus with all my life, and I love his people. It is because of this that I also love truth. God has given us the capacity to figure out what truth is, and I believe that in the end the truth will outshine the darkness of ignorance and intellectual bigotry. That is what I hope results from my labors on this message board. Cheecha, I admire your passion and your humility. Cultivate that, and let the Holy Spirit guide you into all truth. Maintain that humility, but never be afraid to stand up against those who let their minds stagnate in unintelligence. God bless you in your endeavors.

thanks i will be studyin what you have said, tell you the truth i think it would be easier to learn hebrew and greek myself, i am positive that someday i will. i understand completely how the niv explains what he said, but what if job didn't really mean it like that? what if the NIV was changing the real thing he was thinking? it is kinda hard to understand which version to use though, wat do you think i should do though?? i mean, how do i know the truth, to tell you the truth, i think we are taking this way to far then it really needs to be.

First off, I don't think we've taken anything too far. What we're talking about here is very important. If we believe that God has revealed Himself through words and actions in history, then it is the job of the true student of the Bible and follower of Jesus to figure out what God said and what it means. No original document remains. We don't have the actual papyri that Paul originally wrote on, nor those of any other writer of the New Testament. Therefore, the task is three-fold: 1. What manuscripts (of the vast, vast multitudes of copies that we have) are as close to the original as possible? (This is textual criticism - good criticism, not bad. The kind that seeks to know what God actually said in space and time.) 2. How do we best translate these manuscripts into our own languages so that the masses can read it in their native tongue? (interpretation) 3. And how do we figure out what the message of the text is, i.e. what is Gof saying to us? (exegesis) For the sake of this discussion, to say the KJV is the "original" Bible, or the "only" Bible, or even the only good English translation misses everything. The KJV is only an English translation. While a good translation, and one that has been meaningful to many for several centuries, even the most pious believer (once he knows the facts) must admit that it is deficient. Since the days of Eusebius we have discovered earlier and more reliable manuscripts, and our understanding of the original languages is light years beyond what it was then. It only makes sense then that our translations reflect these changes and improve. I encourage you and all the others who read this to take these things into consideration. Even if you never learn Greek or Hebrew, that shouldn't stop you from learning all you can about how we got the Bible and what the process is for getting English translations. You can't always learn these things from those you admire most, for even the people you admire can be wrong. There are a lot of things my dad taught me as I was growing up, and while I love and admire him, as I have learned for myself there are just some things he was wrong about. That doesn't make him a bad person or not worthy to be listened to, it just means that as we learn and grow that we have to learn to think outside of the box sometimes, and that doesn't have to be a rebellious or inherently wicked thing.

hmmmmm... the KJV is a great bible and that's where I memorize all of my verses from but I also like the Message, because it is just fun to read! When I start reading the Message, it is like a book (Because of the contemporart language and the no numbers thing) but the KJV is awesome for deeper study and for when you have a deeper understanding of the Word. Cool topic :)

[b]Cheecha wrote:[/b] [quote]I have heard so many debates about this. I beleive that the KJV version is the only Bible we should read. I, though, own many other versions. I thikn that the other versions of the Bible are good for explaining a little, more like a commentary then a reading Bible. This is because While I was reading one night I came across this verse from 1 John 4:4 Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.- King James Version look at the difference between this and the one from the NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION. You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them, because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world. This one isn't much differnet but it does change al ittle more.The passage is switched a little and instead of little children it says dear children, how do the people who translated this know that John meant that in this passage? Look at the NEW LIVING TRANSLATION VERSION. But you belong to God, my dear children. You have already won a victory over those people, because the Spirit who lives in you is greater than the spirit who lives in the world. I like reading this version as a commentary instead of as a Bible because it adds a bit of information to the verse that wasn't there before I just don't get it. How do I know if other versions in the Bible don't do it the same way, and what if they are saying different then what they mean? Please undersatnd that I am not turning down any other version I read them a lot, they have helped me understand more about the Bible if you read them in the right way.If I am wrong can you please tell me.[/quote] On this topic I have one strong warning. That is not making the KJV the only Bible given from God in your mind. There is a cult out there that believes this stuff and people who work in this realm of thinking and are known by their fruits. The fruit of division is very apparent in their teachings and methods. Remember we are not worshipers of the bible but of God, who through His Spirit reveals the true meaning of the words. Otherwise the bible is a story book that the world likes to quote and memorize to show off. The word of God has power to it. And you must test the spirit of the person who speaks it.

the kjv is not how they spoke back in bible time its how they spoke in the 1800 im not trying to put the kjv down im just saying its not the only good translation