Reviews

About the author

avatar

Ben Kwok

Ben is part of a church plant team establishing the Rouse Hill Church. He holds a Master of Divinity degree. Ben and his wife Diahanna live in Sydney, Australia with their four young children.

64 Comments

  1. avatar

    MarkO

    I am a part of the ESV only cult. No – just kidding. Just making a point that to be a one and only verionists doesn’t have much currency among other translations. I have never heard anyone express the same “inspiration” arguments for another translation.

    I have wondered for a quite some time why the Geneva Bible is not given much notice in these sort of discussions. It was in much use before the KJV and the KJV as well as many other English translations owe their success to the innovations introduced by widely popular Geneva Bible.

    Reply
  2. avatar

    Jeremy

    Thanks for the blog post. MarkO – you have a valid point as well. A sincere study of church history and preservation will lead to an appreciation of the translations prior to / and following the KJV.

    Reply
  3. avatar

    Robert

    Ben, I liked the angle of your post, yes there are varying degrees of error but also varying degrees of ‘KJV only’. Some are heretical but others I simply beg to differ with.

    It is interesting that Paul commanded Titus to go to Crete to correct doctrinal error rather than commanding total separation.

    As you know I travel and am often asked to preach from the KJV. I am prepared to do so out of respect for the church I am ministering in.

    So we need to see where people are at with the issue and if an opportunity arises to share the other side of the story.

    What intrigues me is that there was so much opposition to the 1611 edition because there were already good existing translations.

    The same arguments get re-hashed today in opposing any updated translation no matter how benign.

    Reply
  4. avatar

    Rick Roth

    Ben, you took a very difficult subject and expressed the major points/problems and critiqued it well. But more importantly you paid attention to the family need.
    The family of God does not need division; it needs unity (see Jn. 17:23,Col. 3:14). Mark Os observation is very valid. I believe the reason there is its mooring. Some Baptist have a hard time vilifying Presbyterian roots in fundamental realms. Even the New Geneva Study Bible has not been given much audience today (http://www.ligonier.org/store/the-new-geneva-study-bible-nkjv-hardcover/).
    The bottom line, like you said is: Don’t let our preference become our pulpit. Let the Bible be our guide.

    Reply
  5. avatar

    Jason Harris

    It was helpful to see the outline of how different people can be in the same error but at different levels. It takes a lot of wisdom to know when someone is a false teacher vs. a deceived person vs. mistaken but teachable.

    Reply
  6. avatar

    Ben

    Good points, guys…

    I think we should be charitable to those who misunderstand preservation but are sincere for the truth. I also wonder about the value of arguing with those who will not listen, when there is so much Gospel work to do!

    If only everyone would just read their Bibles. :)

    Reply
  7. avatar

    John Banks

    Hi Ben,

    Great refocus of our attention, it is not a waste of time. However, I wonder if you are at this point only highlighting the first step of church discipline–admonition. Those who ardently adhere to his ‘schismatic’ teaching and are not willing to moderate their opinion need to be marked as causing division within the body of Christ (Romans 16:17).

    John

    Reply
  8. avatar

    Alen Basic

    I almost had a heart attack when I read the title :) But in all seriousness I liked your post and it is quite thought provoking.

    I find it interesting that this problem has plagued the church in times past.

    Augustine wrote to Jerome saying:

    “[M]y only reason for objecting to the public reading of your translation from the Hebrew in our churches was, lest, bringing forward anything which was, as it were, new and opposed to the authority of the Septuagint version, we should trouble by serious cause of offense the flocks of Christ, whose ears and hearts have become accostomed to listen to that version to which the seal of approbation was given by the apostles themselves.”

    Later on in history we see Martin Dorp writing to Erasmus saying:

    “It is not reasonable that the whole church, which has always used this edition and still both approves and uses it, should for all these centuries have been wrong.”

    He also goes so far to say (Does this sound familiar to you?):

    “If however they contend that a sentence as rendered by the Latin translator varies in point of truth from the Greek manuscript, at that point I bid the Greek goodbye and cleave to the Latins”

    First the Septuagint, then the Vulgate and now the KJV.

    Reply
  9. avatar

    Ben Kwok

    John, yes — definitely the pastors’ responsibility to lead on this, both within our congregations and for the Church in general, so that the Gospel is not hindered.

    Good quotes, Alen! Looks like we should go back to the LXX!

    Reply
  10. avatar

    PJ

    This is a difficult subject – and a good treatment of it. Though I do think you create a bit of a ‘straw man’ by your definition of ‘KJV-only’. I think this is a much more nuanced debate than your piece suggests.

    For example, if a person says ‘no’ to points 1 & 3 of your definition, but ‘yes’ to point 2, what does that make them? Are they guilty of holding a KJV-only position? (And being a schismatic?)

    Reply
  11. avatar

    Jason Harris

    @PJ, The word “only” is key in #1 and #3.

    Reply
  12. avatar

    PJ

    Jason,

    I guess my point is this, can a pastor (or a church constitution) insist on using only the KJV in the ministries of the church without being guilty of the KJV-only “error” as Bro. Kwok describes it?

    PJ

    Reply
  13. avatar

    Jason Harris

    PJ,

    Absolutely. None of the criteria set out would be met in that case.

    Reply
  14. avatar

    Ben Kwok

    hi PJ — I intended those three points as one definition, since they constitute the standard KJV Only position. Your example from point 2 suggests a Majority Text-only stance.

    I agree it can be a complex issue, which is why I’m recommending a nuanced response.

    Reply
  15. avatar

    PJ

    Thanks Jason & Ben for your replies.

    This is a very useful and important discussion for those in independant circles – and, as Ben points out in his article, it always generates a lot of heat! [That this is my third post is an evidence of that!]

    I think there are at least three points in between a Ruckmanite position and one that sees use of the KJV only as a matter of ‘preference’.

    Thr first such position denies ‘double inspiration’ but maintains that the KJV is a ‘perfect Bible’. I would call that an example of the KJV-only ‘error’ and Ruckmanism by stealth.

    The second position I have been exposed to is that because of its textual sources and because of the nature of preservation, in the King James translation “nothing has been lost”. I find this position illogical and two steps away from Ruckmanism, though I’d be careful about calling it “error”.

    Then there is a third position that argues for use of the KJV only based on the English used in the translation giving the most precise translation of the Greek (e.g. ye, thee, thou etc) and based on the textual sources of the KJV.

    There are probably other variations between a belief in double-inspiration and ‘KJV only’ as a matter of preference. Where exactly one falls into the “KJV-only” error is probably not that easy to determine. And whether someone’s position can be called ‘a preference’ or ‘a conviction’ is also a difficult question.

    Augustine’s dictum – “In necessariis unitas, In dubiis libertas, In omnibus autem caritas” applies here and I think that’s the spirit of Bro. Kwok’s article – though determining what is ‘in necessariis’ and what is ‘in dubiis’ is often a vexed question!

    Reply
  16. avatar

    Ben Kwok

    Appreciating your contribution —

    I think when someone upholds one English translation while denying that other translations are the Word of God, that is a serious misinterpretation of the doctrine of inspiration. I would say that is where one falls into the KJV-only error which is so divisive.

    Like you, I’m more charitable toward those who uphold the KJV’s textual sources. Someone could use the KJV from this position without denying the validity of other translations or denigrating others.

    Practically speaking, do you see much of this nuance from our ind. Baptist brothers who are KJV-only? I haven’t.

    Reply
  17. avatar

    PJ

    Ben – thanks for keeping the conversation going…I appreciate your point of view.

    I haven’t had a lot of exposure to ‘KJV-only’ doctrine in independant circles, so my opinion is not worth much – but what I have seen suggests that it stems more from an unwillingness to hold a ‘reasoned’ position on the KJV. It’s easier, and creates less potential for doubt simply to ‘believe’ that the KJV is the only true Word of God.

    There is a sound, logical argument to made for the exclusive use of the KJV but its a complex argument and I think many KJV-only types can’t, or don’t want to consider and make that argument.

    Church leaders and church constitutions have to make some decisions about which version(s) are to be used in worship and which are best for personal edification – I think you would agree that a laissez-faire approach to this issue is not helpful.

    There is a line to be drawn somewhere and when you draw that line, I think its very hard not to look at other translations beyond that line disapprovingly. If you didn’t ddisapprove of other versions you would undermine your own position!

    In my discussions with various people over the years it seems to come down to which guiding principle governs making those decisions – and it usually boils down to three –

    a) A commitment to translational precision.

    b) The underlying textual evidence for the translation, or

    c) The acessibility of the translation to the modern reader.

    Whichever comes first I think will determine which version one decides to use and how one then looks at other versions.

    Anyway, there are thousands more words I could put down on this subject but I’ll leave it there – thanks again for your article and taking the time to engage in conversation.

    Reply
  18. avatar

    Simon Tan

    I believe the kjv is a faithful translation but not the only faithful translation of the Bible.

    Reply
  19. avatar

    alg

    I am curious. Does anyone believe that a word-for-word perfect (complete, inspired, and inerrant) Bible exists, in the world, today?

    If so, where is it (I hope everyone knows that no ‘originals’ exist)?

    If not, how do you know where the ‘Bible’ you read is correct and where it is in error?

    Reply
  20. avatar

    Jason Harris

    Alg,

    The problem is not that we don’t have enough words. The problem is that we have too many. So the question is not if we have all the words. The question is, of all the words we have, which exact combination is the exact combination that was in the original autographs?

    Any attempt to solve this dilemma that includes any language besides the languages of the autographs (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek) is error.

    If you have a suggestion as to the best solution within one of these three languages, I would be very interested to hear it.

    Grace to you.

    Reply
  21. avatar

    Mark

    I find it incredible that a person can believe God created everything but that he can’t keep His word. Did He lie? Is man so powerful that we have corrupted God’s word against his will? I don’t think so… My Bible is perfect.

    The same ‘educated’ people are the ones supplying translations, many of them also believe in evolution. Don’t look at where the differences come from but look at what the changes are.

    Christians died for the original text that became King James Bible. A great starting place for any Christian would be to watch, “A Lamp in the Dark”.

    Things that are different are not the same.

    Reply
  22. avatar

    Jason Harris

    Hey Mark,

    The question is not whether God can keep his word. He can and he does. Always. The question is what he said he would do. And he didn’t say what KJV-only people are saying he said.

    Where the differences came from is THE point. If we look at what the changes are, we have to presuppose the KJV is the standard against which to compare them.

    What are you talking about when you say “original text”? And if it was an original text, it cannot possibly “become” the KJV since the original text is in Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic and the KJV is in English.

    No one’s arguing that things aren’t different. The issue is which text/translation best reflects the God-breathed autographs.

    Reply
  23. avatar

    Mark

    Hi Jason.

    I tried to keep this short. My studies started down the path of translating Hebrew. I ended up learning the truth along the way… Faith.

    Short answers…
    1.) The word of God is not hidden, It is available to all who seek it. I don’t know what the ‘KJV-only’ people said He said, so I can’t answer that.

    2.) You don’t have to presuppose anything. God had his hand in the creation of The King James Bible. With anything in life, discard the lies and only the truth remains. If any version can’t stand on it’s own, then it is flawed. The word of God is not flawed.

    3.) The originals I spoke of are the partial bibles, texts, scribbled notes that persecuted Christians died for. Many details can be discussed but instead, watch the movie I suggested. Fear not… it is a Christian documentary.

    4.) I have the word of God, not something that reflects it. If we don’t have the true word of God then we have nothing but the thoughts of men. Read the full answer below to see why…

    Most versions say that God preserved his word… Which one is God’s word? I have faith in God and I know He does not lie. He did not preserve the ‘thought’ of His word. He did not preserve some ancient scroll hidden away in a vault. He preserved His word. The new versions are simply not the truth. Genesis 2:7, NKJV replaced the words ‘living soul’ with ‘living being’. I frequently squash living beings without a second thought. I cannot squash a soul. Words matter.

    You need to look at WHAT the differences are and not WHY. Why is a matter of faith, scientist and scholars will tell you that the oldest is best. They will also tell you that the universe is 80 million years older than we originally thought. Pretend that you didn’t know one version from the other and start discarding the ones that don’t add up. The ones that have occult symbols on the cover should go without question. The ones that cause Jesus to become a liar and the ones that contradict themselves should be discarded as well. The truth will show itself.

    There is not one error in the KJB. My favourite misconceptions are Easter and Unicorn. They mean, Easter and Unicorn, simple as that. Easter was a pagan holiday and I’m not certain what a Unicorn was, but I know they existed. Did you know that before 1841, dinosaurs were called dragons? Words and meanings change so when people mock ‘unicorn’, I just see them as ignorant to our past. We would be wise to study. (2 Timothy 2:15). I guarantee that you will find arguments for both sides… The argument between creation and evolution is the same as KJB vs new versions. It’s going to come down to faith for either side. I have THE word of God. Other people have books that people wrote that are similar to other books from other interpretations from some old scroll. If it’s not the word of God, why bother?

    God preserved the originals/texts/scrolls etc long enough for them to become the King James Bible. God had His hand in bringing them all together to be translated by King James. Is that as far fetched as God bringing the animals to Noah? It requires faith and I thank Jesus everyday I have it. Again, look at WHAT the differences are.

    If you don’t have THE word of God, then why read any of it? Who decides what part is right and what is wrong? Is the purpose of the Bible just to make you a ‘good’ person? I know many ‘good’ people who are not saved. I also know many people who use the King James Bible yet they are not saved. They have an exception that states, “We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly”. This is exactly the same as the people who accept all new versions, they believe it so long as it’s accurate. Let’s see what each version says then draw our own conclusion. I prefer to follow God’s word, not mine. Having a difficult time understanding the King James? So did the people in the 1600’s. They didn’t speak that way either. God did! It IS the word of God. Amen.

    Please watch a lamp in the Dark to help shed some light on the history side for you. I have studied and researched this issue in great depth for well over a year now. (A Lamp in the Dark should be available for free on YouTube) Another great show is, “The King James Bible: The Book That Changed the World”. In it you will see how the teams of translators did not trust each other and checked to make sure both sides were accurate. These (close to 50) translators were not like our modern 4 year degree scholars. They were Masters of language and Loved Jesus. People assume we are smarter now but we are not. We simply have the ability to transfer knowledge and information faster without questioning if we should.

    The KJB can be translated into any language. It will still be the KJB. Changing the spelling or the language of a word, does not change the word. A typo is a typo, a human error that has been corrected. People knew of the misprint(s) and noted them. I understand that there are some languages that would not ‘translate’ the same, but many of those cultures have turned their back on Jesus long ago. Civilization is on a path of deceit and destruction and the new versions are speeding that up. It’s inevitable we go that way, like it or not. If you don’t believe that then I have no idea what you’re reading. It comes down to which side you choose. God gave the Bible to the english speaking people, not because we were most deserving but because He knew it would be preserved. He certainly wouldn’t give it to a country/language that was overrun with muslims or buddhists and have it lost or destroyed.

    Some people have asked me what’s the difference if we believe the same thing overall? Well, you can have your car seats rubbed down with dog poo and the car will still drive you to where you need to go. I just prefer unscented. I don’t claim to know who is saved and who isn’t but I can certainly tell when something smells.

    I do not worship the King James Bible. I can throw my bible away and just buy another. I worship Jesus Christ and I do what He wants. I know EXACTLY what He said. Do You? Where will our new Christians be when the next new bible or revision of the NIV comes out? It’s most likely going to be a ‘translation’ that allows for all religion to be joined as one. Everything will be accepted. It sounds nice, like a new world order. If you think the NWO is just a conspiracy theory, then you don’t believe your bible or you have a corrupt version.

    We are nearing the end times my brothers. Perhaps you don’t believe that Satan can get his hands on the very words so many hold close to their hearts. The bible says not to change the words… so who’s changing them? Do you really believe or are you just part of a group of friendly ‘Christians’? Hell is real and Satan is real. Satan currently rules this earth and if you think for one second that he doesn’t get involved with bible versions, you are only fooling yourself.

    “Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:” ~ 1 Peter Chapter 5:8

    Reply
  24. avatar

    Jason Harris

    Mark,

    Do you realise that no two of those “original” manuscripts (which are actually copies of copies of copies) are alike? Did you know that every single one of them has variant readings, typically at a rate of many per page?

    Of course God had his hand in the creation of the KJV. That is called providence. He also had his hand in the creation of Tyndale’s New Testament, the Great Bible, the Geneva Bible, the Bishop’s Bible, etc. To say that his hand was on the KJV translation differently to the providential way it was on the other translations is the false doctrine known as Ruckmanism.

    It seems the “full answer” under #4 is quoted from someone else? Who?

    Reply
  25. avatar

    Mark

    Hi Jason.

    The KJB is all the pieces put together, translations checked and cross referenced by masters of language, mass produced and available to everyone. I have no need to go back to any originals. Have you watched a Lamp in the Dark yet? There are other documentaries that will help answer your questions, but this is one of the best. Really, you should invest the time to watch it. KJB, the book that changed the world is good at showing the process of how the KJB was put together.

    I’m sure that many people using scripture pre KJB were saved. They used what they had. The KJB was translated with honestly. Are you using a Geneva or Bishop’s bible? I haven’t had a need to visit those translations since they were some of what was used for the KJB. The originals were corrected by cross reference and proofread multiple times. There is no need to go to any other language or ‘translation’. The current work and study of bible translation and ancient texts is not for the benefit of man. I don’t want to sound like a broken record, but it comes down to what is different. You can clearly see in some translations that the changes are not good. Why is this happening? Who is being deceived?

    No matter what you read, you are going to require faith. I am honoured to write well enough that you think I plagiarized. I have studied this for well over a year and I wrote all of my post last night. Does it seem familiar to you as though you may have heard it before? There is only one truth. I pray you, and many others find it.

    I won’t go into specific texts, translations and what is older and better. You can research that on your own and It will still come down to faith. I choose to have the words, “Word of God” mean exactly that.

    Reply
  26. avatar

    Jason Harris

    Hold on Mark. You said “Christians died for the original text that became King James Bible.” So clearly you view these “originals” as important. So I’m asking you where they are? What are they? Who publishes them? I know the answers to these questions, but you clearly don’t. And until you do, you don’t have the first clue what you’re talking about.

    I don’t know what this “A Lamp in the Dark” is. But from what you’re saying, I have no interest in watching it because I’ve read/watched/heard dozens (probably hundreds) of books/DVDs/sessions promoting exactly what you’re saying.

    What were the “originals” corrected by? What is the standard of authority if not the copies of the originals?

    The differences between English translations are there for a reason and you clearly don’t know yet what that reason is. Until you do, it’s left up to imagination.

    Well, I actually didn’t read it because the lead-in suggested it was a quote.

    Reply
  27. avatar

    Mark

    Jason.

    I suggest reading a post before discussing it. If you choose to overlook certain history because you don’t like where it leads, you will have a difficult time in your studies. You have already made up your mind and decided the word of God is only the interpretation of man.

    I have studied for well over a year and I have not yet read or watched hundreds of DVDs and books. God bless you in your journey, you are a scholar.

    Reply
  28. avatar

    Jason Harris

    I read the portion I responded to. I did not intend to read it if it was a copy/paste quote. As it’s yours, I’ll be happy to read it and respond when I get a moment.

    I do not believe what you just said I believe. It is a misrepresentation to suggest that because I believe KJV-onlyism is false doctrine that I believe “the word of God is only the interpretation of man.” I don’t. Far from it.

    I’m not sure whether to take your last comment as sarcasm or not. Suffice to say, I’ve been doing serious research on the topic for more than ten years now.

    Reply
  29. avatar

    Mark

    Jason.

    I didn’t choose the KJB, I simply eliminated any book that couldn’t stand on it’s own. There’s only one truth and it stands alone.

    You have been doing serious research for over 10 years now. You say the word of God is far from an interpretation of man. Please tell me, where is the word of God?

    Reply
  30. avatar

    Jason Harris

    As you no doubt understand, not all revelation has been inscripturated. But that which has was “given by the breath of God” (my translation of theopneustos in 2 Timothy 3:16) and holy men were driven along in recording them (1 Peter 1:21). These autographs were God-breathed (what the KJV translates “inspiration” based on the Latin “inspirata”). We call this verbal, plenary inspiration. On this, we no doubt agree.

    The difficulty comes when we have 2,000-4,000 years of copies of those autographs. Copies were made and then copies of those copies and copies of the copies of the copies, etc. These copies are what you referred to earlier as the “originals.”

    So the answer to your question is simply that these copies, thousands of portions of which have survived to this day, are the word of God. I have several collations of those copies on my shelf. But they are in Greek. And Hebrew. Not English. So just like all the other people in the world, we translate God’s Word into our language. Then we learn it, and love it, and live it. It’s pretty much that simple.

    Reply
  31. avatar

    Kezia Dennison

    Mark,

    I have watched A Lamp in the Dark and I must say at best it is a strongly biased and agenda-ridden presentation of just a few hand-picked–often out of context– fragments of the history of the English Bible. The producers omit pretty much anything that might provide any alternative pathway of thought, and the whole movie is disturbingly shaded with a vicious onslaught against the Catholic church. In fact the emphasis against the Catholic Church is so overwhelming, that the Bible is almost forgotten completely in the process.

    The movie is riddled with both outright inaccuracy and altered facts presenting only the agenda the makers obviously wanted to present  rather than an objective, or even vaguely credible documentary.  (For example: The “experts” interviewed are presented to the viewer with little to no valid credentials and most of the references are to books and resources which have little or no scholarly credibility, while no differing arguments are presented at all.) The viewer is expected to believe the story despite the lack of proof, credibility or support to genuinely back the movie up.

    I wont argue with you on the ins and outs of this film, but I will say A Lamp in the Darkness is not a valid or even helpful source for anyone truly interested in learning the truth about this debate. I humbly propose that there are several books which might prove to be more beneficial to you if you are truly interested in searching for the truth in this matter.

    Reply
  32. avatar

    Jason Harris

    Ok. I’ve read that mammoth post now. My thoughts…

    1) You ask “which one?” That is the logical fallacy of the false dichotomy. The correct answer is “yes.”

    2) What you are hinting at is verbal, plenary accessibility. Which is a new doctrine. And a false one.

    3) As far as how the NKJV translates Gen. 2:7, since the NKJV is translated from the same manuscripts as the KJV, any difference there is a matter of translation. And unless you can postulate on the best translation in that passage, you’re taking someone else’s word for it. And then condemning millions of believers on that basis.

    4) You keep treating the KJV as the standard against which other translations are to be judged. That’s stupid. Why would the KJV be the standard and not Tyndale? Or Great? Or Geneva? Or NKJV? You are obligated to have a reason if you want to be taken seriously.

    5) If there are no errors in the KJV, why did the translators of the KJV say in the preface to the KJV that the KJV would need to be improved on in the future?

    6) “God preserved the originals/texts/scrolls etc long enough for them to become the King James Bible.” First, you’re saying that he stopped preserving them after the KJV? That’s heresy. Second, you act as if they “became” the KJV by some magical, mystical process. They didn’t. Guys sat at desks and did months of hard yakka. Just like Tyndale before them. And Coverdale. And dozens of others. And just like the translators of the NKJV, the NASB, the ESV, etc.

    7) You admit that your faith is blind. Here’s the problem. God didn’t say a word about an English bible. He never promised a translation for every language group. To this day many languages do not have a translation of Scripture.

    That’s it. This is a total waste of time. You know just enough history to back what you’ve chosen to believe. You use logic like a twisty toy for your amusement. You just don’t know your theology. Your arguments are bigoted and racist. Mate, I can only pray you’ll keep learning and that you’ll be honest enough to read viewpoints that differ with your own.

    Reply
  33. avatar

    Mark

    Thank you Jason.

    If you some day translate your copies and thousands of portions into english as a complete bible, I would love to read it. If it has already been done by someone else, please let me know.

    Reply
  34. avatar

    Jason Harris

    You’re in luck! It’s been done already. Several times in fact. Have a look at the Tyndale NT, Great, Coverdale, Geneva, Bishops, KJV, RSV, ASV, NRSV, NKJV, NIV, NASB, ESV, etc.

    Reply
  35. avatar

    Mark

    Thank you again Jason, but why are they different from each other?

    Reply
  36. avatar

    Jason Harris

    Because they are translations. And because the text they are translated from has variants.

    Let’s do a simple exercise. I’m going to type the phrase “I am going to walk the dog” into Google Translate. Translated to Spanish, that comes out as “Me voy a pasear al perro.” Then I’ll translate that to French which comes out as “Je vais promener le chien.” Now back to English which comes out “I’m walking the dog.” A simple phrase changed significantly through that simple process. Why? Because translation is not a science. It’s an art.

    Reply
  37. avatar

    Mark

    1) Please list the poor translations that you would discard. (if any)
    Are you ok with all the new versions or are there some that are bad? If so, please let me know which ones are bad.

    2)Are you ok with the Triqueta on the nkjv? Please google, “Triqueta pendant” and look at a few sites where they are sold. Is that something you would feel comfortable wearing as a Christian?

    3) Why don’t the nasv, nkjv and the niv match? They are similar in age.
    Scholars have thousands of portions of the bible in Hebrew and Greek. Scholars have researched and chosen which are the ‘best’ oldest and closest to ‘original’ texts. All these texts are older than the nkjv, nasv and the niv. There should be no confusion in a highly educated class of scholars, what is best. Working with the closest to original texts that you mentioned, translate straight to english. Just go from the existing, best choice originals in hebrew and greek, to english.

    4) Which is the best translation into english?
    If the translators were honestly trying to create an accurate bible, the versions should be the same. You have had the privilege to be well educated. People such as yourself must know what is truthfully accurate and the best choice for translation of a word. As you said, it is art. Art is interpretation. That would make all of the versions the interpretation of man, unless you have faith that God preserved His word. If the Greek and Hebrew texts you have ARE the preserved word of God, please provide a straight to english version. If this is done already, which one did it right?

    5) It’s been done already, so where is the word of God?
    You said, “You’re in luck! It’s been done already.” Things that are different are not the same. Which one is the true word of God? Is it parts from one english version and parts from another? Do I get to pick and choose verses that suit me? Why can’t there be a committee of scholars who choose the correct translations and provide a common version that is voted upon to be the most accurate? If they have already done that, which version is it? If they haven’t, why not? If they can’t agree, then both sides admit at least one of them is wrong. Which one do you think is wrong? (question 1)

    If all versions are all just interpretation of man, then they are nothing. If we cannot tell what Jesus Christ has said apart from what man has said, then they are dangerous. I believe that God did keep His word. He did not hide it, He did not make it confusing, and He did not leave it untranslatable. Somebody, somewhere is changing the meanings of words. Who and Why?

    I pray for you and anyone reading this in Jesus name that our hearts are open to the truth. I pray that all of our hearts and eyes are open to the deceit and corruption in this world. I put my faith in Jesus Christ and not in the higher education of men. We can see when our heart is open that certain scriptures and words don’t add up. I ask that all of you research your favourite version and review the contradictions. Hold it accountable to itself. Learn what the differences are between them all and make an honest decision. I pray for guidance for us all. Please guide us Lord. The King James Bible is not divisive. It was here long before ‘KJB only’ began and saved millions of Christians. I owe I wisdom, my salvation and my life to you Lord Jesus.
    I pray in Jesus name,
    Amen.

    Reply
  38. avatar

    Jason Harris

    Mark,

    1) Since a translation is the outcome of literally billions of editorial decisions over centuries and in some cases millennia, it is absurd to speak of good translations and bad translations per se. Rather, a translation must be assessed on a number of sliding scales. For instance, textual foundation, philosophy of translation (formal vs. paraphrase), accuracy, precision, clarity, readability, literary value, etc. Some translations I would never want to use for Bible study, but would give to someone with limited reading/comprehension ability in a heartbeat. Some are so loose/careless that I could hardly bring myself to call them a Bible. Some are incredibly precise, but difficult to read.

    2) I happen to have a copy of the NKJV on my desk right now and there is no triqueta on it. Having followed your advice and looked it up, I’ve learned that it has been used as a religious symbol over the centuries, and in recent centuries has been used extensively as a Christian symbol of the trinity. But then having done some graphic design in my day, I’ve learned that there are only so many shapes in the world, and only so many ways of combining them. Most symbols have a long and diverse history. For instance, in the first century, the swastika was a Christian symbol. I have personally seen it carved into the stone in the Roman catacombs. Rather than take that as conclusive proof that the early Christians were evil first century nazis, I asked some questions, did some research, and discovered that the world is not black and white, simple and straightforward. That I have not got the market cornered on symbology because I googled something or because I heard a lecture from this conspiracy theorist or that.

    3) You’ve forgotten that of the thousands of manuscript portions extant, no two agree. In fact, most differ many times per page. Every credible academic Greek New Testament has a significant portion of every page filled with footnotes explaining what variants are most significant on the page and which key manuscripts support which. Scholars don’t all agree on it because God didn’t give us the perfect method for determining a reading. Rather, he told us to study and put in the hard work and use the minds he gave us to come to reasonable criteria and reasonable assessments of the various readings. And since we don’t have direct revelation on the matter, good, godly scholars will often disagree.

    4) Additional to the points made under #1 above, I refer you to my Google Translate experiment where I demonstrated that there is no such things as a “straight to english” anything. Translation is subjective. That’s why the KJV had dozens of guys involved. And they disagreed many, many times. If you buy a copy of the original 1611 KJV, you’ll see thousands of footnotes giving alternate readings or attempting to clarify meaning. Language is incredibly complex. It actually shapes the way we think as well as the symbols (words) we use to try to communicate those thoughts and ideas. Take, for instance, these words: like, appreciate, value, enjoy, and love. Each of them could be used to fill in the following blanks: “I _______ icecream” and “I _______ my dog” and “I _______ my wife.” Yet each word has a slightly (and sometimes not so slightly) different connotation. And the same word in a different blank might have a vastly different meaning (e.g. “I love icecream” vs “I love my wife”).

    5) This point demonstrates the idolatry of your position. You demand certainty. Of course we all want certainty. But you demand it. It is not enough for you that God revealed his will explicitly to us in writing (while many walked with God for thousands of years without that revelation). It is not enough that Scripture has been powerfully preserved for 2,000 years so that it is the single best attested ancient document in the world bar none and by a margin of hundreds of percentage points. It is not enough for you that God’s Word is the best selling book in the world in 2013. It is not enough for you that you have access to dozens of translations in dozens of languages for a price that would embarrass the saints who, by the millions, went their whole lives never once owning a full copy of the Scriptures century after century. None of that is enough. You want absolute, perfect certainty on every detail. And even though God did not give it in this area, you demand it. That’s not a scholarly issue and it’s not a doctrinal issue. It’s a heart issue.

    Reply
  39. avatar

    Mark

    Thank you for taking the time to read it all and reply. I will keep my replies short from now on.

    Since we don’t have direct revelation, can you explain why your quote below doesn’t apply as interpretation of man?

    “God didn’t give us the perfect method for determining a reading. Rather, he told us to study and put in the hard work and use the minds he gave us to come to reasonable criteria and reasonable assessments of the various readings. And since we don’t have direct revelation on the matter, good, godly scholars will often disagree.”

    Reply
  40. avatar

    Jason Harris

    To interpret means to come up with a theory of exactly what something which has been encoded (for instance, in words) means. You cannot understand this sentence without interpretation. Scripture is no different. When God chose to give us a book, he presupposed the necessity of learning how to read and write, how to think clearly, and how to interpret meaning. This is man’s responsibility.

    So it IS the interpretation of man. Man has to read it, understand/interpret it, then translate it, and then read it in the new language, and then understand/interpret it again. God could have chosen to give revelation in a different way, but he didn’t.

    Reply
  41. avatar

    Mark

    I agree with your view of interpretation but I also believe God chose to give revelation on many occasions. Do you believe that any of the scriptures came from God or was Genesis just written in man’s words describing what man observed and interpreted to be true? The Bible doesn’t tell us that Genesis divinely appeared or was dictated by God. Somebody had to sit at a desk and do months of hard work. God had to control/oversee/inspire a man at some point to write the scriptures. Don’t you agree?

    Perhaps it is just these particular scriptures I don’t understand. (Psalms 12:6-7) (Deuteronomy 4:2) (Proverbs 30:5-6) (Mark 13:31) (Revelation 22:18-19). Did the word, “words” get translated wrong? Does it mean ‘promise’ as some say? If so, then the versions that use ‘words’ are wrong, and you say it’s absurd to speak of good translations and bad translations. Can you please tell me which version is at the top of the sliding scale? If it’s only parts of each version on this scale, why has there not been a committee to create a bible using only the top translations from the scale?

    If a version contradicts any other version, then somebody, somewhere has added or subtracted words. They could have been changed anywhere along the line. The versions differ and nobody can deny that in some cases, words and full verses have been added and removed. Compared translations that have completely omitted or added verses, show that one of them has added or subtracted. If all the versions are the word of God as you stated, they should be combined into one true word of God. Otherwise they are breaking God’s promise to preserve. God warned about adding and subtracting. He knew it would happen, why else would He put a warning? It is not idolatry to honour and defend God’s Word.

    Reply
  42. avatar

    Jason Harris

    I think you’ll find that this comment answers your question in depth.

    2 Timothy 3 teaches unequivocally that all Scripture is given by inspiration. The words, all the words, of Genesis were breathed out by God himself, and then recorded by a man of God’s choosing. The exact mechanics of how that happened are debatable, but the basic reality is a fundamental of the Christian faith usually referred to as verbal, plenary inspiration.

    Let’s look at Psalm 12 for an instance. The word “words” is an accurate, precise translation of the Hebrew here in my understanding. I looked up the KJV, ASV, NASB, and ESV just off the top of my head and all use the word “words” in v. 6. So God says his words are pure and he means exactly that. God never spoke an impure word and never will. There is no translational difficulty here.

    Now I suspect that you are thinking that people like me might want to say it means “promises” to support our view of preservation. If that’s what you’re getting at, I’ll point out that there is no difficulty in this passage for my view of preservation. The text refers God’s promise to protect the needy in v. 5. Then in v. 6, he highlights the fact that when God promises something, he means it. Every word of his promise is true. Finally, in v. 7 it says that God will keep the needy. He will protect them from the people of this generation. Forever.

    As far as versions “contradicting,” that is not necessarily true. Many, many Greek words take two, three, and sometimes more English words to translate effectively. Many English words simply aren’t in the Greek and are added because they are understood in the Greek, but not in English. There are some Greek words that are difficult or even impossible to effectively translate into English. For instance, in 2 Timothy 3:16, theopneustos (one Greek word) is translated by the KJV as “is given by inspiration of God.” Not only does it take six words to communicate the idea, but they had to invent a new English word (inspiration) from the Latin, and even then, that translation has caused confusion around this doctrine. The ESV translates the same word “is breathed out by God.” This translation avoids inventing new English words and clears up some of the confusion around the doctrine, but it still lacks that element of origin, of the givenness of Scripture. And there I am creating a new meaning for the English word “givenness” just trying to communicate the idea. So the question is, which translation is right? Well, both are careful. Both tried to effectively communicate the idea. Neither really succeeded entirely. Neither is perfect. Neither is wrong per se. Both require an understanding of the Greek underneath in order to really appreciate the full import of what was said and how it was said and therefore what it means. That’s one word. Most passages of Scripture would contain some similar difficulty or dilemma in translation. Does that mean we don’t have a good translation? Of course not. We have many excellent translations! But we don’t have any perfect ones. Because such a thing cannot exist. In fact, you’ll find that Islam does not sanction translation of the Qur’an (that’s not to say no one has) because of these very difficulties. But Christianity is not so. Men like Wycliffe, and Luther and Tyndale and the KJV translators understood that God intends his Word to be a book for the people. God wants the pages of Scripture to be stained with mud and sweat and tears and, at times, blood. Why? Because the people need to hear the words of life! The world needs this message! And I am thankful for those men and seek to continue in their footsteps. Thank God that English speaking people have access to multiple careful translations of God’s Word.

    The idea that we need ONE true Bible is rubbish. Jesus Christ himself, during his earthly ministry quoted both from the Hebrew Masoretic text and from the Greek translation (the Septuagint) which came from a competing textual tradition. Both. Jesus understood that to translate a Bible doesn’t make two Bibles but rather a Bible and a translation of the Bible.

    Reply
  43. avatar

    Mark

    “The words, all the words, of Genesis were breathed out by God himself, and then recorded by a man of God’s choosing.”

    You believe this just as I do. It is not heresy nor stupid nor rubbish to have faith that God inspired men to give us His perfect Word in English.

    Reply
  44. avatar

    Jason Harris

    Not at all. What you said is vastly different to what I said.

    I said the words are breathed out by God… you say men were inspired. They weren’t. Ever.
    I said the Scripture God breathed out was perfect… you say the translation of the copies of the copies of the copies, etc. are perfect. They are. To the extent that they were perfectly copied. They were not perfectly copied.
    I said the words were breathed out in Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek… you say they were given to us. In English. They weren’t. That’s Ruckmanism. Which is heresy.

    What I am describing here is the historic fundamental doctrine of inspiration. What you are describing is Ruckmanism, a recent and evil doctrine.

    Reply
  45. avatar

    Mark

    How do you know the words were breathed out in Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek?

    How do you know the words weren’t breathed out again in the KJB? Why is it heresy for me to believe they were? We both believed it the first time with no evidence.

    I follow Jesus Christ, not a man. You have called my beliefs rubbish and stupid. You have insinuated that I am a heretic multiple times and now you call my faith God an evil doctrine. Are you suggesting I will burn in hell if I don’t accept your view?

    The KJB is the Word of God. I don’t need to read Greek or Hebrew. I don’t need to rely on the interpretation of man. I have the Word of God in one place, easy to understand and no contradiction.

    Reply
  46. avatar

    Jason Harris

    Because God said he did. In 2 Timothy 3:16. Which I believe by faith.

    Because they were already breathed out in Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek. Which is what Scripture teaches he did. In 2 Timothy 3:16. And because Scripture does not teach re-breathing out (i.e. Ruckmanism). Rather, it repeatedly quotes the Septuagint which was a (somewhat poor) translation. That is probably what he’s referring to in 2 Timothy 3:16. In other words, God breaths it out once. Then we have it. There is no need to breath it out again. All we need to do is translate it.

    I don’t know the first thing about you so I couldn’t possibly judge your salvation. Nor would I want to. But I can judge your doctrine and Ruckmanism is false teaching. It is not faith in God to affirm false doctrine. It is heresy. And I didn’t call your belief stupid. I called your argument stupid. Logic is not something you can just ignore. You are obligated to present a coherent, valid argument if you want to be taken seriously. To compare the NIV to the KJV and then cry foul because they are different is stupid. It’s like comparing your shopping docket to my shopping docket and getting upset that they are different. Of course they’re different because they’re not supposed to match each other. They are supposed to match what’s in the trolley! I’m not saying you are stupid. I don’t think you are. I’m saying the argument is stupid and it is.

    I agree that you personally don’t necessarily need to be able to read the Hebrew or Greek. And yes, the KJV is the Word of God. It is a careful translation of a careful collation of the copies of the words God breathed out. There is no disagreement there. But KJV-onlyism and Ruckmanism are false teachings and divisive teachings that contradict the Scripture’s teaching about itself. You and I are therefore obligated to reject them.

    Reply
  47. avatar

    Mark

    To claim that different words are the same IS to deny logic. “To compare the NIV to the KJV and then cry foul because they are different is stupid” By comparison, Jesus becomes lucifer. They simply CANNOT both be right in this case. Which one is wrong? By all means choose either one! “Lucifer” was first used in the KJB so is that the one you choose to be wrong? Logic is not something you can just ignore so please let us know which one is wrong. These books combined make Jesus = lucifer. This is not acceptable and one is a poor translation. Choose.

    The fruits of your belief produce doubt. You cannot choose the best version because that is “absurd”. It is just a man made book and some parts are low on the sliding scale and some are high. Your fruit is that there is no exact written word of God in English. There was in the past, but it no longer exists… per se.

    The fruit of KJB is a belief that God preserved His word in English.

    KJB believers in a relationship with Jesus Christ have always been ridiculed and mocked. Why should I be any different? You may call me what you wish but you should know that I have only seen a 10 minute clip of Peter Ruckman. I know there are Christians out there reading this, questioning your logic. They cannot be answered without faith in man.

    You believe you have an interpretation of the Word of God. You have faith in man. Faith that man for God, not by Him, have interpreted His word into English on a scale of correctness.

    I believe I have the Word of God. I have faith in God. Faith that God, through man, preserved His word in English as promised.

    Reply
  48. avatar

    Mark

    RE: 2 Timothy 3:16, your quote. “I said the words are breathed out by God… you say men were inspired. They weren’t. Ever.”

    Below are some versions (I’m sure there are more) that say inspired and inspiration instead of breathed out. Can I safely say according to your studies, these translations are incorrect since man was never inspired? EVER? (your words, not mine) You have shown here that it is NOT truthfully absurd to choose the best version. I am NOT trying to trick you or trap you into saying something, I am only trying to get some straight answers. You cannot deny logic. You said they weren’t inspired ever. If that is the case, 2 Timothy 3:16 in these versions have to be out. Follow the logic now, if that’s out, what else is out? Why hasn’t this been done before? If it has, show me which version is the Word of God.

    New Living Translation (©2007)
    New American Standard Bible (©1995)
    King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
    Holman Christian Standard Bible (©2009)
    NET Bible (©2006)
    GOD’S WORD® Translation (©1995)
    King James 2000 Bible (©2003)
    American King James Version
    American Standard Version
    Douay-Rheims Bible
    Darby Bible Translation
    English Revised Version
    Webster’s Bible Translation
    Weymouth New Testament

    Reply
  49. avatar

    Jason Harris

    I didn’t claim they are the same. Not once. No one does. If you can’t follow my logic, please ask me to explain. Don’t create a straw man to knock over.

    To compare the NIV to the KJV and then cry foul because they are different IS stupid. They are not supposed to be the same. They are two different translations. They take different translation approaches to different collations based on different critical approaches. And they do it in a different era of the English language.

    If you can’t or won’t grasp this, then you are entirely unequipped to understand why the Lucifer/Jesus passage is translated as it is in each translation. And if that is the case, you haven’t even begun to understand the versions issue. In which case you need to stop talking and start reading. BOTH sides of the issue. Both sides.

    “KJB believers” have only EXISTED for about half a century. The Fundamentalists were never KJV-only. John R. Rice himself, in his major work on the doctrine of Scripture openly and directly attacks KJV-onlyism as error. So if “KJB believers” are mocked and ridiculed, it is because their arguments are worthy of little else.

    One need not have heard of Peter Ruckman to hold the false doctrine of Ruckmanism. One need merely follow the same logic Ruckman did and come to the same conclusions. Which you have, aided no doubt by others.

    Re: 2 Timothy 3:16, you have once again missed the point entirely. I have no issues with translations using the word “inspiration.” It is an unfortunate word choice in my view, but it is an acceptable translation when the word is understood to mean God-breathed. But the use of the word “inspiration” does not in any way suggest that man is ever inspired. The KJV reading “given by inspiration” does not mean that men were inspired. One could only interpret it that way if they ignored the meaning of the Greek word theopneustos. Which we cannot do.

    Mark, I’m winding this down. Here’s why. It’s not that we have two reasonable positions and are arguing the strengths/weaknesses of each. It is that you have a position based on almost no understanding of the issue. You aren’t even able to follow my arguments. You don’t have even the most basic understanding of the issues, nor do you have even a basic conception of what I’m arguing. In other words, after all this discussion, you don’t even understand what my position is.

    Until you’re willing to put in the hard yards to get a basic understanding of the doctrine of Scripture, the history of the Bible, and the use of reason and rhetoric, you can’t make any significant headway on understanding this issue.

    Until then, I would encourage you to keep reading your KJV with confidence. It is a great translation which will serve you well in meditation, study, and ministry. In it you will be equipped to know, love, and obey our God and Saviour, Jesus Christ. I would encourage you, though, not to let this issue be a big issue in your life. Focus on the centre of Christianity—Jesus Christ crucified and risen for our everlasting rescue and enjoyment. Those of us who differ with you on the versions issue will answer to God. I’m confident that if you and I keep our focus on loving our Lord and rejoicing in him above all else, we will continue to grow in our love and our understanding of truth and right doctrine over time.

    Reply
  50. avatar

    Jeremy

    Mark, you said that you believe God has preserved His word in English through the KJB?

    Do you believe that God has preserved His Word in languages other than English?

    Reply
  51. avatar

    Mark

    Jason.
    You did not answer the Lucifer = Jesus version issue clearly, please explain. You said, “They are not supposed to be the same.” Which one is the Word of God? In a previous post, you told me all the versions were, but clearly we cannot use these two versions simultaneously.

    Claiming that I am not intelligent enough to understand the process is the same argument that evolutionists use against creation and it is a poor argument. If you don’t like what scripture says, you can simply choose another version. I cannot. Jesus Christ has instructions and we better understand them clearly. I have shown you the Word of God. You have yet to show me your version.

    Jeremy.

    Although it may not have been done in all, the KJB can be translated into any language. For a person to translate it into a difficult language such a Japanese, there would be an honest, reliable way to reference back. Most of the original Greek and Hebrew translations we have been discussing cannot be proven to be accurate for either side. Therefore, we now have a sea of new version bibles, all claiming to be the Word of God. Every scholar thinks they know more than the last. I have answered in a previous post as to why God gave His Word to English speaking people. That is where the Christians were and He knew His Word would be preserved.

    Reply
  52. avatar

    Jason Harris

    That is correct Mark. I’ve already explained to you why it’s the wrong question. Several times.

    I did not say a word about your intelligence. Very intelligent people can be ignorant, lack understanding, be sloppy with ideas, and careless with words. I’m not commenting on your intelligence because I don’t know you and that is not the issue here anyway. I am commenting on how you behave here and the lack of clarity, precision, coherence, and discipline in your thinking and speaking.

    Your method of interaction seems to be to take what I say, find something vaguely related, and respond to that. You can’t even think clearly enough to realise you’re not listening to a word I say. Which makes mature, effective discussion impossible.

    Reply
  53. avatar

    Mark

    I want to be crystal clear on your view of this particular issue. Please excuse any request of repetition. I am only trying to narrow down the facts into an easy to understand answer.

    When compared, the niv and KJB make Jesus = lucifer. I don’t think there is any denying this confusion exists. It’s clearly explained and defended on both sides in abundance. The only fact we need to accept is that Jesus = lucifer exists in this particular case.

    Both are the Word of God, but neither on their own are the complete Word of God. We have to accept all translations combined as the Word of God but not combined into one. We must disregard conflicts between the versions, not as error, not as better or worse, but only as differences of interpretation. They should not be excluded, just never used simultaneously.

    Reply
  54. avatar

    Mark

    After re-reading your post I would like some clarification on a few more topics, including your attack on my character. I have called your view wrong yet I have not insulted you. If I have, then I am sorry. I know you think my view is wrong and you have been attacking me in a round about way. If you are honest, you cannot deny that. It is clear that you think little of me.

    1) Can I point out how Ironic it is that you ‘comment’ on my clear rewording of Intelligence and understanding. You didn’t say that I wasn’t intelligent, you said my, “understanding”. Yet if you look up the definition of intelligence, understanding is included but not limited to. It is ok for you to interpret Gods words, but Heaven forbid I interpret one of yours. Can you honestly say this was not an attack on my intelligence?

    2) You have never once called me anything because you are careful with words. Am I ignorant, lack understanding, sloppy with ideas, and careless with words or am I not? Are you saying that I am not mature because you said I can’t think clearly enough? Would I be stupid if an argument I believe in is “stupid”? Just say what you mean and stop insinuating. Attack me if you will but be clear about it! I have been nothing but honest and well mannered. You are angry that you cannot faithfully answer the questions I ask and you are simply attacking me.

    3) Was this article intended to point fingers at lost souls using an “evil doctrine” as you put it? Is quoting “evil doctrine” creating a straw man? Should I say Ruckmanite? I don’t know how I can ask questions about your replies without you getting defensive. Were you just hoping for one sided comments by a group of friends at your church? Did you hope there would be no one to defend the true Word of God?

    4) As soon as I came along, the first Bible believing Christian, you said, “That’s it. This is a total waste of time.” The article clearly says, “Don’t pass it off as a “waste of time.”” Did you read it? I have been asking honest, genuine questions that you simply are not answering clearly. If you are, then clearly and honestly answer my post above this one. I will be holding you accountable to what you say and what you have said in previous posts.

    5) You said about translation, “it is absurd to speak of good translations and bad translations per se.” yet moments later you say, “Some are so loose/careless that I could hardly bring myself to call them a Bible.” You KNOW that there are errors and levels of good and bad translations, yet you refuse to answer which ones. You told me I can’t think clearly? PLEASE, start giving us a list of these careless translations.

    6) Ben says, “I also wonder about the value of arguing with those who will not listen” I have been honestly reading and listening to all of your comments! Not once did i skip some of it because I thought you cut and paste, nor did I call some of your replies mammoth. I would love nothing more than to honestly be on your side and believe it. I would instantly have a church to attend and hundreds of thousands of more people to fellowship with. Fellowship is not all that matters. Please, answer my post above and let us get a clear perspective on the Jesus = lucifer issue.

    I know people are reading this and questioning new versions because of me. Please, by all means, start answering me and making some choices. You clearly state there are levels and sliding scales, yet you won’t reveal them to us. Talk about vague! Perhaps the words bad/wrong have been interpreted incorrectly by you. Please, tell me which versions are loose/careless.

    Ask me where the Word of God is and I will show you without confusion.

    Reply
  55. avatar

    Jeremy

    Mark,

    You said ‘I have answered in a previous post as to why God gave His Word to English speaking people. That is where the Christians were and He knew His Word would be preserved.’

    But God’s Word existed before the English language evolved into existance. Christians existed before the KJV. Numerically, more Christians speak languages other than English. To say that ‘English’ is where the Christians are seems naive and a bit racist.

    God is big enough to be able to preserve His Word separate from any language or version – including the KJV.

    Reply
  56. avatar

    Jason Harris

    I’ve explained why I believe there is little benefit in continuing the discussion at this point. I’ve said what I meant and as far as I’m aware at this point, I meant precisely what I said. If you want answers to your questions, reread the thread. I have addressed each of them including the Lucifer/Jesus one.

    I am not afraid of argument. Truth can stand on its own in the marketplace. That’s why I’ve built this open forum for discussions such as this. Those who want to understand and are equipped to understand will have much to consider on reading this thread.

    Reply
  57. avatar

    Mark

    Jeremy.

    I fail to see how it is racist. Many races speak english. The KJB has been translated into many languages. It wasn’t changed, it was translated and with accurate ways to reference back. Saying that we believe in God and that He has chosen people may sound racist too. Gods Words also say that sodomy is wrong. That makes us all bigots now doesn’t it? (Unless your choice of translation is the 2011 niv where sodomy is ok now.) I can’t change the way people feel about God’s Word, but know what God’s Word is. I have faith He preserved His words.

    There IS a way to go back to Greek and Hebrew as well but all the new version scholars have confused modern scholars with their own choices of translation. Even Jason agrees there are many different method of translation. Going down this road of discussion is going to require faith from either point of view and there’s no need to go this way. Even all the current translators disagree on a continual, ongoing basis. Just look at the new latest and greatest 2011 niv. It should be the best, most accurate version yet many niv readers won’t even use it. Where is this going to lead in future generations? Just as Jason had said, it is an art and not science. I have a big problem with this as it eliminates God from the equation. Let us only discuss facts about what we have and can hold now.

    Please, answer my post above asking for clarity on the Jesus and lucifer issue. I can find hundreds if not thousands of other problems, but let us just focus on one at a time. Again I must state that I am not saying which one is right! Only trying to use them in unity as suggested by Jason. While you answer, keep in mind that all the new translations are (in Jason’s view at least), The Word of God. In God’s view, all words are pure.

    Proverbs 30:5-6
    5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
    6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.
    (If anyone reading this finds this to be a poor translation, please show me the best one.)

    When somebody answers in honesty and admits that at least in this particular case, these parts of these books cannot both be the word of God, we may get somewhere. I cannot help the way you feel because you do not like where my questions lead. Perhaps you should have a statement of faith, “We believe all bibles to be the word of God as far as they are translated correctly” I would like to know, who has final authority for you? Can you honestly not see a problem with allowing every man to choose his version of God’s Word?

    1 Corinthians 14:33
    For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
    (If anyone reading this finds this to be a poor translation, please show me the best one.)

    My answers to you are clear, you just choose not to believe them.

    Reply
  58. avatar

    Mark

    Dear Jason.

    Please answer my question. Is the statement below, accurate to what you believe on the niv and KJB case.

    Both are the Word of God, but neither on their own are the complete Word of God. We have to accept all translations combined as the Word of God but not combined into one. We must disregard conflicts between the versions, not as error, not as better or worse, but only as differences of interpretation. They should not be excluded, just never used simultaneously.

    Reply
  59. avatar

    Mark

    Choose your version…
    Revelation 22:18-19

    There is a difference of over 60,000 words between the niv and KJB. Nobody can deny the addition or removal of words in this comparison. If this is the case here, all english versions must be tried and tested.

    If these books are only the interpretation of the Word of God which used to exist, then we no longer have the Word of God. We have to rely on man to interpret with no way to confirm what God really said. God does not have a gray area.

    I believe you are sincere in your studies but if you are correct, we no longer have an accurate Word of God.

    Reply
  60. avatar

    Elizabeth

    I am secretly wondering how many KJVO advocates actually compare their KJV to their Greek and Hebrew originals.

    hehe.

    There seems to be a whole lot of people who have compared every single English version against the originals in order to state the all are error except for the KJV.

    Also wondering if many are aware of the translation errors in the KJV?

    “Office of a bishop” – *cough cough*

    Reply
  61. avatar

    Tracy

    I am not a KJV only person but I have looked into the argument about the types of documents certain Bibles are translated from.

    I understand from my research that the KJV is translated from the Majority Text (because it provided the Majority of the handed down scripts), also known as the Received Text because it was received and accepted by Christians. Now, I do understand there are some verses in the KJ translation in which exist slight problems, for example, whole sentences on things like “Bishop prick” and the one above Elizabeth mentioned. There is a touch of church hierarchy added in there. I do not believe the KJV is double inspired. Simpleton’s who have never studied their King James Bible believe this.

    From my own study using the KJV I can think of things in Revelations where the “pale” horse is really a “green” horse in the Greek (from the word Chlorophyll). So, I am not a Ruckmanite. Also, there are other translations like the KJ 2000 edition without the thee’s and thy’s which are handy but never touched by KJV only people which we don’t mind looking at. We use the JP Green interlinear a lot which has a direct translation of the Majority text and is very helpful.

    On the other hand though, there is a concern about the Greek manuscripts that the modern versions are translated from that I think everyone should consider. That is, that the Greek texts that are used for the modern translations were put together by two people who were into the occult, Westcott and Hort. They used, as a foundation for their text, the Greek manuscripts put together by people who didn’t believe in the deity of Christ the city of Alexandria. These texts were in turn used as the basis for the Catholic Latin Volgate, put together by Jerome. Of course, there is still volumes of truth in them. The modern versions are strongly influenced by this text.

    Another concern is about the types of changes in the modern versions of the Bible, which by the way are becoming more and more “politically correct”. Examples of this are in Scriptures which refer to acts as immoral which has a very vague meaning today. Immoral can simply mean cutting down a tree. Also, some versions are paving the way the anti-christ to be accepted by Christians by referring to him as “the One”. Some versions are even making God neither man nor woman to suit the new age agender. In fact, there are quite a few New Age terms in modern versions that you would miss if you hadn’t studied the new age movement closely.

    I found it quite difficult to believe that on one board of translators for the NIV was a woman who was a lesbian, considering what the Bible says about that. Things like this made me look further into various modern Bible versions.

    Bottom line. I think something needs to be said about King James Onlyism. On the other hand, the implications of the types of errors in the new versions need to addressed as they are not at all accidental as some may like to think.

    Reply
  62. avatar

    Crown

    This thread seems to be quite old – a year and a half, to be exact. Yet the subject in it is interesting, and I would very much like to discuss it a little with Jason.

    But before I get to writing much, I want to test to see whether or not this post will even get to a live website. So this message is a test. I hope that it does arrive, that Jason is still here, and that we can have a talk.

    Thanks.
    Call me “Crown”.

    Reply
    1. avatar

      Jason Harris

      Hey “Crown,” If you’re still around, feel free to drop me an email or comment here.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2005-2016 by InFocus. Powered by WordPress. Effective News theme by Themelions Team.