ESVNIVNKJV… ah!

“If it ain’t broke, fix it ’til it is!”

That’s what keeps running through my mind this morning. It blows my mind how many translations of the Bible there are today. Seriously, can someone please tell me what was so wrong with the ones we had 400 years ago? Besides the fact that they were “written in old English” and “people today don’t talk like that.”  Peter Kirk over at Better Bibles, published a post this morning reporting that a new translation of the New Testament has just been announced. The name of said new translation is The King’s Version.

…because, honestly, there just aren’t enough translations out there already.

I ran across a discussion forum dedicated to talking about the Bible (or “bibleS” -plural- depending on your persuation), and found something interesting. Many people today go on and on about how the ESV is the next best thing since sliced bread. I myself went out and bought one to see what the rave was all about. But, upon reading it and studying up a little on it, I put it on the far end of my bookshelf where it has sat untouched since I first put it there.

Anyways, back to the interesting something I mentioned above. On this discussion forum, a man who claimed to love the ESV was beginning to second guess it:

I have purchased the ESV Bible and just love it but now I am troubled. In the Bible, the Lord warns us not to add nor take away from the Bible. Anyone who does so will not be written in the Book of Life.

In Colossians 1:14, NKJV –
“in whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins.”

In the ESV, Colossians 1:14 –
“in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.”

‘through His blood’ is omitted. I’ve read that the reason for this is that later manuscripts have added this but this is also in the KJV which is hundreds of years old. Isn’t this a sin the Lord warns us about on not adding nor taking away from the Bible? I love the ESV style but do not want to sin against the Lord if this version is wrong.

I wonder if he knows things are missing in the NKJV too?  At the end of the discussion, the man decided to stick with his ESV.  Now I ask… why would you willingly choose a version that troubled you?… a version you didn’t trust?

Then I ran across a blog where the author was teeter-tottering back and forth over the ESV and the NIV. His church originally used the NIV, then switched to the ESV, then back to the NIV. You can read his reasons in his blog post.

Over five years ago I wrote  a piece justifying CCB’s adoption of the brand new translation of the Bible; the ESV. I’ve reproduced it here. In my humble opinion, it was a work of genius. The article, not the new translation! But I was also wrong. Not wrong as in sinful but wrong as in stupid.

If I had my time again I wouldn’t make the move. I’ve changed my mind. And we’ve gone back to the NIV. Many within the congregation are delighted. There was cheering in the All Age Congregation when I announced it. And they don’t get excited about anything!

I find it interesting that the reasons this pastor switched back from the ESV to the NIV are the very reasons most people use to switch from their KJV and move on to the ESV.

Regardless of any reasoning and excuses people use, I’m thankful that I have a Bible I can be sure of. And I’m thankful that I don’t have to flip flop from version to version every time I have a doubt about it. I’m confident that what I hold in my hand is the Word of God.

I know this post isn’t going to make me any friends, but I guess that’s okay. Free country. Free speech. Free rant.

Advertisements

Posted on April 20, 2011, in The Bible and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 43 Comments.

  1. I have an ESV that I refer to every once in a while for a different perspective. I have several translations. My software has more than I can read. When I study, I place my KJV on one side, then the others as I choose. I read the Authorized, compare, check original languages, then make notes on what words best convey the literal meaning of Scripture. I am only committed to the originals, not any translation. I know I am not making many friends in these circles, either.

    You’re still my friend, though.

  2. Let me share my opinion from a stand point of someone who was born speaking one language but now is able to speak and think in 4+ languages. i sometimes get to teach in two languages simultaneously. For the same ‘idea’ in my mind, I can use a variety of words in each language but I can make sure -as the message originator, that the message is given properly in each language.

    You may agree with me that The Scriptures were inspired by God in its original form and are therefor ‘perfect’, the translations are not. The translations -all of them (KJV, NKJV, ESV, NIV) are linguistic interpretations of the manuscripts found. We have to consider:

    – Fact 1. The manuscripts found (over 24,000) do not agree completely -in the original language, on every single word and letter -there are variances.
    – Fact 2. Most (over 90%) of the ‘variances’ are on grammar or meaning on the original language. ie: Jesus vs him; or Joshua vs Johsua. Though they are ‘different’ the message is the same
    – Fact 3. Even on the cases that most manuscripts use the same original words, the meaning is not exact into English or has several alternative translatable words; different people have translated them in different ways (ie. taco = wrap? or sandwich? or meat-stick?)
    – Fact 4. some of the translators have questionable backgrounds, presumed motives or theological biases.
    – Fact 5. God is God and promised that not a single jot or tittle of His Word (not a translation) would be broken. He promised that He would keep and preserve His word. He is God and know what He is doing. (I wonder if He was referring to the accuracy and perfection of him being The Word of God more than grammatical stuff)

    My personal conclusion: I read carry and read a NKJV because it is easier to read and communicate to others. I study in-deph using four different translations and Strong’s concordance to get the ‘big picture’ of what God is saying to me. If I was sold on reading only one version, I would only be getting one view (wrap), but upon comparing them all, I get a better idea on what the message may be and where and why certain versions may have chosen certain interpretation; the things that I found theologically questionable in one version are corrected by the understanding shed from the other ones.

    • Well Stated…

    • Fact 2: In 90% agreement, correct. The differences are grammatical and do not effect meaning, incorrect. Here are a few examples out of the 5,000+ differences in the Textus Receptus vs the critical Greek text. I’ll use the KJV vs the NIV. The biggest issue we need to realize here is this is not a matter of translating words correctly it is a matter of the origin of the text. Just like you said, ‘as the message originator’ you can be sure of conveying the correct meaning, but all the modern translations are translating out of a different original Greek text.

      Matthew 1:25 (omitted Greek word in caps)
      KJV: And knew her not till she had brought forth her FIRSTBORN son: and he called his name JESUS.
      NIV: But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.
      Doctrinal difference: perpetual virginity of Mary.

      Matthew 6:13
      KJV: And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.
      NIV: And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one.
      Doctrinal difference: premillennialism vs postmillennialism.

      Luke 2:14
      KJV: Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.
      NIV: Glory to God in the highest heaven, and on earth peace to those on whom his favor rests.
      Doctrinal difference: salvation offered to ALL men, and a coming literal reign of Christ.

      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: Go look this up in your NIV and ESV.

      And on and on this can go. I believe God’s word is preserved in an original Greek text, like you state also, but we absolutely need to realize and bring to light to others that Bibles are being translated out of DIFFERENT sets of Greek texts. Does this make sense? It’s so important…

      • Nick, I completely agree and hence my commendation not to read only one version but many of them comparing them with each other, with the Greek concordance and most important, with the whole Bible’s context. I believe that’s why the Bereans, in Acts 17, are brought as an example as they didn’t just ‘read’ but searched, dug deep into the word of God.

        I have done some studying on the specific differences between versions and how they can affect core doctrine. One question I would have is: Is there any core doctrine that is allegedly compromised in most of the translations (NIV, NKJV, ESV etc) that is found in it’s ‘correct’ form only in the KJV?

      • Another way to pose my question would be: Though the examples you point out do seem to differ in core theology, does the fNIV deny the validity of these theological statements in the rest of their text?
        or
        even though we are missing these particular words/phrases in the passages above and others, would it be possible to use the rest of the NIV to still prove valid these theological positions? (That Mary had more children after Jesus, that salvation is offered to all men or that Jesus Christ is the Son of God)

        My guess is, yes, you can still hold core doctrine using the rest of the NIV while, by removing portions that have in some way doubtful origin or textual criticism validity, increases the credibility of the whole translation.

        Again, I do agree with your position ‘sort-of-against’ NIV. However, i fond that the angle shared before helps to bridge the gap and find unity without compromising the true.

        • Probably, but I think there is a difference between clarifying an issue and having two contradictory ‘truths.’ It’s confusing when the critical text translations say Joseph was the father of Jesus, or omit that Jesus, God, and the Spirit ‘are one.’ Just down to earth practicality, I don’t want a translation that removes the majority of the texts dealing with the deity of Christ, the blood atonement, the virgin birth, etc. How do I tell a baby Christian that he has to compare 3 different translations of the Bible if he ‘really’ wants to know what God says? It’s hard enough to get the average Christian to read ANY Bible.

          I’m just going to state what I believe at the most basic level without getting into justifying it for sake of both our time. The Greek texts used for English translations boil down into two groups. I believe that one set of Greek texts is the preserved word of God. I do not believe that the critical Greek text is the pure word of God. Therefore any translations coming from that Greek text I am not going to spend my time comparing the English when I am not even satisfied with the original Greek it is coming from. The newer manuscripts that the NIV footnotes and constantly discredits, I believe those are the pure stream. Those are the majority of Greek texts that the King James translators used through the work of Tyndale, and ultimately, Erasmus.

      • Acts 8:37 Is Missing From My Bible

        Nick,

        As you implied, Acts 8:37 is missing in both the NIV and ESV, including others. However, it is present in the NASB but enclosed with brackets. I provided the following commentary quotes to give background behind this missing verse. You will find them here under Parallel Commentaries (immediately following the Parallel Translation entries).

        Quoted in order:

        Barnes’ Notes on the Bible says that a large number of Acts manuscripts do not contain Acts 8:37: “This verse is missing in a very large number of manuscripts (Mill), and has been rejected by many of the ablest critics. It is also omitted in the Syriac and Ethiopic versions. It is not easy to conceive why it has been omitted in almost all the Greek mss. unless it is spurious. If it was not in the original copy of the Acts , it was probably inserted by some early transcriber, and was deemed so important to the connection, to show that the eunuch was not admitted hastily to baptism, that it was afterward retained. It contains, however, an important truth, elsewhere abundantly taught in the Scriptures, that “faith” is necessary to a proper profession of religion.”

        Clarkes Commentary on the Bible says, “This whole verse is omitted by ABCG, several others of the first authority, Erpen’s edit. of the Arabic, the Syriac, the Coptic, Sahidic, Ethiopic, and some of the Slavonic: almost all the critics declare against it as spurious. Griesbach has left it out of the text; and Professor White in his Crisews says, “Hic versus certissime delendus,” this verse, most assuredly, should be blotted out. It is found in E, several others of minor importance, and in the Vulgate and Arabic. In those MSS. where it is extant it exists in a variety of forms, though the sense is the same.”

        Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible says, “This whole verse is wanting in the Alexandrian copy, and in five of Beza’s copies, and in the Syriac and Ethiopic versions; but stands in the Vulgate Latin and Arabic versions, and in the Complutensian edition; and, as Beza observes, ought by no means to be expunged, since it contains so clear a confession of faith required of persons to be baptized, which was used in the truly apostolic times.”

        Notice Gill uses no argument (other than doctrinal) for its inclusion. While I agree with his doctrinal appeal, if the best manuscripts do not contain this verse, we should not add it. Otherwise, we could justifiably add any new doctrinally sound verse to the Bible.

        Vincent’s Word Studies says, “The best texts omit this verse.”

  3. Amen!

  4. Don’t forget why some things are omitted… Different texts. The ESV and Kings James have the same Old Testament text, but not the same New Testament text. Some of the verses that were omitted in the ESV and other modern translations are because the translators did not believe it was cannon… did I spell that correct? LOL

    As far as what your saying… I agree… but I do think that there are certain things that should be fixed in the King James. I don’t believe it is a 100% accurate TRANSLATION. I believe there are a few very very very minor things that need to be updated, but they are so minor that they would not even be considered. For example… I believe its in I Thessalonians 1… a lie…. instead of the lie… big difference in the lie and a lie… should be the lie which is the antichrist and a lie which would be something that is told and believed which is actually false.

    I’m sure people are going to be upset with what I said and probably with what I’m about to say… but before certain people do that… I am King James and I believe in the original text… and all that other good stuff…

    I don’t like the “thee” and “thou” and “doeth”…. why can’t we just change those words words to “you” or “me” or “does” or whatever it is actually being said today… don’t change anything else except those things like “ye”

    Good post Heather. I think some people though take these things to far and get upset and separate from people who believe and serve exactly like we do except with an ESV or NKJV in their hand. We get upset and call them a dirty rotten sinner when we have blood on our hands because we didn’t share the gospel with that person who walked by us today. (They didn’t have anything to do with the topic did it… Oops rabbit trail)

    All in all… Why fix something that isn’t broken… in my case… why not give it a tune up LOL… I’m sure certain people don’t find it funny… but I have some many “friends” who disown me because I disagree with them some spiritually like a “tune up.” How many times did we give the King James a tune up… a good bit… plus there were other TRANSLATIONS to base it off of…

  5. The King James Bible = 4th grade reading level. According to the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level Indicator.

    • How many fourth graders do you know that cant fluently read and write the English of the KJV? Maybe Christian schools where they grew up with the lingo… take it into the world… how many fourth graders in America are KJV level?

      Water it down… definitely not… fourth grade reading level in America… I’m not to sure about that one either…

  6. Well just because the public school system isn’t “getting the job done” doesn’t mean we should change the book. And simple illustration, my pastor’s mom quit going to school when she was in 3rd grade, and she taught her son how to read using the KJB. She could read it just fine.

    • It is sad considering that the person who originally started the public school system did so with the intent that the Bible would be the main focus.

      http://www.angelfire.com/la2/prophet1/educationamerica.html

      “In the book of Jeremiah the Lord is exhorting his people to “ask for the old paths” and “walk therein.” The people of the United States of America would do well to “ask for the old paths” and return to our nation’s educational foundations. An important yet little known fact about public school education in our country is that the primary purpose for establishing schools in America was to teach everyone to be able to read and understand the Holy Bible. Our first college, Harvard, in its original rules charged “every student” “to lay Christ in the bottome, as the only foundation of all sound knowledge and learning.” and that “Every one shall so exercise himselfe in reading the Scriptures twice a day,”(A History of Harvard University, Benjamin Peirce, 1833, Appendix, p. 5). In fact, of the first one-hundred and eight colleges in America, one-hundred and six were founded by and for the Christian faith. “In founding Harvard, Yale, and other American colleges, the propagation of Christianity as a leading purpose of higher, as well as of popular education, was avowed by their founders, and by all provisions and grants of government.”(The Bible in Schools, W. W. Everts, 1870, p. 9). In 1647 the American Colony of Connecticut along with the Colony of Massachusetts passed the Old Deluder Satan Law to prevent the abuse of power over an illiterate population ignorant of the true scriptures. The Connecticut code of 1650 stated:” (go to website to read more)

  7. xtremecouponbinder

    That whole lie about the KJV being on a 4th grade reading level has been going around for awhile, heres the reality http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/cms_content?page=652502&sp=1003

  8. I personally prefer the NIV, because I have found it the easiest for me to understand and a good copy has all of the footnotes that point out where text was removed or added or how a word could also be translated.

    I also sift through KJV, NKJV, ESV, NASB, and others for further perspective or even to find a different wording that I prefer to use when teaching. Though I did not grow up in church, my parents had (Dad as Catholic, mom as Methodist). My dad did not have a Bible, but mom’s was a KJV. I would skim through it from time to time, especially after we would study Shakespeare in school. I do not have a big issue with understanding it. I just prefer NIV.

    One area I actually respect Muslims is that you have to learn Arabic to understand what is being said in the Mosque and to be a good Muslim and read the Quran in the original language (reading it in another language is verging on anathema!). At least the Catholics have Latin, but imagine if we all learned to read Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek! The issue would be rather moot!

  9. I really haven’t looked at the ESV yet, so I can’t say much about that. I don’t care for the NIV though, that one does kind of bother me. I use the Authorized, it’s pretty even. I see what you mean about all the different translations, consider they really don’t change or correct anything, what’s the point? I can understand why the King James was re-released in 1763 (pretty sure that was the year) because I recently got ahold of a 1611 replica (sans Apocrypha) and it is something else to try to read. Interesting post, and don’t worry, ranting is good sometimes.

  10. There are way too many translations! haha

  11. I call for mandatory Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic classes (well, maybe you could leave off the Aramaic) at all Christian (ok, Baptists, if it makes you feel better) churches by 2012. All pastors should be able to preach from a Greek NT by 2020. That would make a good slogan – “See Without Translations in 2020.”

    I guess the only problem would be that someone may have to use a different translation for the deaf ministries. And if the preacher gets too carried away, he might have to interpret what he said. Of course, that would possibly fall into the category of “no translations.”

    • I will say though, it’s sad when Bible colleges don’t require missions majors to take Greek anymore… and they give pastoral majors a choice between English or Greek… I mean study to show thyself approved, right? Proof? I went to four different Bible and Baptist colleges and represented one to recruit students and had to research and most Baptist/Bible/Christian colleges…

  12. Hmmmm

    I have seen a teenager moved to tears by God speaking to them through “The Street Bible”. Not the most “theologically accurate” version I’m sure, but it was accessible to them and the Holy Spirit used it, because the Holy Spirit is not restricted by the barriers we put up.

    All this fuss about one translation being better than another. If you’re reading it in English then they are ALL translations, and they all suffer ultimately from the same problem – they are not the original.

    Don’t let the debate take over. Let the Holy Spirit take over.

    • Yep, I agree, why put up barriers. NT Greek was also ‘street’ language not the more upmarket classical version. If someone’s seeking God they’ll find Him. He promises.

  13. Has anyone ever read the NASB ’95, the most literal of literal translations?

  14. Hi there,

    I came to this blog via a pingback link from the latter blog you mention in the above post. You’ll see that the urban pastor comments below his post:

    “For us the intelligibility for the unconverted has become the key issue. We’re not a massively ‘churched’ culture here in south London and so people simply aren’t familiar with Bible words and Bible concepts. The NIV is just more accessible to outsiders [as well as church members] and we’re working hard to maintain our missional priorities. THe NIV helps us with that.”

    That’s a good reason, isn’t it?

  15. There is no ‘perfect’ translation, as I guess everyone is aware. ALL translations are inluenced to a certain extent by the translator’s understanding of the concepts in the originals. So even in translations considered ‘word for word’, there are original greek or hebrew words that are not understood or that can have more than 1 meaning. So the translators have to use their best judgement.

    A bit of history as I understand it:

    First of all, there are NO originals. The earliest manuscripts are about 200AD, which might worry some people, but compared to other stuff from around the same time it’s spectacularly good. The earliest surviving manuscripts from Roman historians writing at aprox the same time as the New Testament are about 600AD. The earliest ones for the New Testament are mostly small pieces, none are complete, but later ones are complete (not sure how much later).
    The thing about the majority of what is preserved is how consistent they are. There are differences, but nothing that would change anything major. The problem that translators have is that the earliest complete manuscripts are very rare, so there aren’t many to compare with each other to check for consistency, but later ones are more common, as you’d expect, so if they are then very similar to each other then it’s reasonable to think that this makes them accurate. Very roughly, some scholars would think that the earliest are more accurate, and others would think that the ones that are consistent & in greater numbers are more accurate, even if they’re later.

    The KJV was not translated from the original Hebrew & Greek, but from Latin, itself a translation. There is a verse that was added in at one point. This is a matter of history, as it’s not in anything but the Latin which like I say, isn’t original. Basically, a monk was worried that the bible (he thought) didn’t prove the Trinity, so he added a verse – (1John 5:7 [KJV])
    “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” There was no need, the Trinity is all through the bible, Old & New Testament.
    It’s reasonably obvious, because the chapter isn’t taking about this subject & the verse appears out of context.
    Apart from that, the KJV is considered by most scholars to be quite true to the originals as we have them, except that since it was done earlier manuscripts have been discovered. The other problem with the KJV is that the English Language has changed since then. It’s not so much the ‘thees & thous’ that we’ve dropped, but, for example the word ‘conversation’ was nothing to do with speech back then, your conversation was how you lived your life. Again, it’s not a major problem, as if you seek to obey God & you have the KJV & you’re used to it, you’ll get the idea that your life should be pure from everywhere else as well, even though in one verse “let your conversation be without covetousness” actually means don’t live covetously, whereas now all it means is don’t let slip any covetous words. My heart, it would seem, doesn’t need to change (as far as just this verse goes). Also, other words we just don’t use any more. Evil concupiscence? Anyone? I think it means ‘out of control desire’.

    According to most scholars, the NASB is one of the most accurate.

    I think there are a few issues:

    – If we’re giving a bible to a new Christian or someone who’s seeking, they really do need to be able to read it. The NT could have been written in the classical, scholarly Greek that was available at the time, but it wasn’t. It ws written in ‘marketplace’ Greek, presumably so that more people (not just educated people) would be able read it. To me this says that it should be accesible, but not ‘watered down’, obviously. If translators are translating into a foreign language for a newly reached people, they wouldn’t find out how the people spoke 400 years ago & use that!

    – however, for followers of Jesus that are more mature, and maybe people who are more gifted in studying & teaching the bible, I’d say it’s sensible to use a few translations. If you compare one with another, sometimes even without being a scholar you see that one ranslator had a bit of a blind spot whereas another saw what the original writer was getting at.

    – an interesting point, I think, is that IF God had wanted us to have the originals, as in the actual scrolls or manuscripts written by the writers themselves, then we would have them. But why would God be happy with the situation we have today?
    I’ve heard the point made that if we had the originals, WHO would get them? A good way to start a fight I think. Lots of denominations would want them, as each one is ‘right’ in their own understanding! If we had the originals, there’d most likely be a power game going on & we’d probably have little access to them. It also wouldn’t clear up all the differences of opinions between Christains, because now, different groups still think differently about passages which are the same in all the translations!

    Just a proviso, all the above is from memory, so if you’re interested, check it all out yourself & look to the evidence as well, as some ‘experts’ seem to go for theory & beliefs & ignore some of the evidence.

  16. There are translations that are based on genuinely good intentions of being faithful to the text, and translations that make it easier to “read.” Most modern translations (I’m thinking primarily of the NLT) sacrifice poetry and form to make it accessible the the modern mind. A noble cause, to be sure, but the Bible is poetry and as such has meaning in its forms. There is a huge difference between the NLT and more literal translations in that the NLT looses all the significance that certain phrases and words bring to the text.

    Therefore, while I am in favor of new, more faithful translations (my favorite happens to be the NKJV), I also realize that we can’t ever have one translation that is the best. Often, I’ll go back into the Greek and Hebrew (and even compare differing manuscripts) when studying a passage. For instance, if a Hebrew word is only used 3 times in the whole Bible, it’s worth knowing what the other two places are about, and you should be able to tell it significance from your English translation.

    A personal experience: there is a word used very often, especially in the Psalms, that is usually translated “mercy,” “loving kindness,” “love,” “steadfast love,” etc., but no one knows what it really means because it encompasses a very special kind of love, the love for a family member, and also much more. What’s the best way to translate this? We want to convey the meaning of this word as fully as possible, but we have to find some way to do so and yet preserve the flow of the text. Our solution to this word has been “kindevotion” for quite some time, and it’s worked pretty well. And this is only one word.

    The problem arises when we say that one translation is better to the exclusion of all others. We can say one is better, we can say we prefer one, we can say some are poor translations, we can say that we can do better. But we can’t say that we have the best translation, or that all others but the one we like are terrible heretical translations. We have to constantly strive to get better, and that means realizing the weaknesses that we all have as human beings. None of us are perfect, and neither are our translations.

  17. Alex Madlinger

    The reason for the deletion is that it’s not found in the best manuscripts. But the phrase your are dealing was used twice, in Ephesians and in Collosians. In one book Paul wrote by his blood, and in the other he left it out. Any early copyist made a simple mistake that is easily solved and easily understood. He simply had the Ephesians quote in his mind when he copied Collossians.

    For myself, I liked the ESV but I’m a hardcore NIV fan ever since I learned Greek. I think if the the KJV translators were alive today they would have been on the NIV translation committee.

  18. OldManBibleProfessor

    Allow me to outline a couple of points for you.

    1. One of the major rules in translating (and writing) the KJV was the groups of people who were translating this Bible were ordered to follow a much older translation commonly known as the Bishops’ Bible (which was written in I believe 1568) and these people tried as hard to barely alter any of the orig words as the Truth of the Original would permit. While most of that translation was based on the Geneva Bible and the Great Bible both of which were revisions of the Tynedale Bible (published in 1533). Now we can specify that the KJV has about 39% of its language which is unique to its own translation, and about 90% of the NT can be found word for word in the Tyndale NT (published in 1525). What we should see from this is that nearly the entire 1611 version was about 100 years old when it was originally translated into by the group.

    2. While most people do not know this but, England, believe it or not, didnt have any good old Greek writings until around 1628 (17 years after the 1611 version).So from that we should automatically realize that the translators were at a definite disadvantage when trying to figure out which passages were in the text’s orig, and which ones were added later by someone who was working on or trying to translate another version. While in contrast the NIV committee consisted of (at that time over 100 bible scholars from five countries who were able to obtain much much older versions that are much truer to the originals, and these men/women have a much better grasp on how to decipher ancient Hebrew.

    3. Only the original writings by the apostles is the Inspired word of God. However, we today do not have a original version we should not worry. With all this new info it has been estimated that we know around 99% of the bible we have is now true and orig to writers original text. And that those in the grey areas do not effect any major biblical doctrine.

    4. One other severe problem we have is how to make the newer translations read as close as we can to the origs, but still have to get the authors idea across with the same exact message. So lets say I was to translate I just barely made it through that by the skin of my teeth into japanese and send it to a colleague. The problem would arise when he translates it and realizes, I have on top of my teeth, and how or why would I try to make a payment or enter into a place like that. when if I was to reword this to say, I made it in with little or no time to spare he would understand it completely. We now reworded the same sentence, making no changes to the original context, and have allowed this person to read it for understanding! There is no translation of the bible that can be converted word for word to another language and be read and understood without issue, mean even the KJV has some tougher words for people, I like to use for example Matthew 19:14.

    In a question to you, I wonder, if the KJV is the only bible that can be relied upon, what do all of the other people across the globe who do not speak english read and study? They need a translation in their langauge that they can read and study. So wouldn’t this alone bring a serious question to the table about the kjv bible being the only correct version?

    And as always may God bless you as you continue to seek His Word!

    • Thank you for visiting and leaving a comment.

      Just a question in response to the question you asked in your last paragraph…

      When the Bible was only in Greek and Hebrew, I wonder, what did all of the other people across the globe who could not speak or read Greek or Hebrew read and study?

      God’s blessings on you as well, my friend.

      • OldManBibleProfessor

        No problem at all, I have found a lot of things on here.

        They would have had to learn to read the original writings in greek. So in response to that, why would we want to read a english translation by men uninspired by God, when we have the ability to take lessons in reading and writing and speaking greek were we could then be able to read the greek?

        • Mainly because the “originals” no longer exist. All the “greek manuscripts” we have today are corrupt documents, or tainted by the catholic church.

          • OldManBibleProfessor

            I am saying why would we not want to learn the greek to be able to read the greek bible, which is what is still the original translation?

          • Are you saying IF we still had the “originals” why wouldn’t we learn Greek and Hebrew and read the Scriptures in the original languages?

            Well, since we don’t have the originals any longer, that really isn’t an issue. And since we don’t have the originals any longer and since the Lord purposed, allowed, and preserved His Word in the English language – I’m quite content hold on to, read, study, and defend the KJV.

            It was great chatting with you. I hope you have a great week!

  1. Pingback: Happy {1 year} Blogiversary! « Grow Up!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: