Posted on 02/19/2006 9:39:32 PM PST by Creationist
I have always believed in Jesus as Lord and Savior. I have not always believed that one version of the Bible is better until the last 10 years or so. I have always read from the Authorized King James Version. Most likely because the Lord did not want me to get my understanding from any other source.
As I have gotten closer to God over the years I have learned why the KJV is the best of the translations of the original Greek and Hebrew text. Some of the reasons are that the words of the Old English which seam difficult to read and understand at first are really the most descriptive and least confusing to understand as you read. Words like Longsuffering from the KJV have been translated into patience in the NIV. Now the word are pretty similar in the definitions, but the word longsuffering shows an inflection of pain while you endure. Patience does not imply this at all. You may be patient with the guy at the counter of the DMV, but you are long suffering with a loved one while you hope they change their ways. There are many more examples of the pitfalls of the NIV, NKJV, KJ21, NASB to numerous to get into. And if you are not willing to examine and ask the Lord to help you discern the Truth of the matter then my post is falling upon deaf ears.
There is a good book called The Language of the King James Bible , Discover its Hidden Built in Dictionary, by Gail Riplinger. It is very informative on how to understand the Old English of the KJV Bible.
But on to why I posted in the first place if you go to these links you will learn how the publishers of the NIV are also the publisher of the Satanic Bible. Their Teen study Bible is very disturbing and worldly, even mocks the Bible in a hidden way.
Since the Septuagint is a translation, scholars speculate if it accurately reflects the Hebrew scriptures of the 2nd century BC. A close examination of the Septuagint and the Masoretic Text (the early Hebrew text of the Old Testament) show slight variations. Were these errors in translation, or are the Septuagint and Masoretic Text based on slightly different Hebrew manuscripts? The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls has helped to shed light on this question. Discovered in the Qumran region near the Dead Sea beginning in 1947, these scrolls are dated to as early as 200 BC and contain parts of every book in the Old Testament except Esther. Comparisons of the Dead Sea Scrolls to the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint show that where there are differences between the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint, approximately 95% of those differences are shared between the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Masoretic text, while only 5% of those differences are shared between the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Septuagint. Does this mean that the Septuagint is unreliable and that our Old Testament is wrought with contradictory sources? No. It is imperative to note that these “variations” are extremely minor (i.e., grammatical errors, spelling differences or missing words) and do not affect the meaning of sentences and paragraphs. (An exception is the book of Jeremiah, in which the actual passages are arranged differently.) None of the differences, however, come close to affecting any area of teaching or doctrine. The majority of the Septuagint, Masoretic Text and the Dead Sea Scrolls are remarkably similar and have dispelled unfounded theories that the Biblical text has been corrupted by time and conspiracy. Furthermore, these variations do not call into question the infallibility of God in preserving His word. Although the original documents are inerrant, translators and scribes are human beings and are thus prone to making slight errors in translation and copying (Hebrew scribal rules attest to how exacting scribes were). Even then, the Bible has redundancy built into its text, and anything significant is told more than once. If grammatical mistakes were introduced that makes a point unclear, it would be clarified in several other places in scripture.
Israel restored in one day and now all nations at the same time can see her streets. Things written 2000 years ago man could not comprehend. Not much left is there?
"I have one that has four versions side by side."
Wow, that would be great! Can you tell me who publishes it? Thanks.
I grew up with the KJV and memorized versus from it. Now churches use so many different translations that it just takes something away from it, at least to me personally.
I can understand the desire to modern translations but to me there is nothing like the KJV.
Appreciate your information! I like the RSV best, myself.
Your original post, with the text of *actual* Old English, really said it all. It reminds me of my copy of "Beowulf," with the English and Anglo-Saxon texts side by side.
Well, you refer to the "authorized" Bible, but it was "authorized" by King James, not Jesus or his Apostles.
You mention that Zondervan, the publishers of the NIV Bible, also publishes the Satanic Bible. But that is a lie. The parent company of Zondervan owns a seperate company that publishes the Satanic Bible.
If Zondervan is by association guilty of publishing the Satanic Bible, then you yourself are guilty of the homosexuality that has been attributed to King James, the "authorizer" of your Bible. Right?
Nope...Everything's in place...
Try studying another Bible (without the AV or some other external help available)...Impossible...
Every English bible out there (and there are well over a hundred) was an attempt to correct the AV...And they still keep trying...
Try to find 2 Tim. 2:15 in any other bible...You will then be on the path to some great bible truth...
I kind of weigh in on the Septuagint side, how about you?
King James was a homosexual????
(Worth noting, having read the full article now. I wouldn't say that the Septuagint endorses indulgences, or purgatory. The article saw some as feeling it did)
As you are member of the Orthodox Church I can appreciate why you would say that. I am Protestant, but my views are for the most part determined by theological and textual criticism considerations. I have probably well over 100 different translations of the Bible, and while the Septuagint is not my OT preference, I do not have any problem using it, Apocrypha excluded.
I use King James for memory verses, but to really study, I check several different editions. I do not believe that the KJV is infallible as some obviously do. I do check out the versions in the Hebrew and Greek however, and suggest others do the same.
Yep
It allows those who are pretty well convinced on such issues to examine their conviction as well. Debate is good.
And how do people know that?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.