Is there necessarily an "inspired" translation of the Bible?

[Fire Watch]

After seeing some of the threads that have come up as of late, I decided to think on this question a bit.

We do have some amazingly accurate translations of God's Word, but none of our translations are perfect. Not even the translators of any one particular translation would claim that their translation is inspired or innerent (perfect). They only make claims of integrity and scholastic honesty in their translations. There are various verses in any translation which are not translated properly, the KJV included.. When it comes down to deciding which is correct--an English translation which is supposed to be based off of the original languages, or the meaning of the original language itself--it would be ludicrous to prefer a translation. Translations by definition are based off of an original. The original document, by definition, is superior to the translation. As such, it is logically absurd, that once that translation is completed, that we put more trust and faith in the translation, than that which it is translated from. The fact that the our English Bibles have to be translated from Hebrew and Greek demonstrates the superiority of the witness and authority of the source languages. So to say that by pointing out the fact that our English versions are not perfect, I am in effect destroying the validity of the Bible, is incorrect, because it is a confusion of the issue. What we are throwing out is not the validity of God’s Word, but the idea that any translation of God's Word is just as accurate as the original, if not more accurate.

The Bibles we possess today, for the greatest part, do accurately portray the original meaning, but there are places in which they do not. In those places, then, they are not truly conveying God's Word. One will object by saying, "How can I know what God's Word is, then, or know where the translations are and are not correctly translating if I don't know Hebrew or Greek?" Some are concerned that if we do not believe in an inspired English version, then we can never be sure that we are reading the Word of God. This is a valid concern, but I believe that the solution lies in the studying out of the matter, and seeking teaching from those who know these fields of study. God gave the church teachers for a reason. We should not say that because we do not know the Hebrew and Greek that God inspired His revelation into, that we should ignore it altogether, or place a higher premium on our translation of His Word. Neither should we raise our arm up in the air and say we cannot know God's Word. Both of these options are not wise, nor are they necessary. We must seek to understand God's revelation the best we can. If we only have access to the English, we will do fine. Most of the places of mistranslation or under-translation do not affect any major doctrine, yet alone our ability to know God, His will, and find salvation in the Scripture. But if we can study God's Word in the languages that He inspired it in, we are all the better. If all we have is the English versions, and they differ from one another, the only way we can know why they differ or which one is correct is by going back to the sources from which each is derived and examining the evidence.

Concerning the inspiration of any translation, we must ask ourselves, "If there is such a thing as an inspired translation, which one is it? How do we know which one it is?" It cannot be a subjective witness in the heart, because many would claim contradictory witnesses. Some would say it is the KJV; others the NIV or RSV. Who is right? We naturally tend to think we are, but how do we really know this? Have we not been wrong about things in the past which we thought we were right in? Does not the Bible say that the heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked? Can we really trust our hearts? If we say it is God revealing it to us, then why does He not reveal it to other Spirit-filled believers? Are they not sincere? How can we know that? Do you see the problem with making subjective claims like this? There has to be an objective way of evaluating the matter. We need to have evidence that can demonstrate which belief is correct. I can assert my belief and you can assert your belief for eternity, but all we have in the end is two people arguing over beliefs that they offer no proof for. If courtrooms operated in the way that most theological discussions in the church do, every trial would be a waste because one lawyer asserts his belief in the innocence of the defendant, and the other in his guilt. Evidence wins the case. Evidence demonstrates the truth, not opinion.

Most who believe in an inspired English translation tend to name the KJV as that translation. We must ask, however, Why should it hold this place? It is not the first major English translation. If the first English translation does not have to be the inspired one, then why can't the 100th English translation be the inspired translation? How do we decide which translation is inspired? It cannot be by asserting our opinion. It cannot even be by looking at the sales numbers. This has been a popular argument in favor of the KJV. It is argued that if it was not the inspired English version, it would not have been the best-selling and most loved Bible for the past 350 years. This line of reasoning, however, is not valid. We cannot use popularity or sales statistics to determine the inspiration or infallibility of a version. At one time the KJV was the underdog to the version known as the Bishop’s Bible. The KJV was not received well at first, the Bishop’s Bible being preferred over it. Only through some time would it become the most popular and best-selling English version. If we use popularity as the test for determining a version's inspiration, then the Bishop’s Bible is the inspired version and the KJV is a version of Satan. Those who like the NIV could claim that since it is the most popular translation that it is the inspired version, being proven by the number of copies sold. Do we have three inspired translations? Using these types of arguments does not prove anything. It only proves that a version is popular, not that it is the best, or that it is inspired. The only way we can determine which translation is a good translation is by looking at a translation's conformity to the original Hebrew and Greek, which is the inspired version. (http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/noinspiredtranslations.htm)

http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/noinspiredtranslations.htm

[tracifish]

Yes there is. In english, it is the KJV 1611, or if you are on the other side of the pond, it's called the Authorized Version. Both are the same, but in England, people know that King James was not a very nice nice person, so they call it the Authorized Version.

[Fire Watch]

Yes there is. In english, it is the KJV 1611, or if you are on the other side of the pond, it's called the Authorized Version. Both are the same, but in England, people know that King James was not a very nice nice person, so they call it the Authorized Version.
Tracy, did you read my post, or just the title of the thread?

[tracifish]

Tracy, did you read my post, or just the title of the thread?

Sorry...I only skimmed your post. I understand we cannot trust something only because it's the most popular. You also said it's best to look at the original hebrew and greek translations....but in this case, seminaries have switched over to the critical texts over the textus receptus, and I believe it can be proven that the textus receptus is the inspired one.

[captusa]

After seeing some of the threads that have come up as of late, I decided to think on this question a bit.

We do have some amazingly accurate translations of God's Word, but none of our translations are perfect. Not even the translators of any one particular translation would claim that



How do you conclude that ANY of the writings are accurate versions or translation of God's word?
Seriously, your initial assumption is presumptuous.

[Fire Watch]

Sorry...I only skimmed your post. I understand we cannot trust something only because it's the most popular. You also said it's best to look at the original hebrew and greek translationsPerhaps take 3 minutes and read it before disagreeing with it??

....but in this case, seminaries have switched over to the critical texts over the textus receptus, and I believe it can be proven that the textus receptus is the inspired one.
Based on what?

[Fire Watch]

How do you conclude that ANY of the writings are accurate versions or translation of God's word?
Seriously, your initial assumption is presumptuous.God's word understood to be the Bible. I am not interested in turning this into a theist/atheist debate..you dont believe ANY version to be the word of God if there is a God I.Y.O., we all understand that.

[captusa]

God's word understood to be the Bible. I am not interested in turning this into a theist/atheist debate..you dont believe ANY version to be the word of God if there is a God I.Y.O., we all understand that.

I still wonder how one can conclude that the translation of a translation of a translation written in a different language is an accurate record of God's word.
Isn't the oldest copy of the N.T. in Greek and written several centuries after the events?
As far as the O.T. is concerned, what is you opinion on the different identifyable strasnds that edit many parts of the O.T.(J, E and P strands)?

[mrcuff]

When I first saw the title of this thread, I assumed that it was a question for LDS folks. Joseph Smith did a translation that is called the Inspired Version. The Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of LDS (now called the Community of Christ) use it exclusively. The Salt Lake LDS Church use the King James Version, but rely on the Inspired Version to help shed light on verses in the King James Version that are misunderstood or mistranslated.

[Fire Watch]

Here we go:

http://www.tentmaker.org/Biblematters/bestbibletranslation.htm
Thank you, reading it now.

[Fire Watch]

When I first saw the title of this thread, I assumed that it was a question for LDS folks. Joseph Smith did a translation that is called the Inspired Version. The Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of LDS (now called the Community of Christ) use it exclusively. The Salt Lake LDS Church use the King James Version, but rely on the Inspired Version to help shed light on verses in the King James Version that are misunderstood or mistranslated.
No, lol, PLEASE dont let this turn into another Mormonism debate thread.

[tulsatech]

I still wonder how one can conclude that the translation of a translation of a translation written in a different language is an accurate record of God's word.
Isn't the oldest copy of the N.T. in Greek and written several centuries after the events?
As far as the O.T. is concerned, what is you opinion on the different identifyable strasnds that edit many parts of the O.T.(J, E and P strands)?



This is where you are wrong. The Bible is not a "translation of a translation of a translation . . ." Rather, our English translation comes from the original Greek and Hebrew texts. It's not like it was first written in Hebrew then translated into Greek and then translated into Latin and then German and finally English. That is simply not true.

[tulsatech]

Boy those atheists are always shoving their beliefs down our throat, aren't they? ;)

In regards to the OP, very well stated. 100% accurate. Those who pedestalize the KJV especially need to pay attention.I whole-heartedly concur and agree with both Rick and Citizen.

[prisonchaplain]

When I first saw the title of this thread, I assumed that it was a question for LDS folks. Joseph Smith did a translation that is called the Inspired Version. The Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of LDS (now called the Community of Christ) use it exclusively. The Salt Lake LDS Church use the King James Version, but rely on the Inspired Version to help shed light on verses in the King James Version that are misunderstood or mistranslated.

I've been led to believe that though the COJCLDS publishes the KJV, it does not insist that it is the only appropriate version, nor necessarily the best. If others have more light, please share.

[Mikko]

Yes there is. In english, it is the KJV 1611, or if you are on the other side of the pond, it's called the Authorized Version. Both are the same, but in England, people know that King James was not a very nice nice person, so they call it the Authorized Version.


The thing I like best about the KJV is it's rendering of Luke 17:21.

[dhpd]

Yes there is. In english, it is the KJV 1611, or if you are on the other side of the pond, it's called the Authorized Version. Both are the same, but in England, people know that King James was not a very nice nice person, so they call it the Authorized Version.No, King James commissioned and authorized the translation and other monarchs since have authorized the updates. The real name is the Authorized Version. "King James" is a more recent name for this translation.

BTW what is normally called the King James Version today is the Authorized Version of 1769.

[10thAmendment]

Consider that regardless that Jesus' apostles studied from the same scroll version of the Scriptures that Jesus did that the apostles still failed to correlate Scripture prophecy concerning the first coming of the Messiah with events concerning Jesus that they had witnessed, particularly Jesus' death and resurrection.

In fact, Luke 24:44-45 shows that Jesus had to open the minds of his apostles to the Scriptures after the fact. Jesus' Holy Spirit now opens our minds to Scriptural truths as Jesus promised in John 16:12-15, that is, if we allow the Spirit to do so.

So no matter what version of the Bible the Bible you use, if you resist the Spirit's guidance with respect to understanding scriptural truths then you might as well throw your Bible away. Indeed, those who resist the Spirit's guidance to spiritual truths are no better off than 1 Corinthians 1:18-19.

[tracifish]

The thing I like best about the KJV is it's rendering of Luke 17:21.

KJV - Luk 17:21 - Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.
King James Version 1611, 1769

NKJV - Luk 17:21 - "nor will they say, 'See here!' or 'See there!' For indeed, the kingdom of God is within you."
Footnote:
NU-Text reverses here and there.
New King James Version © 1982 Thomas Nelson

NLT - Luk 17:21 - You won't be able to say, `Here it is!' or `It's over there!' For the Kingdom of God is among you."
Footnote:
Or within you.
New Living Translation © 1996 Tyndale Charitable Trust

NIV - Luk 17:21 - nor will people say, ‘Here it is,’ or ‘There it is,’ because the kingdom of God is within you.”
Footnote:
Or among
New International Version © 1973, 1978, 1984 International Bible Society

ESV - Luk 17:21 - “nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or ‘There!’ for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you.”
Footnote:
Or within you, or within your grasp
The Holy Bible, English Standard Version © 2001 Crossway Bibles

NASB - Luk 17:21 - nor will they say, 'Look, here {it is!}' or, 'There {it is!}' For behold, the kingdom of God is in your midst."
New American Standard Bible © 1995 Lockman Foundation

RSV - Luk 17:21 - nor will they say, 'Lo, here it is!' or 'There!' for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you."
Revised Standard Version © 1947, 1952.

ASV - Luk 17:21 - neither shall they say, Lo, here! or, There! for lo, the kingdom of God is within you.
American Standard Version 1901 Info

Young - Luk 17:21 - nor shall they say, Lo, here; or lo, there; for lo, the reign of God is within you.'
Robert Young Literal Translation 1862, 1887, 1898 Info

Darby - Luk 17:21 - nor shall they say, Lo here, or, Lo there; for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you.
J.N.Darby Translation 1890 Info

Webster - Luk 17:21 - Neither will they say, Lo here! or lo there! for behold, the kingdom of God is within you.
Noah Webster Version 1833 Info

HNV - Luk 17:21 - neither will they say, 'Look, here!' or, 'Look, there!' for behold, the Kingdom of God is within you."
Hebrew Names Version 2000 Info

Vulgate - Luk 17:21 - neque dicent ecce hic aut ecce illic ecce enim regnum Dei intra vos est
Jerome's Latin Vulgate 405 A.D. Info

[tulsatech]

The thing I like best about the KJV is it's rendering of Luke 17:21.And why is that?

[Mikko]

KJV - Luk 17:21 - Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.
King James Version 1611, 1769

NKJV - Luk 17:21 - "nor will they say, 'See here!' or 'See there!' For indeed, the kingdom of God is within you."
Footnote:
NU-Text reverses here and there.
New King James Version © 1982 Thomas Nelson

NLT - Luk 17:21 - You won't be able to say, `Here it is!' or `It's over there!' For the Kingdom of God is among you."
Footnote:
Or within you.
New Living Translation © 1996 Tyndale Charitable Trust

NIV - Luk 17:21 - nor will people say, ‘Here it is,’ or ‘There it is,’ because the kingdom of God is within you.”
Footnote:
Or among
New International Version © 1973, 1978, 1984 International Bible Society

ESV - Luk 17:21 - “nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or ‘There!’ for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you.”
Footnote:
Or within you, or within your grasp
The Holy Bible, English Standard Version © 2001 Crossway Bibles

NASB - Luk 17:21 - nor will they say, 'Look, here {it is!}' or, 'There {it is!}' For behold, the kingdom of God is in your midst."
New American Standard Bible © 1995 Lockman Foundation

RSV - Luk 17:21 - nor will they say, 'Lo, here it is!' or 'There!' for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you."
Revised Standard Version © 1947, 1952.

ASV - Luk 17:21 - neither shall they say, Lo, here! or, There! for lo, the kingdom of God is within you.
American Standard Version 1901 Info

Young - Luk 17:21 - nor shall they say, Lo, here; or lo, there; for lo, the reign of God is within you.'
Robert Young Literal Translation 1862, 1887, 1898 Info

Darby - Luk 17:21 - nor shall they say, Lo here, or, Lo there; for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you.
J.N.Darby Translation 1890 Info

Webster - Luk 17:21 - Neither will they say, Lo here! or lo there! for behold, the kingdom of God is within you.
Noah Webster Version 1833 Info

HNV - Luk 17:21 - neither will they say, 'Look, here!' or, 'Look, there!' for behold, the Kingdom of God is within you."
Hebrew Names Version 2000 Info

Vulgate - Luk 17:21 - neque dicent ecce hic aut ecce illic ecce enim regnum Dei intra vos est
Jerome's Latin Vulgate 405 A.D. Info

Yes. The Greek word entos is translated as "within," "in the midst" and "among" in the various translations. Now, what I am curious to know is if the "among" and "in the midst" are as close a translation as "within."

[Mikko]

And why is that?

It's not the only one in which I like the rendering of Luke 17:21; there are several, as Traci demonstrated.

Let's just say it supports my theology, in a proof texting sort of way.

It's my John 3:16.

It is to me what Act 2:38 is to the Pentacostals.

[apollled]

hope this helps...
WHAT DO WE MEAN BY “INSPIRATION”?

Inspiration does NOT refer to the writers, but rather to the writings. The Greek text of II Timothy 3:16 has three words that are translated as “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God.” The word “all” (or “every”) and the word “writing” (graphics) and the word “God-breathed” (or “inspired”). II Peter 1:20-21 insists that the writers were controlled by the Holy Spirit so that what was written was accurate and exactly what God wanted to communicate to us.

There is “external evidence” (like manuscripts, historical and archaeological facts, geographical information, etc.) as well as “internal evidence” (what the Bible claims about itself) that affects what we mean by “inspiration.” Here is a possible definition:

INSPIRATION IS THE ACT OF GOD BY WHICH HE COMMUNICATED HIS WORD IN WRITTEN FORM AND DIRECTLY CONTROLLED THE WRITERS SO THAT WHAT WAS WRITTEN (original autographs) WAS FREE FROM ERROR!

The Bible is not only “inspired of God” - it is also inerrant (without error in the original autographs). It is the most translated and distributed book before the invention of printing (1450 AD) in the history of the world! No other writing is close to its manuscript evidence. Over 5500 Greek manuscripts, 10,000 Latin manuscripts, and over 1000 manuscripts in other languages - all before the invention of printing! Incredible to say the least!

Inspiration refers to ALL that was written - not just parts of it. If you can’t trust the Bible’s historical facts, then how can you trust its moral and spiritual teachings? The Bible is the most amazing book of all history - actually it is a library (integrated software system!) of 66 books. The Old Testament has 39 books in the Protestant Bible (exactly the same as the Jewish Bible, the Tanakh, but organized differently in three major sections - the torah, the prophets, and the writings.) The New Testament contains 27 books. The Catholic Bible has added some 14 Jewish apocryphal books, but the early church never considered them inspired of God even though some of them contain valuable history. There have been some modern attempts (Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Judas, etc.) to add books to the Bible as though they were on the level of the authorized canon of the Scriptures - but it won’t work! These “pseudo-graphic” writings clearly reveal that they are outside the realm of Biblical authority and authenticity.

[tulsatech]

It's not the only one in which I like the rendering of Luke 17:21; there are several, as Traci demonstrated.

Let's just say it supports my theology, in a proof texting sort of way.

It's my John 3:16.

It is to me what Act 2:38 is to the Pentacostals.I've often heard it said that a "proof text" taken out of context is a pretext. Whether that's true or not, it certainly sounds good. :lol: I won't presume to know how you interpret this particular verse. But I will say that taken by itself (alone) a person could probably come up with all sorts of incorrect doctrine.

So, rather than pass judgment or condemn what you believe (about this verse) would you mind sharing with us your interpretation of Luke 17:21?

Keep in mind, I will be glad to share my interpretation as well.

[Fire Watch]

I'm thrilled to see so many agreeing with the OP. I am curious however to see if Traci still holds to her original POV.

[tulsatech]

I'm thrilled to see so many agreeing with the OP. I am curious however to see if Tracy still holds to her original POV.Just out of curiosity, what would you do if someone came out and said they had produced an "inspired" version (translation) of the Bible? How would you react?

[lucky]

:boohoo: Yes there is. In english, it is the KJV 1611, or if you are on the other side of the pond, it's called the Authorized Version. Both are the same, but in England, people know that King James was not a very nice nice person, so they call it the Authorized Version.
:boohoo:

I really like the orginal 1611 KJV when one of the Ten commandments were "Thou shout commit adultry".

[Fire Watch]

Just out of curiosity, what would you do if someone came out and said they had produced an "inspired" version (translation) of the Bible? How would you react?
I would have to consider the person's theological background, motive, and credibilty, then find a tactful way to tell them they were full of it.

[Fire Watch]

Just out of curiosity, what would you do if someone came out and said they had produced an "inspired" version (translation) of the Bible? How would you react?
Keep in mind though that that exact scenario happens about once every century, we could both cite a few examples, and posters here that adhere to those "truly inspired" versions.

[Citizen]

Traci, you aren't using the 1611 KJV. You're using the 1769.

[The Infamous Din]

I still wonder how one can conclude that the translation of a translation of a translation written in a different language is an accurate record of God's word.
Isn't the oldest copy of the N.T. in Greek and written several centuries after the events?
As far as the O.T. is concerned, what is you opinion on the different identifyable strasnds that edit many parts of the O.T.(J, E and P strands)?






Take some time to inform yourself. Your future depends upon it.

[bsleplatt]

Last night my kids were watching "Prince of Egypt" and my husband I laughed and talked about what liberties they took with the movie. But in the end..my son said...Moses is the one who talked to the burning bush....we started watching about 1/2 way through the movie btw...not at the beginning. And my husband and I looked at each other and realized that our son "got it". Then our oldest daughter chimed in with her knowledge of Moses. And what they had seen in the movie that they had learned in sunday school and vacation bible school over the years as well.

We kind of got side tracked and Actually...it made me think of the poll I ask about is the bible true and the translations true, vs is the bible true and the translations not true but of man, etc..

I realized last night just how strongly I believe that the translations are truely inspired by God. I have said before that I feel like we box God up and make Him fit into this 2 by 4 box that we want to put Him in. But My God is Big enough to part a sea and bring His people out of slavery, Great enough to sacrifice His son for me, and Mighty enough to give His son...for my own's salvation. God created the world and the universe. He created man and animal alike. He loved us enough to send His son. And His son came and healed the sick, helped the lame to walk, gave sight to the blind...even raised the dead from the grave.

How is that we can believe God is that big, that mighty, that loving...and NOT believe that He is big enough to have had a hand in the translations of His holy word? My God does not fit in a 2 by 4 box anymore. My God is mighty enough that He can do and does all things.

[Fire Watch]

How is that we can believe God is that big, that mighty, that loving...and NOT believe that He is big enough to have had a hand in the translations of His holy word? My God does not fit in a 2 by 4 box anymore. My God is mighty enough that He can do and does all things.

I think you may have misunderstood my OP if indeed you have read it. I too believe the Bible to be Divinely inspired; the question posed was then, is there a singular translation that is the only inspired translation, the others therefore not being Divinely inspired.

[bsleplatt]

I think you may have misunderstood my OP if indeed you have read it. I too believe the Bible to be Divinely inspired; the question posed was then, is there a singular translation that is the only inspired translation, the others therefore not being Divinely inspired.

That is my point though....does only one translation have to be completely correct? The translations differ so minor...

maybe one translation may help some understand the message of God while a different translation may in fact have a better understanding for another? Is the message different? Or is it possible that God is big enough for both to be absolutely correct?

[HardHammer]

Last night my kids were watching "Prince of Egypt" and my husband I laughed and talked about what liberties they took with the movie. But in the end..my son said...Moses is the one who talked to the burning bush....we started watching about 1/2 way through the movie btw...not at the beginning. And my husband and I looked at each other and realized that our son "got it". Then our oldest daughter chimed in with her knowledge of Moses. And what they had seen in the movie that they had learned in sunday school and vacation bible school over the years as well.

We kind of got side tracked and Actually...it made me think of the poll I ask about is the bible true and the translations true, vs is the bible true and the translations not true but of man, etc..

I realized last night just how strongly I believe that the translations are truely inspired by God. I have said before that I feel like we box God up and make Him fit into this 2 by 4 box that we want to put Him in. But My God is Big enough to part a sea and bring His people out of slavery, Great enough to sacrifice His son for me, and Mighty enough to give His son...for my own's salvation. God created the world and the universe. He created man and animal alike. He loved us enough to send His son. And His son came and healed the sick, helped the lame to walk, gave sight to the blind...even raised the dead from the grave.

How is that we can believe God is that big, that mighty, that loving...and NOT believe that He is big enough to have had a hand in the translations of His holy word? My God does not fit in a 2 by 4 box anymore. My God is mighty enough that He can do and does all things.

Great points, my God is so big He holds the Universe in His Hand, and I also believe that same Hand indeed does influence the different translations, in addition to the original authors inspiration during it's writing. I believe one needs to compare the doctrinal difference to evaluate whether it has been translated correctly. The doctrinal difference are minute, and do not vary as far as I can tell.

[Old Tex]

We do have some amazingly accurate translations of God's Word, but none of our translations are perfect......... Not even the translators of any one particular translation would claim that their translation is inspired or innerent (perfect).

Well, I want to applaud you Rick for posting this. I would like your source so I can go and see where it comes from.

For years we LDS folks have been beat up by more "traditional" Christians because of our position on the bible. We LDS use the King James translation.

Back in the 1840s a newspaper man who was writing on various religions asks Joseph Smith for some main points of belief held by the LDS. He quickly penned off a few brief points, one of them concerning the LDS position on the bible.

He wrote this....."We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God."

Direct and simple, but for this simple statement, we have caught a storm of flack for some hundred and fifty years from those who have indignantly claimed that the bible is the "inerrent word of God", and still do.

I'm glad to see someone finally approaching this subject with some reason. Maybe because of it, one more myth about the LDS Church will fall by the wayside.

[tulsatech]

Is it the message within the pages of the Bible which is inerrant or the actual words themselves? If you say it's the words, I might ask "which words"? Do those words necessarilly have to be in the original language they were written in or spoken in? If a person heard the inspired word of God spoken by Jesus in His original Aramaic and translated what he heard into Greek, would it still be "inspired"? <things that make you go hmmmm> :think:

[Fire Watch]

bump for more discussion

[trettep]

I started studying Ancient Greek for the purposes of getting a better understanding. Especially when I found quotes of early church historians that were quoting texts of scripture they had in their possession at the time that were different than some of found in the mainstream texts. Consider the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew translated by George Howard. It explains an ancient text of Matthew that was delivered in Hebrew that differs in some parts from all other known texts but matches some early church historian quotes from scriptures that are not found in the mainstream translations. That led me to embrace that Gospel of Matthew as being closer to inspired than what we currently possess.

Paul

[pillgrim]

2 Tim 3:16
6 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

KJV

All scripture is inspired. Inspiration means God breathed. This is at the point and time it is given by God. So inspiration referrs to the origin (form the mouth of God) and time (when given originally)

Revelation referring to the revealing of the inspired word to the human authors and uses even their indiviual personalities to "color" the light of the word.

Illumination refers to the Holy Spirit teaching and illuminating the student the already revealed Word.

Nevertheless, scripture is not the word of men but of God,.


1 Thess 2:13
13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

KJV

As far as translations are concerned, I consider the KJV as the best for me. I am not King James only but King James Best. The reason for this is that I cut my baby Christian teeth on it and it is engrained in my being. It is majestic and wonderful. Also it is the version used by God to raise up the USA. Can it be all that bad? Some act as if it is a plague. Thee, Thou, Blessed...Now how hard is that for the Holy Spirit to iluminate you?

Having said that, let me say I know there are errors. You are shocked?! I know prepositions at the end of sentences which are grammatically inccorrect.

I have seen the original 1611 in a bookstore once. It is not like the KJV we have now. The KJV that is popular now has been revised 6 times since the 1611. (not counting the "New" KJV.

The school I attended only used KJV in the classroom for consistancy. There were reasons for doing this and they were accused by ignorant people of being KJV only. Even though the Head of OT Studies believed the American Standard Bible to be the most accurate and literal translation and the head of the seminary was on the committee who did the New KJV.

I saw a chart once which showed the different translations and how they related from most literal to "thought'. I will look for it.


If I remember the KJV is translated from the "Testus Receptus" and all the others from the Westcott Hort.

And those are some of my thoughts on this topic.

[PaleoPaul]

The KJV debate is stupid. I believe the KJV is a superior translation, but it isn't divinely inspired.

[pillgrim]

A great verse to ponder:


Ps 68:11
11 The Lord gave the word: great was the company of those that published it.

KJV

[Phredderikk]

What is inspired - the symbols on the paper, or the truths which they represent? The issue of this-or-that version being the 'inspired' one (mostly KJV only) is really a very shortsighted argument. It is similar to what the Muslims claim when they say that if you don;t read the Quran in Arabic, you are not really reading the Quran. Granted, it IS apparent that certain versions are better, insofar as they are more faithful to the Original Greek, they are all translations of a compilation of copies several to many generations removed from the original documents. Another thing to consider also is the hundreds of translations into other languages... is there a Spanish translation that is more inspired than the other Spanish versions?

I may seem to many to be a bit liberal here... in truth I am not. I firmly believe that the Holy Spirit fully inspired the writers of our Bible, and that He further inspired the later councils to select the appropriate books. I also firmly believe that The truths contained in those original books are also, through the Holy Spirit, passed onto the faithful in Christ thoughout all generations. Finally, I also believe that there ARE English translations today that are not as 'good' as others. (NLT, The Message, NIV for example - though I will say that God used the NIV mightily in me during the first couple years of my walk)

What versions do I prefer? KJV, NKJV, NASB, RSV, plus a couple 'literal' translations for deeper study - Young's, and Green's.

[Phredderikk]

The KJV debate is stupid. I believe the KJV is a superior translation, but it isn't divinely inspired.


100% agreed...

[Phredderikk]

In spite of the fact that there are people who think that I am on the road to Hell for having one, I like my "New King James Version of the New Open Bible Study Edition". I agree with what you say about comparing the current Bible with the original Hebrew and the original Greek texts.

The Bible has been the world's most widely distributed text since the printing press was invented over 550 years ago, is considered to be the Word of God by 33% of the worlds population (the Koran is second with about 20%), and it does not lose anything when it is translated into different languages. Why not? Because the power than inspired it's writing centuries ago is the same power that enables those who spread the message today. Jesus said that His message would be preached in all of the World before His return.

Or, as Napoleon said, "the Bible is no mere book, it is a living creature with a power that conquers all who oppose it". I think that this is true of the Authorized King James Version, the NIV, The NKJV, the American Standard, etc. etc. In English, Spanish, German, Chinese or Swahili. The message of Jesus Christ crucified will continue to go forth. And nobody can stop it.

Amen. The real power is the Holy Spirit illuminating the scripture...

[pillgrim]

One thing to keep ion mind is that it is the Word of God and not the just the thoughts of God. Jesus indicated that even every jot and tittle (marks of the hebrew) are part and parcel and will not pass away. God has chosen the and spoken particular words and grammar so that the meaning would be exact and we would not have to guess.


Matt 5:18
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

KJV

[Mathius]

I prefer the New American Bible (Catholic Bible) as the catholics I would assume hold the originals in their "vaults".

[Drink Milk]

Yes there is. In english, it is the KJV 1611, or if you are on the other side of the pond, it's called the Authorized Version.
I agree.

The theology is right and the language is beautiful. Those who discredit the KJV do so because they do not like the majestic language.

Just to be cynical, the real reason for replacing the KJV in the USA is that it is not copyrighted, and thus there are limited profits to be made from publishing it. That isn't Christian.

[Fire Watch]

I agree.

The theology is right and the language is beautiful. Those who discredit the KJV do so because they do not like the majestic language.

Just to be cynical, the real reason for replacing the KJV in the USA is that it is not copyrighted, and thus there are limited profits to be made from publishing it. That isn't Christian.
So, Jesus and the Apostles spoke the "majestic" Shakespearean english?:))

[ROBERTENEAL]

So, Jesus and the Apostles spoke the "majestic" Shakespearean english?:))

The ones in some of the movies did, but you know how Hollywood takes uses "artistic license" for effect.
Personally, I think that they must have been from the Bible belt and said
"y'all".

[Fire Watch]

The ones in some of the movies did, but you know how Hollywood takes uses "artistic license" for effect.
Personally, I think that they must have been from the Bible belt and said
"y'all".
You're quite right..

Matthew 8:10: (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Matthew+8:10&version=9)

When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto y'all, I aint found so great faith, nowheres, not in Israel.

[ROBERTENEAL]

You're quite right..

Matthew 8:10: (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Matthew+8:10&version=9)

When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto y'all, I aint found so great faith, nowheres, not in Israel.

Or in Mississippi,neither:lol:

[Fire Watch]

lol

[Steve Rogers]

you cannot have a perfect translation because the original documents no longer exist so we have no basis for confirmation.. as for the old testament.. think of how many times those stories were told and retold before they were ever printed. No way can they ever exist in their original form.

[ROBERTENEAL]

[QUOTE=Steve Rogers;8676928]you cannot have a perfect translation because the original documents no longer exist so we have no basis for confirmation.. as for the old testament.. think of how many times those stories were told and retold before they were ever printed. No way can they ever exist in their original form.[/QUOTED
Do the Dead Sea scrolls have any significance?www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_Scrolls

[Steve Rogers]

[QUOTE=Steve Rogers;8676928]you cannot have a perfect translation because the original documents no longer exist so we have no basis for confirmation.. as for the old testament.. think of how many times those stories were told and retold before they were ever printed. No way can they ever exist in their original form.[/QUOTED
Do the Dead Sea scrolls have any significance?

Sure they do, but Abraham would have lived 2000 years before they were written. and although some of them were written during Jesus' life, there is no mention of him.

[ROBERTENEAL]

[QUOTE=ROBERTENEAL;8677045]

Sure they do, but Abraham would have lived 2000 years before they were written. and although some of them were written during Jesus' life, there is no mention of him.

The chronological breakdown from wikipedia:www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_Scrolls
According to carbon dating, textual analysis, and handwriting analysis the documents were written at various times between the middle of the 2nd century BC and the 1st century AD. At least one document has a carbon date range of 21 BC–61 AD. The Nash Papyrus from Egypt, containing a copy of the Ten Commandments, is the only other Hebrew document of comparable antiquity. Similar written materials have been recovered from nearby sites, including the fortress of Masada. While some of the scrolls were written on papyrus, a good portion were written on a brownish animal hide that appears to be gevil. The scrolls were written with feathers from a bird and the ink used was made from carbon black and white pigments. One scroll, appropriately named the Copper Scroll, consisted of thin copper sheets that were incised with text and then joined together.[1][2][3]
Dead Sea Scroll fragments on display at the Israel Museum in Jerusalem.
Dead Sea Scroll fragments on display at the Israel Museum in Jerusalem.

About 80% to 85% of the Dead Sea Scrolls are written in one of three dialects of Hebrew,[4] Biblical Hebrew (also known as Classical Hebrew), "Dead Sea Scroll Hebrew" (on which see Hoffman 2004 or Qimron 1986), or proto-Tannaitic Hebrew, as in the Copper Scroll and the MMT text. Biblical Hebrew dominates in the Biblical scrolls, and DSS Hebrew in scrolls which some scholars believe were composed at Qumran. Also some scrolls are written in Aramaic and a few in Koine Greek.

Even according to those scholars who believe that there was scribal activity at Qumran, only a few of the biblical scrolls were actually composed there, the majority being copied before the Qumran period and coming into the ownership of the claimed Qumran community (Abegg et al 2002). There is, however, no concrete physical evidence of scribal activity at Qumran, nor, a fortiori, that the claimed Qumran community altered the biblical texts to reflect their own theology (Golb, 1995; cf. Abegg et al 2002). It is thought that the claimed Qumran community would have viewed the Book of Enoch and the Book of Jubilees as divinely inspired scripture (Abegg et al 2002). The biblical texts cited most often in the nonbiblical Dead Sea Scrolls are the Psalms, followed by the Book of Isaiah and the Book of Deuteronomy (Abegg et al 2002).

Important texts include the Isaiah Scroll (discovered in 1947), a Commentary on the Habakkuk (1947), the so-called Manual of Discipline (= Community Rule) (1QS/4QSa-j), which gives much information on the structure and theology of a sect, and the earliest version of the Damascus Document. The so-called Copper Scroll (1952), which lists valuable hidden caches of gold, scrolls, and weapons, is probably the most notorious.

The fragments span at least 801 texts that represent many diverse viewpoints, ranging from beliefs resembling those of the Essenes to those of other sects. About 30% are fragments from the Hebrew Bible, from all the books except the Book of Esther and the Book of Nehemiah (Abegg et al 2002). About 25% are traditional Israelite religious texts that are not in the canonical Hebrew Bible, such as the Book of Enoch, the Book of Jubilees, and the Testament of Levi. Another 30% contain Biblical commentaries or other texts such as the Community Rule (1QS/4QSa-j, also known as "Discipline Scroll" or "Manual of Discipline"), the The Rule of the Congregation, The Rule of the Blessing and the War of the Sons of Light Against the Sons of Darkness (1QM, also known as the "War Scroll") related to the beliefs, regulations, and membership requirements of a Jewish sect, which some researchers continue to believe lived in the Qumran area. The rest of the fragments (about 15%) remain unidentified.

[edit] Frequency of books found

Books Ranked According to Number of Manuscripts found (top 16)[5]
Books No. found
Psalms 39
Deuteronomy 33
1 Enoch 25
Genesis 24
Isaiah 22
Jubilees 21
Exodus 18
Leviticus 17
Numbers 11
Minor Prophets 10
Daniel 8
Jeremiah 6
Ezekiel 6
Job 6
1 & 2 Samuel 4

[swampthing]

Wikipedia is hardly an authoritative, reliable source. It has so many holes in it that it looks like a piece of Swiss cheese.

If you're going to go through the trouble of researching, at least have the decency to pick reliable sources.

[swampthing]

you cannot have a perfect translation because the original documents no longer exist so we have no basis for confirmation.. as for the old testament.. think of how many times those stories were told and retold before they were ever printed. No way can they ever exist in their original form.

Except that we have the original Greek in Textus Receptus -- the Received Text -- and it squares with over 5600 ancient manuscripts that we do have. The King James Version squares with this.

The copyists throughout the ages, history has shown, were very meticulous.

However, the Wescott-Hort Greek translation is filled with errors and omissions because the copyists of manuscripts inserted commentaries of their own and others, and changed so many things that the modern translations are just garbage.

So, The King James Version is the closest we can come. It is God's Word preserved in English. All other translations are about God's Word.

[texan_rep]

Except that we have the original Greek in Textus Receptus -- the Received Text -- and it squares with over 5600 ancient manuscripts that we do have. The King James Version squares with this.

The copyists throughout the ages, history has shown, were very meticulous.

However, the Wescott-Hort Greek translation is filled with errors and omissions because the copyists of manuscripts inserted commentaries of their own and others, and changed so many things that the modern translations are just garbage.

So, The King James Version is the closest we can come. It is God's Word preserved in English. All other translations are about God's Word.

:rolleyes:

The best copy you could possibly have is the Vulgate.

The Textus Receptus is garbage.

[swampthing]

:rolleyes:

The best copy you could possibly have is the Vulgate.

The Textus Receptus is garbage.


Except that it squares with over 5600 ancient manuscripts.

[texan_rep]

no, the Textus Receptus is a small group of Middle Ages manuscripts. The majority of Biblical scholars have panned that set.

[coMITTed]

If you want some insight into the inspiration of the Bible, check out some of Hugh Nibley's works. The man learned Ancient Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic and has written volumes on his assessments of the ancient texts upon which the Bible was largely translated from. The man was brilliant. Sheer genius. But the central point of the Bible, no matter what translation/angle you approach it from, has always boiled down to Jesus Christ as the Savior of the world, who atoned for the sins of mankind, that we might return and live with Him and our Father in Heaven again someday.

[Semi-Sweet]

I don't believe there is an "inspired" translation of the Bible"

Most everyone has their favorite translation. Some translations trouble me, for example;

The words only begotten are derived from one compound Greek word. .monogenes the meaning of which is evident, for mono in the English word is only and genes in the English term is begotten.. The Greek term monogenes therefore cannot be fully translated without two English words. Any man, or set of men, who would drop genes from this word, and thus omit begotten, either does not grasp the original language and its meaning or he does not believe its doctrine.
This word monogenes occurs five times in our New Testament in reference to Christ and is consistently translated only begotten: Jno. 1:14, "the only begotten of the Father"; Jno 1:18, "the only begotten Son"; Jno. 3:16, "gave his only begotten Son"; 1 Jno. 4:9, "sent his only begotten Son." Then, in Heb. 11:17 the word occurs in the original and in the English in reference to the offering of Isaac by Abraham: "By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten [monogenes] son."

In this text the word son is in italics, showing that it is not in the original; so if the word begotten is omitted [as the new versions have done] this passage would end in mid-air. ."offered up his only"! Here it is evident that it requires the two words only begotten to fully translate the word monogenes he "offered up his only begotten." But the new translators are involved in the inconsistency of deleting the word begotten, which is in the text, but retaining the word son, which is not in the text, of Heb. 11:17. It is the evidence of an arbitrary policy of translation to serve their purpose of expunging the cardinal doctrine of the only begotten Son of God in the virgin birth of Christ from these New Testament texts, as they also did from the Isa. 7:14 passage of the Old Testament prophecy.

As long as we are aware that the beliefs of the translators can make a difference in the translation, we can be cautious, because I believe that we are accountable for what we teach others.

[Ron Jon]

:rolleyes:

The best copy you could possibly have is the Vulgate.

The Textus Receptus is garbage.Calling another person's deeply held religious scriptures "garbage" is not respectful and I believe goes against the rules in this particular forum. I would ask you to please edit your post. You have no more right to describe the Textus Receptus "garbage" than I do to describe the Vulgate similarly. Neither is honest nor conducive to an honest discussion.

[Ron Jon]

A couple of springboards for you....

First, even a perfect translation, if one could be proved, will have little impact on the greater issue of interpreting meaning. That's what I see as the crux of various debates.

Second, I concur with the need to view the Bible in historical context. So it puzzles me that so many refuse to admit other works of the times. True, the DSS do not specifically mention Jesus, but Nag Hammadi texts do.

Or, conversely, for those who believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God, and that its present form is the intended record, why read or admit anything else?You make some valid points. Not only would we need a "perfect" translation but also a "perfect" commentary to interpret this perfect version of the Bible.

[Poisonshady313]

Here's an answer you probably haven't heard yet... and I base it on something I read a while ago.. don't remember too well... but well enough to give this answer:

As far as I know, there is only one inspired translation.... however, it might not 100% accurately reflect the original because it was purposefully written with errors so that the people it was translated for wouldn't get the wrong idea about something they didn't understand.

72 scribes were ordered to write a translation of the Torah into greek. Before this, the Torah had never been translated. Ever. Each of them were put in separate rooms.... and they all wrote exactly the same thing... word for word (that's how you know it's inspired)... especially those purposeful mistranslations.

I'm talking about the Septuagint. The hands of the scribes who wrote it were directed by God... but it certainly isn't an accurate translation by any means. In fact, every year that day (either the day it began or the day it finished) is a day of mourning, observed by fasting.

If you're looking for that which most closely resembles the original hebrew, you could try the Koren publisher's Old Jerusalem Bible... the Artscroll Stone Edition Tanach..... those are two really good ones... you could try asking Harmonious for others... perhaps something that might have been translated by a particularly impressive sage a long time ago...

[liquidcleaner]

It is important to remember that there is very little difference in the bible translations most Christians use. When ones chruch says that you can only use this version of the bible, you might want to listen to the bells going off in your head.

this might help

http://www.biblesearch.com/answers/bible/bibtrans1.htm

[Abe]

My first language is Hebrew. I've been reading the Tanakh since childhood and understand it's ancient Hebrew almost as well as my modern Hebrew. In order to translate, one must interpret. A word may have another meaning, or it may insinuate something. Sometimes, you might think that it's insinuating something and it isn't. In order to translate, you need to understand the period and know the expressions that were used. Sometimes your own preconceived notion or belief can enter and "inspire" a passage. This is not an attack on Christianity, nor is it an affirmation of Judaism. It's a comment on translation.

There are many translations of the Bible. I, as a Hebrew speaker can only speak about the OT. Not knowing Greek, I have no way to judge translations of the NT. As far as translations go, I consider the KJV to be the most inaccurate. Both the words and the very context have been changed as a result of that inaccuracy.

I'll use one example. I have, on purpose, chosen a passage that is not used later on, in the NT, as an affirmation of Jesus' divinity, so as not to insult Christians or open a heated argument.

In the "Ten Commandments":

The orginal Hebrew says, לא תרצח
This was translated by the KJV as, "Thou shalt not kill." It actually means: Do not murder. Some later translations corrected that, but made other mistakes. The root of the word "kill" הרג, and that of the word "murder" רצח, have nothing to do with each other. Those words are not related in any way.

How many well meaning, peaceful and gentle people have been slaughtered because they believed that the Commandment was "Not to Kill," and didn't defend themselves so as not to "Sin?"

[10thAmendment]

With respect to one Bible version being more inspired than the others, please consider the following. Not only did Jesus' Holy Spirit inspire the people who wrote the Scriptures, but you need the Spirit's guidance to properly understand any version of the Scriptures as well. After all, regardless that Jesus' apostles essentially studied from the same scroll version of the Scriptures that Jesus did, they still failed to correlate scriptural prophecies concerning the first coming of the Messiah with events in Jesus' life that they had been eyewitnesses to. Passages like Mark 9:30-32, for example, indicate that Jesus' foretelling of his death and resurrection just confused the apostles.

In fact, note that Luke 24:44-47 shows that Jesus had to open his apostles minds after the fact to OT prophecies that he had fulfilled. And as John 16:12-15 reflects, Jesus' Holy Spirit now opens our minds to the Scriptures, that is, if we allow the Spirit to do so. Indeed, if you resist the Spirit's guidance with respect to trying to understand the Scriptures than you are no better off than 1 Corinthians 1:18-19...

[Reindeer]

An interesting article from a hardcore KJV baptist comparing the NIV vs KJV. He contends the newer translations are from Gnostic manuscripts which were altered to fit their doctrine. Gnostics (roughly) didn't believe that the divine could be contained within the physical body so Jesus was not divine. And the author contends there's a pattern in gnostic manuscripts of avoiding mentioning Jesus by name and de-linking Jesus from being "Lord" and/or "Christ".

Whether you want to believe that or not, its interesting to look at these verses side-by-side and see how the two versions treat Jesus.

http://www.theflamingtorch.org/archives/2007/THE%20NIV%20HATES%20THE%20LORD%20JESUS.htm


(Mat 8:29)

KJV - And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time?

NIV - "What do you want with us, Son of God?" they shouted. "Have you come here to torture us before the appointed time?"

(Mat 13:36)

KJV - Then Jesus sent the multitude away, and went into the house: and his disciples came unto him, saying, Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field.

NIV - Then he left the crowd and went into the house. His disciples came to him and said, "Explain to us the parable of the weeds in the field."
(Mat 13:51)

KJV - Jesus saith unto them, Have ye understood all these things? They say unto him, Yea, Lord.

NIV - "Have you understood all these things?" Jesus asked. "Yes," they replied.

(Mat 15:30)

KJV - And great multitudes came unto him, having with them those that were lame, blind, dumb, maimed, and many others, and cast them down at Jesus' feet; and he healed them:

NIV - Great crowds came to him, bringing the lame, the blind, the crippled, the mute and many others, and laid them at his feet; and he healed them.

(Mat 16:20)

KJV - Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.

NIV - Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.

(Mat 17:20) KJV - And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.

NIV - He replied, "Because you have so little faith. I tell you the truth, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there' and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you."

(Mat 18:2) KJV - And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them,

NIV - He called a little child and had him stand among them.

(Mat 18:11) KJV - For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.

NIV – Omitted

(Mat 23:8) KJV - But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.

NIV - "But you are not to be called 'Rabbi,' for you have only one Master and you are all brothers.

(Mat 24:2) KJV - And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

NIV - "Do you see all these things?" he asked. "I tell you the truth, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down."

(Mat 25:13) KJV - Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh.

NIV - "Therefore keep watch, because you do not know the day or the hour.

(Mat 28:6) KJV - He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay.

NIV - He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay.

(Mark 5:13) KJV - And forthwith Jesus gave them leave. And the unclean spirits went out, and entered into the swine: and the herd ran violently down a steep place into the sea, (they were about two thousand; ) and were choked in the sea.

NIV - He gave them permission, and the evil spirits came out and went into the pigs. The herd, about two thousand in number, rushed down the steep bank into the lake and were drowned.

(Mark 6:33 KJV - And the people saw them departing, and many knew him, and ran afoot thither out of all cities, and outwent them, and came together unto him.

NIV - But many who saw them leaving recognized them and ran on foot from all the towns and got there ahead of them.

(Mark 7:27) KJV - But Jesus said unto her, Let the children first be filled: for it is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it unto the dogs.

NIV - "First let the children eat all they want," he told her, "for it is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs."

(Mark 9:24) KJV - And straightway the father of the child cried out, and said with tears, Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief.

NIV - Immediately the boy's father exclaimed, "I do believe; help me overcome my unbelief!"

(Mark 11:10) KJV - Blessed be the kingdom of our father David, that cometh in the name of the Lord: Hosanna in the highest.

NIV - "Blessed is the coming kingdom of our father David!" "Hosanna in the highest!"

(Mark 11:14) KJV - And Jesus answered and said unto it, No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever. And his disciples heard it.

NIV - Then he said to the tree, "May no one ever eat fruit from you again." And his disciples heard him say it.

The following verse is a quick diversion from the subject at hand, nevertheless it is another serious attack on the Lord Jesus Christ by the NIV.

Luke 2:22 KJV - And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord;

NIV - When the time of their purification according to the Law of Moses had been completed, Joseph and Mary took him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord.

If you notice in the above verse, that Mary, after giving birth was required to go through a period of purification for 42 days according to the law found in Leviticus 12. If the child was a male, he was to be circumcised on the 8th day but the child was not to be purified, only the mother. If you notice the King James Bible states that clearly.

However, when we look at the NIV, it clearly states that both Mary and Jesus had to go through purification. Jesus Christ was sinless and did not need to be purified from any sin, yet the NIV teaches that Jesus had to be purified. They are teaching that the Lord Jesus Christ was born with sin and had to be purified according to the Law.

The King James Bible specifically states that only Mary was to be purified. This is because the Textus Receptus uses a singular, genitive, feminine gender pronoun "auths" (autâs) specifically meaning "her." The false Greek text changes that pronoun to "autwn" which is a genitive plural personal pronoun. According to its usage, "Autôn" can be used as both feminine and masculine.

However, it is not used of both genders in one word such as above. For all we know, the NIV could also be including Joseph in that purification process. The word "their" in the NIV text is very vague. The bottom line is that a singular word was changed to a plural word in the corrupted texts, resulting in another attack on the Lord Jesus Christ in the area of Him being without sin.

(Luke 4:41) KJV - And devils also came out of many, crying out, and saying, Thou art Christ the Son of God. And he rebuking them suffered them not to speak: for they knew that he was Christ.

NIV - Moreover, demons came out of many people, shouting, "You are the Son of God!" But he rebuked them and would not allow them to speak, because they knew he was the Christ.

(Luke 7:22) KJV - Then Jesus answering said unto them, Go your way, and tell John what things ye have seen and heard; how that the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, to the poor the gospel is preached.

NIV - So he replied to the messengers, "Go back and report to John what you have seen and heard: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cured, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is preached to the poor.

(Luke 7:31) KJV - And the Lord said, Whereunto then shall I liken the men of this generation? and to what are they like?

NIV - "To what, then, can I compare the people of this generation? What are they like?

(Luke 9:56) KJV - For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village.

NIV - and they went to another village.

(Luke 9:57) KJV - And it came to pass, that, as they went in the way, a certain man said unto him, Lord, I will follow thee whithersoever thou goest.

NIV - As they were walking along the road, a man said to him, "I will follow you wherever you go."

(Luke 13:25) KJV - When once the master of the house is risen up, and hath shut to the door, and ye begin to stand without, and to knock at the door, saying, Lord, Lord, open unto us; and he shall answer and say unto you, I know you not whence ye are:

NIV - Once the owner of the house gets up and closes the door, you will stand outside knocking and pleading, 'Sir, open the door for us.' "But he will answer, 'I don't know you or where you come from.'

(Luke 22:31) KJV - And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat:

NIV - "Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift you as wheat."

(Luke 23:42) KJV - And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.

NIV - Then he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.

(John 4:16) KJV - Jesus saith unto her, Go, call thy husband, and come hither.

NIV - He told her, "Go, call your husband and come back."


The site lists 75 more verses but you get the idea.

[Reindeer]

I wonder if the name "Jesus" is in all of the original manuscripts.

Understand no one has access to any of the originals. And none of the manuscripts which exist have a legitimate claim to being a copy of one of the originals. If it were that easy, there wouldn't be a controversy.

Paper and paper substitutes don't last forever. A lot of manuscripts come from Egypt because the arid environment there is good for the preservation of paper. Unfortunately, Egypt was also pretty well the center of the gnosticism beliefs, starting up around the 2nd century, which I mentioned earlier. Coincidentally, or perhaps not coincidentally, the manuscripts which come out of Egypt are the ones which most strongly support the gnostic point of view.

The KJV is from the Byzantine Greek collection of manuscripts, particularly the Textus Receptus. Most recent translations are from the Egyptian (Alexandrian). I personally accept the Byzantine manuscripts as being more accurate mostly for the reasons cited in these articles:

http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn53/biblepreserved_manuscripts.htm

Today textual critics are divided on which of the thousands of manuscripts and papyri coming from these areas are most accurate. For most, the arguments boil down to two areas—the Alexandrian (Egyptian) Greek and the Byzantine Greek texts. When we compare the manuscripts from each we find a number of variants between these families. So there was some failure to copy one or the other accurately. The question is, which is more accurate and which is less accurate?

Most scholars today think that the texts from Alexandria, because they are older, are more accurate or closer to the originals. The oldest Alexandrian manuscripts date from around the fourth century after Christ while the oldest Byzantine manuscripts come from around the seventh century.

However, does older necessarily equate to better? There are several factors to consider.

First, we must consider that there are fewer than 45 texts from Alexandria, compared with around 5,000 of the Byzantine manuscripts. Thus the Alexandrian texts appear to be a tiny minority.

Second, Alexandria was a major center of gnosticism, a religious/philosophical movement that corrupted early Christianity. When we look at the variants in the Alexandrian texts, we find that their gnostic leanings tend to portray Jesus Christ as neither divine nor having come in the flesh as a physical human being.

A third area to consider is that the Byzantine scribes were known to be reputable in their faithfulness in the copying process.

And here's one from someone who is a hardcore supporter of the Byzantine Textus Receptus manuscript.

http://www.heartoftn.net/users/gary27/Textus.htm

Through the influence of Count Tischendorf, B.F. Westcott, F.J.A. Hort, and others the Alexandrian text now enjoys wide acceptance. However, that acceptance rests on a number of highly questionable assumptions.

For example: In the absence of early Byzantine manuscripts, it was simply assumed that the longer Byzantine readings were inserted into the text at a later date. Nevertheless, that assumption flies in the face of the evidence, for less than ten percent of those “longer Byzantine readings” can actually be characterized as late. However, whenever one of the early Christian writers quotes a Byzantine reading, advocates of the Alexandrian text simply assume (without evidence) that the writer added words to the text, and that some scribe later added those words to the Bible. Nevertheless, since there is not one concrete example of that ever happening, that assumption is mythology, not science.

Another myth consists of the claim that once those “longer readings” had been added to various Bible manuscripts, those manuscripts were gathered together and edited to produce the Byzantine text. Not only is there not one scrap of evidence that such editing ever took place, but difficulties in travel and communication would have made such a project impossible to carry out without being noticed by history. Not only did the members of one eastern congregation nearly riot when a reader replaced the word “gourd” (in the story of Jonah) with “fig tree,” but we have a record of that controversy, and any attempt to edit the Bible would have generated far more controversy.

A third assumption claims that addition to the text was more likely to take place than omission. However, that claim assumes that copyists had no qualms about adding to the text, and that is simply not true. The same scribes that were trained to avoid omission were also trained to avoid addition. Furthermore, it is anti-intellectual to assert that the longer readings were added to the Byzantine text, when that is simply assumed to be true without any concrete evidence.

Although the name “Textus Receptus” was not coined until the middle of the seventeenth century, that name came to represent the Greek text used by Martin Luther, William Tyndale, and other Reformation-era translators.

[Reindeer]

I did not read the whole list, but from what I read, it seems that the major difference is the use of the pronoun "he" or leaving out Jesus name. It is still clear that Jesus is being refered to.


Yeah, come to think of it, putting up a shorter list with the most relevant verses to show the gnostic influence of denying that Jesus is the divine-made-into-flesh would have been a better approach. :redface:


(John 6:69) KJV - And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.

NIV - We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God."

(John 9:35) KJV - 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?

NIV - Jesus heard that they had thrown him out, and when he found him, he said, "Do you believe in the Son of Man?"

(Acts 2:30) KJV - Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;

NIV - But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne.

(Acts 3:26) KJV - 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.

NIV - When God raised up his servant, he sent him first to you to bless you by turning each of you from your wicked ways."

(Acts 8:37) KJV - And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

NIV – Omitted

(Acts 9:29) KJV - And he spake boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus, and disputed against the Grecians: but they went about to slay him.

NIV - He talked and debated with the Grecian Jews, but they tried to kill him.

(Eph 3:9) KJV - And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:

NIV - and to make plain to everyone the administration of this mystery, which for ages past was kept hidden in God, who created all things.

(1 John 4:3) KJV - And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

NIV - but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.

(Luke 9:56) KJV - For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village.

NIV - and they went to another village.

(Mat 25:13) KJV - Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh.

NIV - Therefore keep watch, because you do not know the day or the hour.

(Mat 18:11) KJV - For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.

NIV – Omitted

[FoxGranadaChuck]

Is there neccesarily an "inspired" translation of the Bible?! In the strictest sense of the term inspired, no. I would concur with the viewpoint that the only texts that can call themselves inspired are the original autographs. In this regard, I would consider the KJV Only proponents far out in left field.

However, IMHO there are some manuscripts that are better than others. I haappen to hold the view that the Byzantinne/Majority Text is superior to the "critical text" of Westcott and Hort. For one thing, there are far more texts from the Byzantine tradition than from the Alexandrian tradition. Another pertinent issue is that Alexandria fell under the influence of the Monophysites during the times that copies of the scriptures were being transcribed and stored. While I would not allege intentional corruption on the part of the Alexandria school, their Monophysite worldview did shape the manner in which these texts were copied and edited.

Merely my thoughts.....

[CaptainPike]

Not to down play the original post or anything...

But I don't much care which version I'm reading. I guess there are some versions that are better than others.

My wife has a NIV version of the Life Application Study Bible. I really like it. It gives explanations of each and every verse. I could go out and spend the money and get the KJV version, but I don't see the point.

[FoxGranadaChuck]

Is there neccesarily an "inspired" translation of the Bible?! In the strictest sense of the term inspired, no. I would concur with the viewpoint that the only texts that can call themselves inspired are the original autographs. In this regard, I would consider the KJV Only proponents far out in left field.

However, IMHO there are some manuscripts that are better than others. I haappen to hold the view that the Byzantinne/Majority Text is superior to the "critical text" of Westcott and Hort. For one thing, there are far more texts from the Byzantine tradition than from the Alexandrian tradition. Another pertinent issue is that Alexandria fell under the influence of the Monophysites during the times that copies of the scriptures were being transcribed and stored. While I would not allege intentional corruption on the part of the Alexandria school, their Monophysite worldview did shape the manner in which these texts were copied and edited.

Merely my thoughts.....


Bumping this post for further thought and discussion.....

[texan_rep]

A couple of interesting sites...neither of which can be accused of having a Catholic bias (the site "owners" aren't Catholic!). Treat as you will, but they at least make some interesting reading.

http://www.bible-researcher.com/index.html
http://www.kjvonly.org/

[Fire Watch]

Those are interesting. Thanks.

[Poisonshady313]

Oddly enough, as a Jew, I would say that the only inspired translation is one that is deliberately changed and misses the mark.... i.e. it was inspired by God... yet it isn't the best reading of the book.... and that is the Septuagint.

Reason for that is, the 72 scholars sitting in separate rooms all wrote exactly the same translation into greek, word for word... and each of them had the same little alterations so that the greeks reading it wouldn't get the wrong idea about passages they didn't understand.

The day the LXX was written, every year we observe that day as a day of mourning.

[RayMan]

Fascinating story. Why is the day celebrated as a day of mourning?

[Poisonshady313]

Fascinating story. Why is the day celebrated as a day of mourning?

The text in II Kings (25:1-4) tells us that on the 10th day of the 10th month (which is Tevet when counting from Nisan, the "first month" in the Tanach), in the ninth year of his reign, (588 BCE), Nebuchadnezzar, the Babylonian king, began the siege of Jerusalem. Three years later, on the ninth of Tammuz, he broke through the city walls. The siege ended with the destruction of the Temple four weeks later, on the 9th of Av, the end of the first Kingdoms and the exile of the Jewish people to Babylon. The Tenth of Tevet can thus be considered part of the cycle of fasts connected with these events, which also includes: Tzom Gedaliah (3rd of Tishrei); Shivah Asar B'Tammuz (17th of Tammuz) and Tisha B'Av (9th of Av). The first mention of the Tenth of Tevet as a fast appears in Zechariah (8:19) where it is called the "fast of the tenth month" (Tevet). Other references to the fast and the affliction can be found in Ezekiel 24:1-2 (the siege) and Jeremiah 52:4-6.[1]

According to tradition, as described by the liturgy for the day's selichot, the fast also commemorates other ignominious events that occurred throughout Jewish history on the tenth of Tevet and the two days preceding it:

* On the eighth of Tevet one year during the 200s BCE, a time of Hellenistic rule of Judea during the Second Temple period, Ptolemy, King of Egypt, ordered production of the Septuagint, the translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek.[2] Various rabbinical sources see this event as a great tragedy, a debasement of the divine nature of the Torah, and a subversion of its spiritual qualities.

[RayMan]

<snip>

According to tradition, as described by the liturgy for the day's selichot, the fast also commemorates other ignominious events that occurred throughout Jewish history on the tenth of Tevet and the two days preceding it:

* On the eighth of Tevet one year during the 200s BCE, a time of Hellenistic rule of Judea during the Second Temple period, Ptolemy, King of Egypt, ordered production of the Septuagint, the translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek.[2] Various rabbinical sources see this event as a great tragedy, a debasement of the divine nature of the Torah, and a subversion of its spiritual qualities.


Thanks. I assumed it was something along those lines but I always appreciate getting the facts.

[tracifish]

Can't we just all get along....and agree that the King James is the only verbally inspired English Version? It was the only one for almost 400 years.

[CID_0687]

Can't we just all get along....and agree that the King James is the only verbally inspired English Version? It was the only one for almost 400 years.
No it wasn't. As the OP pointed out there were others, the KJV just happened to be the best seller.

[Constantine the Great]

Can't we just all get along....and agree that the King James is the only verbally inspired English Version? It was the only one for almost 400 years.
Sorry traci but no. I prefer the Nestle-Aland. It's the only thing by Nestle my diet allows. :mrgreen:

[tracifish]

Sorry traci but no. I prefer the Nestle-Aland. It's the only thing by Nestle my diet allows. :mrgreen:

My diet allows a small bite of the chocolate....a bigger bite, if it's dark chocolate. :mrgreen:

[tracifish]

Fascinating story. Why is the day celebrated as a day of mourning?

One of my favorite things to say is "good mourning". People think I'm saying "good morning". I smile, but there's always a part of me that's mourning.

[Koushi Shinigami]

Can't we just all get along....and agree that the King James is the only verbally inspired English Version? It was the only one for almost 400 years.

No.

[tracifish]

No.

...but it would be a beautiful thing.

[Dancer]

Can't we just all get along....and agree that the King James is the only verbally inspired English Version? It was the only one for almost 400 years.I think most of us can get along, but perhaps the fact that the KJV version was the 'only' English version of the Bible for 400 years is not a good enough reason to say that it is the 'only' verbally inspired English Version.

Aside from anything else, it is an extremely poor translation and IMHO led to several interpretive misconceptions that have become 'traditions' in the Protestant churches (though not acknowledged as such).

[ralittlefield]

I think most of us can get along, but perhaps the fact that the KJV version was the 'only' English version of the Bible for 400 years is not a good enough reason to say that it is the 'only' verbally inspired English Version.

Aside from anything else, it is an extremely poor translation and IMHO led to several interpretive misconceptions that have become 'traditions' in the Protestant churches (though not acknowledged as such).

Hi Dancer!

Which traditions, and which protestant churches are you referring to?

[Semi-Sweet]

...but it would be a beautiful thing.

The (hallowed to some) King James Version was produced by forty-seven scholars commissioned by a King of England. It is a 'revised version' as it plainly says on the flyleaf "Translated out of the original tongues and with the former translations diligently compared and revised."

It was called the authorized version because it was authorized to be read in the Anglican Churches. It would do a great many people good to read the superscription addressed. . ."To the most high and mighty Prince, James, by the grace of God the King of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, Defender of the faith, etc." It was written by Miles Smith, and appeared in the front of the version until a few years ago.

King James was the 'King of England' and 'King of the Church of England.' King James was not a religious man. Worship belongs to God, not a book.

[texan_rep]

I think most of us can get along, but perhaps the fact that the KJV version was the 'only' English version of the Bible for 400 years is not a good enough reason to say that it is the 'only' verbally inspired English Version.

Aside from anything else, it is an extremely poor translation and IMHO led to several interpretive misconceptions that have become 'traditions' in the Protestant churches (though not acknowledged as such).

Actually the Douay-Rheims beat the KJV by a few years.

[Dancer]

Hi Dancer!

Which traditions, and which protestant churches are you referring to?Hi ralittlefield!

I was reading about the mistranslations and in some cases I was amused because on one of the sites describing the mistranslations, certain mistranslations were "this was mistranslated based on word usage" and others were "we know this was mistranslated because we believe differently than what it states."

One example of the former is:

Matthew 28:1, "In the end of the sabbath as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week . . ." should be translated literally, "Now late on Sabbath, as it was getting dusk toward the first day of the week . . . ." The Sabbath does not end at dawn but at dusk.

and an example of the latter would be:

John 1:31, 33 should say "baptize" or "baptizing IN water" not with water. Pouring or sprinkling with water is not the scriptural method of baptism, but only thorough immersion in water.

How can a person be baptized by immersion if they live in the desert and water is not plentiful? Sometimes I believe we, as frail and imperfect humans, allow our preconceived cultural practices to become what we consider 'laws' of the church (traditions of man rather than traditions of God).

When I refer to the KJV as being mistranslated, I think as literal a translation as possible from the original should be done with explanations of idioms (such as the eye of the needle controversy) or changing word usage rather than rewriting the entire sentence to reflect modern idioms and word usage. I believe that we should not translate from translations, but with each generation, go back to the original text in Greek, Latin, and Aramaic to translate. Having the First, Second, Third, ect. editions of the KJV (or any other version of the Bible) simply encourages poor translation in my opinion.

I consider sola scriptura a tradition of man, not a tradition inspired by God. Not even IN the Bible does it say that we should follow such a tradition.

God bless!

[Dancer]

Actually the Douay-Rheims beat the KJV by a few years.I was not aware of that, but the point I was making had more to do with using traci's wording to express the point that no matter how long the translation was the 'only' version, or the most popular version, is that really what should determine what makes it the most reliable translation?

[Koushi Shinigami]

...but it would be a beautiful thing.

No. :sick:

[Buffalo]

Is the sixth commandment: Thou shall not kill, or thou shall not murder?

[TaylorW65]

Is the sixth commandment: Thou shall not kill, or thou shall not murder?

I have heard both interpretations, Thou shalt not kill and thou shalt not murder.

I would lean toward thou shalt not murder because God certainly doesn't keep his own commandment if it is thou shalt not kill, because in the OT he certainly advocates or does a lot of killing.

[Koushi Shinigami]

Is the sixth commandment: Thou shall not kill, or thou shall not murder?

Doesn't it depend upon who's list of commandments you use?

[Meriweather]

Can't we just all get along....and agree that the King James is the only verbally inspired English Version? It was the only one for almost 400 years.


I have six Bibles near at hand, and a few more that are not difficult to fetch when I feel the need. Yes, I have my favorite, but I truly appreciate how each version adds to my overall understanding and perceptions.

Limiting me to one Bible would be like....well, like limiting me to one Bible.