Should people believe the King James Version of the bible?

[DanDanTheCoffeyMan]

this part really stuck out yo me

Also, it amazes me that people still believe the "tower of Babel" story. They were trying to build a tall tower to reach God, so God got nervous and struck them down. We now know that when people climb Mount Everest, they die from lack of oxygen unless they have oxgen tanks, and even then people still die. Thus, God would have nothing to worry about. Besides, since then, we now can leave earth and fly into space. There is no plastic firmament there, and when astronauts are in space, there is not God or Jesus to see. This is something they did not realize when they were writing the Bible over nearly 2,000 years.

They truly believe they lived on a flat earth with a snow globe firmament. We didn't know the earth was round until 1492, which was way after the Bible scrolls were penned.

God never got nervous, he became angry because he told them man can only reach god by god, not by man, and the whole thing about people thinking the earth was round wasn't real, it was in a story book and an "athiest" universitytook it literally and thought peolpe thought the earth was flat, ever seen the statue of the guy holding the world? that was made before the suposed idea of the earth being flat, have you ever noticed how the globe was ROUND!

 

[Fedora Heightrout]

Um, actually, Atlas stood on the earth, holding the sphere of the heavens on his back. He did not hold the earth.

 

[opuntia]

As far as it is known, this 1611 A.D. translation is one of the most correct--although I have heard that Martin Luther's German translation comes close to the original tongues of Greek and Aramaic. Jerome's Latin Vulgate of the 4th century would rank high also.

It is true that all translations have flaws in them. Speaking two languages myself, I can see where translations can be lost during the interpretation of the words. Some words just do not translate well into another language, so it behooves us to study of the original tongues inasmuch as we are able. Using concordances such as Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible will help. Leaving it to experts is probably not what the Lord would recommend but said that we should eat our bread by the sweat of our brow (Gen. 3:19). Education and knowledge are the hallmarks of humanity, above all the creatures whom God had created and put on this earth. Quoth:

"But his delight [the righteous man] is in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he meditate day and night." (Ps. 1:2; KJV).

"A wise man will hear, and will increase learning; and a man of understanding shall attain unto wise counsels:

"To understand a proverb, and the interpretation; the words of the wise, and their dark sayings." (Prov. 1:5-6).

Joshua, upon succeeding Moses' mantle, was instructed by God to study the books day and night with the promise that Joshua would prevail over his enemies if he did so (Joshua 1:8).

It is obvious that there other languages were present during the prophets' days, starting with Abraham according to the record (Gen. 11:1-9). Study of languages has always been a requirement since the earliest of times.

If a man or woman is blessed in that they have been given the gift of understanding languages--by faith--then it falls upon them to inform the rest of us as to the correct interpretation contained in our present records. Gifts have always been given to benefit others--if they will accept it, that is. Men and women have not always been wise to the ways of God.

 

[Doktormartini]

Well I'm not a Bible believer but I picked up the KJV because I have heard that it is the most widely used and the "official" one. Whatever, good enought for me!

 

[reyjamiei]

Don't Mormons believe that their dude wrote a brand new book?

They believe their Prophet translated a new book but that does not make it the Bible. The only Bible used by Mormons is the King James Version.

 

[reyjamiei]

I'd like to know what you two have against the NIV as well. I've compared a number of passages from the NIV, KJV, RSV, and a couple of French translations, and they all seem to be saying essentially the same things. (In the ones I've compared.)

Try comparing these verses

These verses have all been left out of the NIV and some have been included as footnotes at the bottom of the page.

Matthew 12:47
Matthew 17:21
Matthew 18:11
Matthew 21:44
Matthew 23:14
Mark 7:16
Mark 9:44
Mark 9:46
Mark 11:26
Mark 15:28
Mark 16:9-20 - There is a line separating the last 12 verses of Mark from the main text. Right under the line it says: [The two most reliable early manuscripts do not have Mark 16:9-20] (NIV, 1978 ed.)
Luke 17:36
Luke 22:44
Luke 22:43
Luke 23:17
John 5:4
John 7:53-8:11
Acts 8:37
Acts 15:34
Acts 24:7
Acts 28:29
Romans 16:24
I John 5:7

 

[Fedora Heightrout]

So they chose either not to include verses of questionable origin, or ones that did not appear in the version of the manuscripts they used. What's the problem? They were using older texts, judged more reliable and authentic than the ones used by the KJV. You prefer to have extra verses? Why not include some of the apocrypha that were included in the original prints of the KJV (and aren't anymore), if you're a KJV purist?

Addendum: The version of the NIV I use does not exclude all those verses. 4 out of the 5 I just checked are indeed included, with a footnote explaining that the verse does not appear in all manuscripts. The other was indeed put as a footnote, but not left out entirely. How about a list of just the ones that were excluded?

 

[reyjamiei]

Um, actually, Atlas stood on the earth, holding the sphere of the heavens on his back. He did not hold the earth.

"Atlas was punished by Zeus and made to bear the weight of the heavens and earth on his back."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas

He could not have had the weight of the earth on his back if he was standing on the earth.

"In works of art, this Atlas is represented as carrying the heavens or the terrestrial globe on his shoulders."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas

The terrestrial globe would be the earth.

 

[Fedora Heightrout]

If you're going with Wikipedia, how about the article about Atlas the Titan, not Atlas the book of maps?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_(mythology)
" Zeus condemned Atlas to stand at the western edge of the earth and hold up the heavens on his shoulders, to prevent the two from resuming their primordial embrace."

"The globe originally represented the celestial sphere of ancient astronomy, rather than the earth. The use of the term atlas as a name for collections of terrestrial maps and the modern understanding of the earth as a sphere have combined to inspire the many depictions of Atlas' burden as the earth."


Or how about finding a classical statue or carving that depicts the globe as the earth instead of as the heavens? Considering I see 5 images depicting the latter, I'll need at least 6 from you.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Since its man's translation should you believe it in its entirety? If not, should you believe it at all or parts of it. Which parts do you think is accurate? Could the scholars and King James be also god inspired while the translation was taking place? This book have been widely publicized and distributed in the world.

The KJV is written in an obscure and obsolete English dialect. While it can still inspire faith, it also engenders it's fair share of misconceptions. Love is translated as Charity and the syntax is hard to deal with as well. I prefer a translation into a current dialect of English. The arguments for an "inspired translation" fly in the face what the scriptures teach. The "Dot and Tiddle" argument, as well as the appeal to age are fallacious at best.

 

[Fedora Heightrout]

I agree with you wholeheartedly, NetDoc. It's a relatively small number of modern English speakers who have no problem understanding Shakespeare, who was still alive when the KJV was first printed 395 years ago. Using a translation rendered in archaic English is little better than using a Latin version. The purpose seems to be to add a buffer between the clergy and the people, so they can tell the people how to interpret these obscure phrases, and far fewer would think about it critically.

Modern and exacting is the way to go, not archaic and poetic. The Song of Songs, sure, make that one poetic. But most of them were not intended as poetry.

 

[Booko]

The KJV is written in an obscure and obsolete English dialect. While it can still inspire faith, it also engenders it's fair share of misconceptions. Love is translated as Charity and the syntax is hard to deal with as well. I prefer a translation into a current dialect of English. The arguments for an "inspired translation" fly in the face what the scriptures teach. The "Dot and Tiddle" argument, as well as the appeal to age are fallacious at best.

On the other hand, it's great preparation for reading Shakespeare.

 

[Fedora Heightrout]

I always say Shakespeare was meant to be seen performed, not read.

 

[reyjamiei]

If you're going with Wikipedia, how about the article about Atlas the Titan, not Atlas the book of maps?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_%28mythology%29
" Zeus condemned Atlas to stand at the western edge of the earth and hold up the heavens on his shoulders, to prevent the two from resuming their primordial embrace."

"The globe originally represented the celestial sphere of ancient astronomy, rather than the earth. The use of the term atlas as a name for collections of terrestrial maps and the modern understanding of the earth as a sphere have combined to inspire the many depictions of Atlas' burden as the earth."


Or how about finding a classical statue or carving that depicts the globe as the earth instead of as the heavens? Considering I see 5 images depicting the latter, I'll need at least 6 from you.

The link I used may have been from Atlas the book of maps but the part I quoted was about Atlas the Titan.

 

[Fedora Heightrout]

Is that all you have to say about it? The information is in error. You need to look at the sources. Try Britannica, or Bullfinch. Or, as I suggested before, the actual depictions of Atlas from that era. Quoting someone else who's wrong doesn't make it correct.

Let me explain a little better -- the people who edit an article about the book of maps are nor necessarily specialists in mythology. If you look at several different articles on the same subject on Wikipedia, you'll even find people claiming that the Farnese Atlas sculpture is of the Earth, when it is clearly not. It's inscribed with the constellations.

 

[SoyLeche]

They truly believe they lived on a flat earth with a snow globe firmament. We didn't know the earth was round until 1492, which was way after the Bible scrolls were penned.

Since Eratosthenes calculated the diameter and circumfrence of the Earth back in about 230 BC someone must hve known that the Earth was round before 1492.

 

[Fedora Heightrout]

You are correct, SoyLeche. Knowledge of the earth's shape was held by various groups even that far back. One cannot say "everyone thought this or that" at any one time, in times when many cultures were isolated and insular, each holding their own often differing conventional wisdom. In cases like this, however, it is quite true to say that at the time of the scriptures, most (if not all) middle eastern cultures did not think of the earth as a sphere, and thought of the heavens as something that could be reached from mountain tops or via a tall tower.

 

[SoyLeche]

You are correct, SoyLeche. Knowledge of the earth's shape was held by various groups even that far back. One cannot say "everyone thought this or that" at any one time, in times when many cultures were isolated and insular, each holding their own often differing conventional wisdom. In cases like this, however, it is quite true to say that at the time of the scriptures, most (if not all) middle eastern cultures did not think of the earth as a sphere, and thought of the heavens as something that could be reached from mountain tops or via a tall tower.

That's fine. I mean, it's pretty obvious from the text that the builders of the Tower of Babel believed they could reach heaven that way.

But, the idea taught to schoolchildren that everyone thought that the world was flat until Columbus proved them wrong is not true.

 

[reyjamiei]

So they chose either not to include verses of questionable origin, or ones that did not appear in the version of the manuscripts they used. What's the problem? They were using older texts, judged more reliable and authentic than the ones used by the KJV. You prefer to have extra verses? Why not include some of the apocrypha that were included in the original prints of the KJV (and aren't anymore), if you're a KJV purist?

Addendum: The version of the NIV I use does not exclude all those verses. 4 out of the 5 I just checked are indeed included, with a footnote explaining that the verse does not appear in all manuscripts. The other was indeed put as a footnote, but not left out entirely. How about a list of just the ones that were excluded?

All of the verses that I listed in my previous post were removed from the biblical text of the first edition of the NIV translation and were reduced to footnotes. Some of them may have been added back to the biblical text in later editions.

A footnote is not part of the Biblical text, if a verse has been reduced to a footnote, it has been removed from the Bible.

The biggest problem (That I've found) in the NIV is:

Isaiah 14:12 (KJV) How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

In the NIV the name Lucifer has been removed and it reads:

Isaiah 14:12 (NIV) How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!

In Revelation 22:16 Jesus says that he is the morning star.

Revelation 22:16 (KJV) I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

Revelation 22:16 (NIV) I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star

By removing the name Lucifer from Isaiah 14:12 and changing son of the morning to morning star, the NIV says that Jesus was the one cast out of heaven and he once laid low the nations. Thereby making Jesus and Satan one and the same.

Other translations that have done the same:

Isaiah 14:12 (NCV) King of Babylon, morning star, you have fallen from heaven, even though you were as bright as the rising sun! In the past all the nations on earth bowed down before you, but now you have been cut down.

Revelation 22:16 (NCV) "I, Jesus, have sent my angel to tell you these things for the churches. I am the descendant from the family of David, and I am the bright morning star."

Isaiah 14:12 (GNT) King of Babylon, bright morning star, you have fallen from heaven! In the past you conquered nations, but now you have been thrown to the ground.

Revelation 22:16 (GNT) "I, Jesus, have sent my angel to announce these things to you in the churches. I am descended from the family of David; I am the bright morning star."

Isaiah 14:12 (NAB) How have you fallen from the heavens, O morning star, son of the dawn! How are you cut down to the ground, you who mowed down the nations.

Revelation 22:16 (NAB) "I, Jesus, sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the root and offspring of David, the bright morning star."

 

[Fedora Heightrout]

Sorry, you lose that one. If you're going to count first editions as the only editions, then you'll have to count all the books of the bible that were in the first edition of the KJV to have been removed from later editions, as they, in fact, were.

Use current editions in your argument, and we can talk. But we still won't be saying much, because your argument still fails to explain why you think more verses = more accurate. As far as I can tell, the NIV has striven to be as accurate a translation as possible, and if the translators decided to excise or footnote a verse, there was probably a very good reason for it (such as that verse appearing to have been a later addition.)

As for Jesus being Lucifer, it's amusing, but that really only works in the KJV, not in the NIV, because the "morning star" is not personified as a character at all in the NIV. Lucifer means "morning star", referring specifically to the planet Venus. Do you think every time ancient writers referred to Venus they really meant this amalgam of scattered and disparate references that popular interpretation has called "Satan"?

Without reasons as to why you think the NIV is inaccurate, all you're essentially saying is that the NIV is wrong because it's not the KJV, and the KJV had it right. That's not a reason. I could just as easily say that the KJV is wrong because it's not the NIV, and by your own example, I'd have numerous other translations to back me up on it.