Bible Versions

[angellous_evangellous]

Jehovah's Witnesses believed the KJV to be most accurate until the 1960s...not sure how much room you have to talk there.

Odd how the Holy Name which was only uttered once a year by the high priest in the Holy of Holies now needs to be in its rightful place, pervading a book in a vulgar language among a people who are not even attached to Judaism.:foot:

 

[Scuba Pete]

The only difference is the grammatical error in the King James

It probably wasn't an error the year it was translated. The KJV is in an antiquated English DIALECT. Forsooth, thou needest a translation for this archaic translation.

 

[SoyLeche]

It probably wasn't an error the year it was translated. The KJV is in an antiquated English DIALECT. Forsooth, thou needest a translation for this archaic translation.

I'm not even sure it is a gramatical error. Which is correct - "a unicorn" or "an unicorn". I would think, looking at it, that "an unicorn" is correct, but that really doesn't sound right at all.

 

[FFH]

I'm not even sure it is a gramatical error. Which is correct - "a unicorn" or "an unicorn". I would think, looking at it, that "an unicorn" is correct, but that really doesn't sound right at all.

Looks like there is obviously an exception to the rule in this case.

 

[SoyLeche]

Looks like there is obviously an exception to the rule in this case.

What exactly is the rule?

It isn't whether the word starts with a vowel - it's whether the word starts with a vowel SOUND.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Please, are you trying to determine the rule WHEN the KJV was transalated? You know, we don't speak that dialect any more, only a crude bastardised form of it.

 

[SoyLeche]

Please, are you trying to determine the rule WHEN the KJV was transalated? You know, we don't speak that dialect any more, only a crude bastardised form of it.

But I'm asking about the rule now - which is the correct way to say it in today's, American English?

I assume whenever I see something that doesn't sound quite right gramatically in the KJV that it was just the way it was then. They don't bother me in the slightest.

 

[reyjamiei]

12. Do you know (a) the life, (b) the character, and (c) the teachings & (d) beliefs of the Bible translators of the Modern Versions that you are defending ? Do you know - for example - what they believed about Jesus Christ ?13. Do you know - for a fact -what they believed about the Deity of Jesus Christ ?
14. Do you know - for a fact -whether or not they believed that Mary should be worshiped ?
15. Do you know - for a fact - what they believed about the Trinity ?
[how would you prove or demonstrate your answers to others...like us ?]

17. Do you know who their professors were in their colleges & universities were, and how those college professors influenced them ?
18. Do you know who their professors were in their colleges & universities were, and what the Biases of those college professors was - in terms of being in favor of (a) God, (b) Christianity, and (c) the Bible ?
19. Do you know - for a fact - whether or not those translators even believed that the real and true Word of God (the Bible) could be found within the manuscripts either (a) that they used or (b) that the Historic Christian Church has used for 1900 years ?
20. Do you know - for a fact - whether or not those translators - of the modern versions you rely on for your spiritual growth and communion with God - believe in the fall of mankind (Genesis 1-3) and the Biblical Doctrine of Original Sin ?
21. Do you know - for a fact - whether or not those translators - of the modern versions you rely on for your spiritual growth and communion with God - believe in the same historic Christian teachings that you believe in ? Do they even claim to believe in the historic Christian teachings ?
22. Do you know - for a fact - what the requirements of the American Bible Society are, for a person to participate as a translator - in a Modern Version ?

Most people don't know any of these things about the translators of the King James Version either so it probably wouldn't worry anyone very much that they don't know it about translators of modern versions of the Bible.

 

[may]

Jehovah's Witnesses believed the KJV to be most accurate until the 1960s...not sure how much room you have to talk there.

yes, that is correct, all bibles are good but accurate knowledge has now become abundant in the last days , thrilling times indeed . and a more accurate translation without any traditions of man to cloud the thought is the way to go.
And as for you, O Daniel, make secret the words and seal up the book, until the time of [the] end. Many will rove about, and the [true] knowledge will become abundant." Daniel 12;4 not only is bible prophecy now well along ,but a more accurate understanding of the pure word ofGod is now abundant............... yes , lots of work and roving around the bible brings great blessings and insight.

 

[may]

Odd how the Holy Name which was only uttered once a year by the high priest in the Holy of Holies now needs to be in its rightful place, pervading a book in a vulgar language among a people who are not even attached to Judaism.:foot:

psalm 83;18

That people may know that you, whose name is Jehovah,​

You alone are the Most High over all the earth...............
Starting at least from the 14th century, numerous Hebrew translations were made of the Christian Greek Scriptures. What did the translators do when they came to quotations from the "Old Testament" where God’s name appeared? Often, they felt forced to restore God’s name to the text. Many translations of parts or all of the Christian Greek Scriptures into Hebrew contain God’s name................it seems that the most high Jehovah wanted his name in the bible , thats why it was there. its not good to take it away.
One translation that boldly restores God’s name with good authority is the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures. This version, has restored God’s name every time that a portion of the Hebrew Scriptures containing it is quoted in the Greek Scriptures. Altogether, the name appears with a sound basis 237 times in that translation of the Greek Scriptures.
In spite of the efforts of many translators to restore God’s name in the Bible, there has always been religious pressure to eliminate it.

 

[may]

It probably wasn't an error the year it was translated. The KJV is in an antiquated English DIALECT. Forsooth, thou needest a translation for this archaic translation.

yes progression works wonders to our understanding,we dont speak like the people in those days did

 

[may]

The Jews, while leaving it in their Bibles, refused to pronounce it. Apostate Christians of the second and third centuries removed it when they made copies of Greek Bible manuscripts and left it out when they made translations of the Bible. Translators in modern times have removed it, even when they based their translations on the original Hebrew, where it appears almost 7,000 times. (It appears 6,973 times in the Hebrew text of the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, 1984 edition.)​

How does Jehovah view those who remove his name from the Bible? If you were an author, how would you feel about someone who went to great lengths to remove your name from the book you authored? Translators who object to the name, doing so on account of problems of pronunciation or because of Jewish tradition, might be compared to those who Jesus said "strain out the gnat but gulp down the camel!" (Matthew 23:24) They stumble over these smaller problems but end up creating a major problem—by removing the name of the greatest personage in the universe from the book that he inspired

 

[Scuba Pete]

God is not the meglomaniac you or others make him out to be.

If you understood that God's real passion is mercy, this would not be an issue for you.

 

[Booko]

Are you aware there are many different "Bible" versions today claiming to be the Word of God. Each one tells us that it is the most reliable, most accurate, etc. etc..

Um...actually I hadn't noticed any version tell us that it was the most reliable.

But which of them is God’s Word?

The one originally spoken in Hebrew and Aramaic?

How, then, do we go about determining which "Bible" is the Bible?

Prayer is very important in understanding anything God has to say to us.

(1) Which are the correct manuscripts?

Wrong question, since the "original" of God's Word in the Bible was spoken and not written (with the exception of Epistles and Revelation, that is).

(2) Which is the proper translation of those (the correct) manuscripts?

None of the above, though some do seem to be a bit better than others.

 

[Booko]

[Questions that Modern Version Advocates are afraid you will ask ]​

1. Have you done research on the KJV/Other Versions controversies yourself ?
By that we do not mean that you are taking someone else’s word for it, or that you like what your best friend said, but rather that you did actual reading, actual looking into historical records, actual research - yourself ?
We have found that most people who express concern about the KJV-Preference position have several mistaken presumptions that they are not fully aware of, usually because they have not done the research on this issue themselves. Often, they have relied on the word of others (who despite their good intentions have also not done their own research personally)
2. If you are not in favor of using the KJV, and if you are in favor instead of using Modern Bible Versions, are you sure that you understand the major points about the philosophical/theological position you are advocating ?
3. have you thought through the premise that - if you insist on using Modern Versions only - you must accept to go against 95% of the Bible Manuscripts that have been used by the Christian Church throughout the centuries (until 1904) ?
4. Are you aware that the KJV is still supported by 95% of the Bible Parchments and Manuscripts which exist all over the world ?
5. It is true that the KJV translators relied on the manuscripts that were available in their own day and time. And it is also true that more Bible manuscripts were found since the early 1900s, than in all of the other centuries combined. Here is the key question: Are you aware that almost all these ancient manuscripts - those found in the 1900s - have accomplished, is to support, authenticate and validate the King James Version of the Bible ?
6. In other words, despite finding many more manuscripts of the Bible since the KJV was translated, more than 95% the new manuscripts found in the 1900s continue to support the King James Version, and disagree with the Modern Versions. Are you aware of this ?
7. Are you aware that Modern Versions Reject the Greek Text which underlies the English King James Version, and that this is really what the crux of the matter is - about the King James Version Debate ?
8. Do you realize that the Protestant Greek New Testament Textus Receptus, was used not only by the English speaking world in the KJV, but also by almost all other countries in the spread and propagation of the Bible - until 1904 ?
9. Do you therefore understand that to disagree with the Textus Receptus, is to place yourself against the true history of Protestant Historical Teachings (in the choice of the Bible Versions that they recommended) ???
10. Have you really stopped to think about the Motives WHY someone might [from a spiritual point of view] have an interest in getting modern Christians to reject the Bibles that upheld their Churches and their Doctrines for nearly 2000 years ?
11. Are you aware that if you reject the Greek Text which underlies the King James Version, that you are rejecting the Bible and the Validity of the Bibles, and undermining the credibility and witness not only of the historic christian martyrs who were English, but also those from Spain, and From Holland, and from France, and from Germany and from Switzerland, and from Italy, since they all also rely on the Greek Textus Receptus that the King James uses ?
To get to the point, do you really know which foreign versions of the Bible - in each language - that are supported and rely on the same Textus Receptus used by the King James Translators ? Can you name these other versions ? Here are some of them: The Geneva Bible in English used the same Textus Receptus as the King James and this has been good enough for the American Founding Fathers, that is the Puritans and the Pilgrims in resisting false teachings and building a strong vibrant well-grounded Christian Church for hundreds of years. If it was good enough for them as they risked their life to defend it and live by it, then why is it not good enough for you ?
The Reina Valera Bible in Spanish used the same Textus Receptus as the King James and this has been good enough for the Spaniards & Spanish in resisting false teachings and building a strong vibrant well-grounded Christian Church for hundreds of years. If it was good enough for them, why is it not good enough for you ??
The Diodatti Bible in Italian used the same Textus Receptus as the King James and this has been good enough for the Italians in resisting false teachings and building a strong vibrant well-grounded Christian Church for hundreds of years. If it was good enough for them, then why is it not good enough for you ???
The Luther Bible in German used the same Textus Receptus as the King James and this has been good enough for the Germans in resisting false teachings and building a strong vibrant well-grounded Christian Church for hundreds of years. If it was good enough for them, why is it not good enough for you ????
The Olivetain & Martin versions in French (as well as Louis Second/1st Edition) used the same Textus Receptus as the King James and this has been good enough for the French in resisting false teachings and building a strong vibrant well-grounded Christian Church for hundreds of years. If it was good enough for them, why is it not good enough for you ?????
12. Do you know (a) the life, (b) the character, and (c) the teachings & (d) beliefs of the Bible translators of the Modern Versions that you are defending ? Do you know - for example - what they believed about Jesus Christ ?
13. Do you know - for a fact -what they believed about the Deity of Jesus Christ ?
14. Do you know - for a fact -whether or not they believed that Mary should be worshiped ?
15. Do you know - for a fact - what they believed about the Trinity ?
[how would you prove or demonstrate your answers to others...like us ?]
16. Do you know - for a fact -WHY they rejected the Textus Receptus, that underlies the King James ?
17. Do you know who their professors were in their colleges & universities were, and how those college professors influenced them ?
18. Do you know who their professors were in their colleges & universities were, and what the Biases of those college professors was - in terms of being in favor of (a) God, (b) Christianity, and (c) the Bible ?
19. Do you know - for a fact - whether or not those translators even believed that the real and true Word of God (the Bible) could be found within the manuscripts either (a) that they used or (b) that the Historic Christian Church has used for 1900 years ?
20. Do you know - for a fact - whether or not those translators - of the modern versions you rely on for your spiritual growth and communion with God - believe in the fall of mankind (Genesis 1-3) and the Biblical Doctrine of Original Sin ?
21. Do you know - for a fact - whether or not those translators - of the modern versions you rely on for your spiritual growth and communion with God - believe in the same historic Christian teachings that you believe in ? Do they even claim to believe in the historic Christian teachings ?
22. Do you know - for a fact - what the requirements of the American Bible Society are, for a person to participate as a translator - in a Modern Version ?
23. Do you know - for a fact - what the requirements of the German Bible Society are, for a person to participate as a translator - in a Modern Version ? Do you know that the United Bible Societies, the UBS Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament - used in 95% of seminaries today - is essentially the product of the German Bible Society, and that they retain the Copyright on the Nestle-Aland Greek Text ? Do you realize that the Beliefs, Teachings, Ideology and Methods of Translation of the German Bible Society will therefore be evident on every page of the Greek Text that Modern Versions use (since modern versions rely almost exclusively on the Nestle-Aland bad Greek Text ) ?
24. Have you ever stopped to ask yourself, if the German Bible Society was around in the Time of Hitler, (which it was), and if the German Bible Society operated during the time of Hitler’s Third Reich in Germany (which it did), and if it needed a Nazi "certificate of good standing" (which it did), then what would this mean...for your modern Bible Version ? God Bless

Have you ever educated yourself on relevant subjects like textual analysis and manuscript history?

I'm not terribly educated on those subjects myself, but as my husband has done these things professionally, I'm lucky enough to pick up some useful information over dinner.

 

[Booko]

Well, I'm no expert on the history of the KJV, but the original one contained the 'Apocrypha' (according to the RC canon, not all of them) and at some point later these were dropped.

You can still get KJV's with Apocrypha, but as it's a translation used primarily by sola scriptura Protestants, they don't bother to include it.

It's gotten to the point where most Protestants I run into don't even know the Apocrypha exist and some even think it's a sort of Roman Catholc Conspiracy that they include Apocrypha in their Bibles. :sarcastic

 

[Booko]

It probably wasn't an error the year it was translated. The KJV is in an antiquated English DIALECT. Forsooth, thou needest a translation for this archaic translation.

Well, not if you're an avid student of 17th century English literature.

Ods Bodkins!

 

[FFH]

What exactly is the rule?

It isn't whether the word starts with a vowel - it's whether the word starts with a vowel SOUND.

Frubals

Thanks for remuinding us of that rule.

 

[Random]

I own the Good News version only now, it's my favourite: simple and unadorned, the GNB gets the job done without much fuss.

 

[FFH]

Please, are you trying to determine the rule WHEN the KJV was transalated? You know, we don't speak that dialect any more, only a crude form of it.

So I guess according to these scriptures we are the crude ones.

Well, not if you're an avid student of 17th century English literature.

So in the 17th century they were allowed to make such blatant grammatical errors such as this one ???

Joseph Smith Inspired version
Philipians 4: 13
I can do all thing through Christ who strengtheneth me.


King James version
Philipians 4: 13
I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me.