Is The Kjv The Only Reliable Translation?

[Beth O]

We are not a King James only board but I feel we should caution those that may be using unreliable scriptures, especially The Message, or Renovare, that support easy believism, Universal salvation, deny the blood of Jesus, etc.....

I'm only saying that I only use the KJV and here are the reasons why. If you say you only use the KJV, you are told you are a KJVO nut. I find this strange. I know people that only use the NIV or only use NASB. I don't call them nuts. I don't even think they are nuts. btw I didn't think you were a KJVO board. Just sharing my reasons for the choice I personally made. It doesn't bother me that others disagree.

[DonO]

There were many reliable versions before any KJV came about.

Can you name a few and which text did they use?

[Chris]

Can you name a few and which text did they use?

You can refer back to Buzzard's graphic here:

Is The Kjv The Only Reliable Translation?

Looks like there were plenty including the Geneva Bible, which some of the Pilgrims came over with. Textual Basis was the TR.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Bible

[BuzzardHut]

Can you name a few and which text did they use?

all the below were taken from the old latin syriac originals from Antioch:
some were translated back and forth from greek to latin to german back to latin etc....
Old Testament used was the Hebrew Massoretic text:

There were the ancient Peshitta of the Vaudois, mostly loose books not yet compiled
The Old Latin Vulgate (not Jerome's rewritten copy)
Waldensians
Donatists
(some of) Wycliffe
Erasmus text (not influenced by Jerome)
The Gutenberg Bible
Martin Luther's Germanic translation
Tyndale
Coverdale
Matthew Henry translation
The Great English Bible
The Geneva Bible
The Bishop's Bible

[walksbyf8h]

BethO - I'm having a conversation with Buzz. Please excuse yourself. Thanks.

.

[walksbyf8h]

The quickest answer to your question is Chapter 6
It's just a webpage with charts that addresses your questions. It's not a big book you have to buy and read.
I didn't think I needed to copy/paste it when you can just look it over for yourself.

My post #6 should have resolved most questions.

No, I don't believe so. The issue, that I am addressing with you is the quote. If you state that the reading of anything but the bibles that you've sanctioned is corrupt, then, it follows that the doctrine of those Christians reading said bibles would also be corrupt. I am asking you to state where the understanding of our Faith is compromised by reading the three bibles, or just one, that I listed.

.

[walksbyf8h]

Here's a few more links to sites with omissions from the different Bible versions. I'm not advocating a particular version, but I do think it is helpful to see what the difference is. :)

http://av1611.com/kjbp/charts/various.html

http://av1611.com/kjbp/charts/preeminence.html

BOMB - please go back and read what I said and what the issue that I am raising is. How are those links the answer to my question to Buzz? Why are you answering for him?

[Chris]

BOMB - please go back and read what I said and what the issue that I am raising is. How are those links the answer to my question to Buzz? Why are you answering for him?

:woah: :stooges :vroom

[BuzzardHut]

No, I don't believe so. The issue, that I am addressing with you is the quote. If you state that the reading of anything but the bibles that you've sanctioned is corrupt, then, it follows that the doctrine of those Christians reading said bibles would also be corrupt. I am asking you to state where the understanding of our Faith is compromised by reading the three bibles, or just one, that I listed.

.

I am not telling you what version you can read, me personally, I would shy away from several translations as I mentioned the Message and Renovare, I think you would agree with that.

I just take it a little further in narrowing down my selections, and I see the Westcott-Hort influence on scripture the same way we view the Darwinian influence on science.

Your answers are still in Chapter 6

[walksbyf8h]

I am not telling you what version you can read, me personally, I would shy away from several translations as I mentioned the Message and Renovare, I think you would agree with that.

Agreed.

I just take it a little further in narrowing down my selections, and I see the Westcott-Hort influence on scripture the same way we view the Darwinian influence on science.

But you're still not answering the question. It is simple enough question. How is the doctrine of those on this board, with whom you fellowship daily, compromised or to put it another way, less exact than yours because of the bible that they read?

Your answers are still in Chapter 6

I expect my answer to come from the gentleman who made the statement. That would be you. I am not going to read whatever that is, nor am I going to blanket this thread with the opposing view. My previous statements were from my study and reading. I'm referring to the second time this was brought up. I did not support my statements by saying that 'Jojo-on-the-web' said so, so it is so. I stood by myself in defending my position as to why I did not select a KJV nor the fact that I would not consider it a sound translation. I provided scripture and stated where it failed starting from the Masoretic text. So, I'm not going to regurgitate my position because that is not what I'm addressing.

I believe that I have been quite clear as to what I'm talking about. I think it's a fair question, Buzz, and would appreciate you answering it.


.

[BuzzardHut]

BethO - I'm having a conversation with Buzz. Please excuse yourself. Thanks.

.

I think anyone is welcome here.
But I am beginning to wonder why this thread was even started in the first place.

[Caretaker]

Here's your challenge. Show where in either the ESV or NASB corrupt doctrine is promoted. I would like to see where a person reading those translations have an incorrect view of G-D, Christ, the Holy Spirit, sanctification, justification, Israel's position in history,etc. Your comments, once again, sound KJV Onliest and divisive, IMO, so I feel that you should answer.

.

ESV
Acts 3:
25 You are the sons of the prophets and of the covenant that God made with your fathers, saying to Abraham, And in your offspring shall all the families of the earth be blessed.
26 God, having raised up his servant, sent him to you first, to bless you by turning every one of you from your wickedness.

NASB

Acts 3:
25 "It is you who are the R160 sons of the prophets and of the covenant R161 which God made F83 with your fathers, saying to Abraham, `AND R162 IN YOUR SEED ALL THE FAMILIES OF THE EARTH SHALL BE BLESSED.'
26 "For you first, R163 God raised R164 up His Servant F84 and sent Him to bless you by turning every one of you from your wicked ways."


KJV

Acts 3:
25 Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.
26 Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.


The context is fathers and sons, and yet the corrupt manuscripts translates the word for son as servant, while in other areas properly as son.

Why would someone want a translation which reduces the status of Christ?


KJV
John 9:35
9:35
Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God?

ESV
9:35
Jesus heard that they had cast him out, and having found him he said, Do you believe in the Son of Man?

NASB
9:35
Jesus heard that they had put R623 him out, and finding him, He said, "Do you believe in the Son R624 of Man?"


The links that Buzz gave you show clearly the diluting of certain scriptures. A very subtle reduction in the person and work of Christ Jesus our Lord, in those who embrace the Wescott and Hort influences.

[BuzzardHut]

Agreed.
But you're still not answering the question. It is simple enough question. How is the doctrine of those on this board, with whom you fellowship daily, compromised or to put it another way, less exact than yours because of the bible that they read?

I expect my answer to come from the gentleman who made the statement. That would be you. I am not going to read whatever that is, nor am I going to blanket this thread with the opposing view. My previous statements were from my study and reading. I'm referring to the second time this was brought up. I did not support my statements by saying that 'Jojo-on-the-web' said so, so it is so. I stood by myself in defending my position as to why I did not select a KJV nor the fact that I would not consider it a sound translation. I provided scripture and stated where it failed starting from the Masoretic text. So, I'm not going to regurgitate my position because that is not what I'm addressing.

I believe that I have been quite clear as to what I'm talking about. I think it's a fair question, Buzz, and would appreciate you answering it.
.

And what systematic theologies have you formed from reading your Bible?
Almost None correct?
Don't we all formulate most of our theology from our mentors, pastors, teachers, books, sunday school classes, sermons, radio, bulletin boards, etc...
We read scripture, ask questions, and get answers from those we trust.

What were the purposes of Origen, Westcott-Hort and others altering key passages?

It was to reduce the position of Jesus, Lift up the Pope, take salvation off christ and onto Romanism, and later on to smooth out scriptures that deify Jesus, elevate man, etc...

You probably don't notice that in your readings because you have already been taught the truth.
And it was the texts on the left of my chart that brought the great revivals, the Reformation, etc...
The texts on the right support Romanism and the New Age movement (the One World Church movement)

A few years ago I set out to read the entire Bible straight through and did it in 3 months, I used the CEV
Later I went back over it and was horrified discovering I had missed out on about 40% of scripture.

People have already posted numerous passages of scripture that have been left out or altered in other versions:

Jesus coming in the flesh is altered
The virgin birth is altered
Blood atonement is altered.
Jesus appearing after the rez is altered
Faith in Jesus alone altered

We are not in the early days anymore before the printing presses and we are now in the glut of an overabundance of information.

I can see your point that we may not need an unaltered version anymore but I myself choose to try and be as close as possible to the Word of God.

In one of the New Contemplative books (I will look it up) a man uses the revised standard version to prove contemplative prayer is acceptable, I looked up the verse in KVJ and found quite a different translation from the rsv.

I will look up the above for you tomorrow but I feel as the World moves towards the One World Church the ecumenical works of the right side of my chart will grow in greater abundance.

I don't expect you to agree with me but I choose this position for myself and I don't think I am alone.

[Beth O]

No, I don't believe so. The issue, that I am addressing with you is the quote. If you state that the reading of anything but the bibles that you've sanctioned is corrupt, then, it follows that the doctrine of those Christians reading said bibles would also be corrupt. I am asking you to state where the understanding of our Faith is compromised by reading the three bibles, or just one, that I listed.

.

Absolutely untrue. No one is saying that if a person reads a version that has been corrupted that that person is corrupt. When I was saved I was reading NIV only. After much research I then found the problems with the new versions. God can still use the new versions to save.

[Beth O]

BethO - I'm having a conversation with Buzz. Please excuse yourself. Thanks.

.

I'm sorry, I didn't know you were having a private conversation with Buzz. I thought this was a discussion forum. You had asked how the new versions effected doctrine. I thought I might just share a few changes made that effected doctrine.

[BuzzardHut]

Absolutely untrue. No one is saying that if a person reads a version that has been corrupted that that person is corrupt. When I was saved I was reading NIV only. After much research I then found the problems with the new versions. God can still use the new versions to save.

Thats true
Only KJV only people take it that personally :laughbounce
If I said FORD cars are unreliable and Toyotas are better and you drive a Mustang, does that make you unreliable or a poor shopper?

[walksbyf8h]

ESV
A

Drew - I am speaking with Buzz. He's a big fella. I'm sure that he doesn't need you to help him. Ok? I think that I've been clear on that. Having said that; if it is your habit to get in a conversation between two people, then it would be best to answer the actual question - which the scriptures that you posted fail to do. With all due respect, Sibling - this is an A and B conversation.........2:

[Caretaker]

Drew - I am speaking with Buzz. He's a big fella. I'm sure that he doesn't need you to help him. Ok? I think that I've been clear on that. Having said that; if it is your habit to get in a conversation between two people, then it would be best to answer the actual question - which the scriptures that you posted fail to do. With all due respect, Sibling - this is an A and B conversation.........2:

1) Public forum, open thread, public response.

2) Buzz has more than answered your question with the material sourced.

The subtle dilution of God's Word, is a slippery slope leading into apostasy. The filtering through Wescott and Hort with their corrupt theology should be a deep concern for a Believer. The subtle dilution of scriptures defending the basic tenets of the Christian faith, should be of concern to a Believer.

((((((Hugs)))))))))) to you Sibling.

[BuzzardHut]

I already stated this is an open forum and my position on textual criticism is how I currently see it.
It is not a personal attack on any individuals here and shouldn't be taken as one.

[walksbyf8h]

I.

I think anyone is welcome here.
But I am beginning to wonder why this thread was even started in the first place.

It is not a point of who is welcome. When Person A addresses Person B's comments, it is rude for another person, particularly a Christian, to butt in. This is a reading forum, correct? I think that I called your name and quoted you. I believe that that is clear. Beth O came in and (1) did not read what I actually stated, (2) she simply added more onto a pile that no one intended to build, (3) and I was not speaking to her. As of this morning, she's made 18 posts in this forum and 10 of them in this thread. Go back and check for yourself.

From my perspective, this is exactly like those folks who instead of listening to what the other person is saying, they are sitting there formulating their response so they can deliver it - but they are not actually HEARING what is being stated. The issue, Buzz, that I am raising is not your position nor enjoyment of the KJV.

II.
As to why the thread was opened? I didn't open it but my reading of the OP was that it was addressing the heart problem on this board.

The heart problem was addressed in the first iteration of this thread, the second iteration of this thread, and now in the third iteration of this thread. Each time that other posters brought it up, they were steamrolled with another 50 verses or ignored.

I only had something to say when I saw your comment:

But once again there is never an excuse for succumbing to the corrupted Alexandrian manuscripts no matter how pretty the package

I am addressing the comment. I hope that we're clear, now on that. We should be crystal by now.


Here was my first response to that comment:

Here's your challenge. Show where in either the ESV or NASB corrupt doctrine is promoted. I would like to see where a person reading those translations have an incorrect view of G-D, Christ, the Holy Spirit, sanctification, justification, Israel's position in history,etc. Your comments, once again, sound KJV Onliest and divisive, IMO, so I feel that you should answer.

Here is the second time that I said the same thing:

........ you should at the very least be able to tell those who read NASB, ESV, and NIV how their understanding of their sin, Salvation, Redemption, G-D, etc. is compromised.

And here is the third time that I stated the issue again:

I am asking you to state where the understanding of our Faith is compromised by reading the three bibles, or just one, that I listed.

There is a heart problem here. And this topic, for whatever reason, illuminates pride. It doesn't matter a person's position on bible translation when they have a heart full of pride. The unsaved do not listen to them and why should they?

Have you noticed yet that not once has the actual issue of what I was saying has been addressed. As a Sister to a Brother in Christ Jesus, I ask you, don't you see a problem in that? What I'm saying is not even being read.

As for of the "See-how-biblically-astute-I-am" folks, I ignore their posts on anything bible-related because as you can see clearly, they lack comprehension of the written word and fail to understand the difference between explaining doctrine and posting verses. If this were not true then they never would have said anything at all because they would have realized that I was speaking to you, directly. And if anyone PMs you about being upset about my saying this.............then they need to go examine themselves and speak to the L-RD about it.

I'm not angry with you. Not one bit. We will laugh about this in heaven. However, that statement was made in public and that how it should be addressed; in public. 2:

I am speaking to Buzz I am speaking to Buzz I am speaking to Buzz

.