quote:

and the way it indicates the name Jehovah by LORD.

quote:

While I'm not KJV only, I do like the way it designates the second person pronoun as to whether it is singular or plural and subjective and objective

quote:

ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker

quote:

While I'm not KJV only, I do like the way it designates the second person pronoun as to whether it is singular or plural and subjective and objective

So does the New World Translation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rosswell59

brotherbrian,
While I can agree that the NIV is fine for sharing the gospel and undisputed doctrine, I wouldn't rely on it to convince gainsayers or for personal study. While I'm not KJV only, I do like the way it designates the second person pronoun as to whether it is singular or plural and subjective and objective cases which is indistinguishable in modern English and the way it indicates the name Jehovah by LORD. This makes it more concise for study and serious discussion.
Yours in Christ,
Ross

quote:

ORIGINAL: brotherbrian
Frankly, if you're a Christian and you discover that another brother or sister actually reads ANY of the widely respected translations of the bible you ought to get down on your knees and thank God for it!

quote:

ORIGINAL: rosswell59

brotherbrian,
I think you missed my point. No one is saying you should be KJVO. I'm not even KJVO. I'm just saying you should be careful to whom you tout the NIV as a good translation. BTW, I know others more knowledgeable than myself who are not KJVO but have problems with the NIV. There are other versions which are better and less controversial than the NIV which are just as readable. As I have said before, my favorite version is Darby and I have given out some copies of the NKJV to people who are new to the faith but I have no problem if someone wants to stick to the KJV in matters of fellowship. BTW, the gospels are not where we get down to the real meat of scripture anyway so it is not likely that liberal interpretors would mess around with them too much. Most liberals love the gospels because they don't like to see sin and worldliness judged in the church which is found more in Paul's epistles.
Yours in Christ,
Ross

quote:

ORIGINAL: brotherbrian

I respectfully disagree, Ross.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rosswell59

quote:

ORIGINAL: brotherbrian

I respectfully disagree, Ross.

Please feel free to elaborate on what meat you get from the gospels. Paul teaches us important truths like that we need to reckon ourselves dead and that we are actually seated in heaven in Christ as our present priveledge. He also teaches us that we are not under the law while the gospels actually magnify the curse of the law as they contain the Lord's ministry to Isreal. The only thing the gospels teach us about the church is that the Lord would build one and that two or three gathered in His name constitutes a local church. Reading the gospels you would also think that God is mainly interested in saving the Jews since the Lord's ministry focused on them. The gospels play an important foundational role in the development of truth but the others especially Paul flesh it all out for us.
Yours in Christ,
Ross

quote:

ORIGINAL: mr.scripture

all i can say is all the other versions leave important words, sentances,
and verses out that has no reason to be taken out
like 1 john 5:7 why do they take out father, son, and holy spirit

quote:

ORIGINAL: 1love1God1way

Aphobos,

That is very interesting. I was wondering if you have any sources on that? Not that I don't trust you, I am just interested in checking it out for myself.

quote:

ORIGINAL: manwe

The hundreds of years old KJV Only debate rages on!!!

Is it the only true Bible?

Is it the most accurate tanslation?

How is the Byzantine text of any real value?

What about the Textus Receptus, Wescott and Hort, Nestle-Aland?

Why are other modern translations invalid or inaccurate?

What about all the KJV updates?

Post your thoughts here!

Have fun and be nice!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aphobos

quote:

ORIGINAL: mr.scripture

all i can say is all the other versions leave important words, sentances,
and verses out that has no reason to be taken out
like 1 john 5:7 why do they take out father, son, and holy spirit

I'm sure this has been addressed previously in the thread. It's not that "words, sentences and verses" were taken out of scripture. Rather, they were mistakenly added in the distant past -- long before the King James Version was conceived. Modern translations correct the mistakes. Remember, the prohibition against adding to God's word is just as serious (Rev 22:18b).

Regarding the verse from 1 John 5 (also known as the Comma Johanneum), it does not appear in any Greek manuscript prior to the Late Tenth Century. It can be found in a Latin manuscript from around 800. Prior to that, it is virtually non-existent. It is not found in any ancient translations of the New Testament (Syriac, Coptic, etc.).

in the margin by a pious scribe. At some point afterward, a less-than-careful scribe inserted it in the body of 1 John 5. Since the content is orthodox, reflecting true doctrine, there was no reason to question it.

In Him,

~Aphobos

quote:




Q. What current English Bible translation is a true translation from the original manuscripts?

(Submitted by: R. W.)

A. I have studied this issue for many of my twenty years in the church and so have just about all Bible Scholars. Some will worship the use of the King James Version but we must remember that English is merely a translation not the original text.

There are two present sets of original manuscripts available for these translators to use. One is the Received Text which comes from the Byzantine era which was at that time more closely associated to the true apostolic fathers who were the eye witnesses to Jesus life, death and resurrection. The Western church took up the heresies of the Gnostic and other doctrines that were not held as canon by the Apostles and Paul.

The other text that seems to be a favorite for the ones who would like to change or twist the translation to mean what they want it to mean are using the Vaticanus or Siniaticus. This text was considered by Middle Age scholars to be not only spurious but in error and was discarded as credible. From what I have read this manuscript had been on the shelf at the Vatican library for some many years untouched because they realized the monk's errors. Because it was not used and was found older than the most recent copies of the Received Text, modern translators (who are perverting the truth by using it) thought it was a better one to use. I tend to steer away from any of the translations which use this text rather than the Received Text. A good book to read to help you understand the intricacies of what God was allowing to happen to the church from the first to the present century can be found in Alan Knight's book Primitive Christianity. (Read IIThessalonians for the prophecy of this time when deception will be the rule rather than truth.)


Now as to what is the best English translation. I would suggest one that uses the tried and true "Received Text" or the one that the King James Version was written from. The KJV also has political and doctrinal errors because it was translated by a committee who was at that time influenced by the Catholic Church rather than the early Apostolic Celtic or Culdee Church of England.

The early British church was started not by Rome but by some of the Apostles who were sent to the lost tribes in their dispersion. It used an English translation from the original Italia manuscripts but these are very rare today. I have not seen a copy of this version and it is not likely one will as with all of the material from that era was destroyed and discredited by their enemies. (I have several books that tell the story of the early Culdee Church that flourished in England, Ireland, Wales and Scotland as well as Northern Europe until Rome stamped them out during the Inquisition.)

It is a difficult study but with the help of Strong's or Young's Concordance and some basic understanding of the way Greek and Hebrew was used we can all arrive at the correct meaning of the words of Scripture. And of course the inspiration of the Holy Spirit if one asks for God's help will make it even more clear as we mature.

My husband and I had been using the New American Standard but when the knowledge of these deceptions were know we went back to the King James and likely the NKJV (NEW King James Version) is the better one to understand. I do not know where you are in your walk with God but as a new learner who needs to understand the concepts in a basic way I would use a good paraphrase such as The Good News.

If you are a more mature Christian and you prefer to compare texts by all means do so, but just remember translators take a lot of license as some idiomatic and figurative phrases do not readily translate out into the English language well. We have been listening to Mordakhai Joseph (whose lessons are available at www.teachingthelaw.org) to understand the Hebrew meanings and we have been listening to Fred Coulter at www.cbcg.org for his understanding of the Greek language. Fred is preparing a version of the New Testament to be published soon. He used the Received Text and is trying to make the translation as accurate as is possible at this time.

The majority of the newer versions have stopped using the received text and are using the Vaticanus that has many errors in its translation as I mentioned above so I would be very careful in selecting my new Bible. Not only are ministers preaching unscripturally but the Scriptures are being corrupted as well. We must be very aware of this and use our ability to discern truth from lies carefully.

quote:

by Will Kinney