Now let's deal with (1) Bibles, those based on manuscripts, not on somebody's idea of what the Bible means. BTW, the controversy about (1) Bible versions is really over New Testament versions. The OT is a settled issue. As you know, the original manuscripts of the Bible (called the "autographs") are presumed lost. What we have are copies, some very ancient. There are variations in the copies because of human error. Occasionally, as meticulous as they were (and they were!), a scribe, reading the handwriting of another scribe, thought a letter was another letter and other scribes may have repeated the error. Or a scribe may have been tired and made mistakes, and some of those mistakes were sometimes picked up by other scribes. So some of the manuscripts have slight variiations. Translators are thus faced with the problem of which manuscript(s) to use. When there are variants in manuscripts, how do you decide which is accurate? (BTW, no significant doctrines are in question due to variants -- most of the time it's a letter here, a word there.)
Translators basically answer that question in one of three ways. Some translators -- let's call them Camp A -- say that when faced with variants we should go with the most recent manuscripts, because scribes would have discovered and corrected the errors.
Camp B translators say that when faced with variants we should go with the most ancient manuscripts, because they are less likely to be copies of copies of copies and therefore less likely to continue copyists' errors.
Camp C translators say that when faced with variants we should go with what the majority of the manuscripts say, because if the variation was the result of a scribe's error, it will not be in most of the manuscripts.
There are a few other camps (based on dialects, or those manuscripts that show the most use, etc.), but those are the main ones.
All of these translators' approaches seem to make sense. How do you decide which is right? Let's try to slowly go through the pros and cons of each.
Camp A is no longer held by most Bible translators, because they have discovered that scribes often assumed those who came before them were correct and thus continued the errors instead of correcting them.
Modern Bible versions are almost all Camp B productions, using some early Greek manuscripts that were discovered about 100 years ago. The most popular Greek NT for modern Bibles is the Westcott & Hort/Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, which was first published in the 19th Century and has gone through many revisions since.
I hesitate to say that the Textus Receptus (TR) or Received Text is a Camp C product because of its ancient history (I'm referring to the fact that it is largely the Byzantine text), but it is sometimes (not quite accurately) called the Majority Text. The TR is the first published Greek New Testament text. It is the text used for the Luther Bible, Tyndale's Bible, the original 1599 Geneva Bible, the King James and, to a degree, the New King James.
The obvious question is, which camp produces the most accurate version of the Bible? To answer that, one has to consider this: Do we really believe the Lord left His people without an accurate, dependable Bible until the late 1800s when Westcott & Hort came along?
Now, someone could say, "what about before the Received Text? Did He leave His people without an accurate Bible before then?" The answer is that the Received Text was not a brand-new text; as I indicated, it is essentially the Byzantine Text, in use for over 1,000 years before the Reformation by the Eastern Orthodox church. One scholar wrote, “this text [Received Text] was in continuous use in the Greek church from at least the 4th century until the time of the Reformation when Erasmus made this text the basis for the first printed edition of the Greek NT.” (William O. Einwechter, English Bible Translations: By What Standard?) The fact that we know the Byzantine Text was accepted as Scripture by the church in the A.D. 300's makes it virtually certain that it is a true copy of the original autograph. Not likely a 100% perfect copy of the original, since copyists are men and mistakes can be made. But it is confirmed by the vast majority of extant Greek manuscripts.
I favor the Byzantine/Received Text because I believe the Lord preserves His Word through history, and I believe it is the vehicle the Lord has used for that end. History testifies to this. It is the text that He used to bring about the Reformation. It is the text that is the foundation of Protestantism. It is the text that exposed Romanism and shook it it its foundations. It is the text that the founders of our country brought to America and built our nation upon; the War For Independence was called in England "The Presbyterian Rebellion" because it was lead by Calvinists whose inspiration was the Received Text (all but one of the American officers at Yorktown were Presbyterian elders!).
And I believe that the proliferation of Bible translations, whether manuscript-based or paraphrases, has caused great harm to the church by confusing people as to which one is dependable. Remember, this was not an issue for centuries. God's people had their Received Text Bibles for centuries. Then starting in 1901 with the publication of the American Standard Bible we have been inundated with new "Bibles."
"The translators of the original King James Bible had a distinct advantage. They were able to use their vast knowledge of ancient languages and translation abilities prior to the time when the deadly virus of so-called "Higher Criticism" infected the whole field of scholarship. False teachers boldly dissected God's Word with the "tools of scholarship" in order to reconstruct it according to their own speculations and presumptions. The result is a pseudo-intellectual aura in which no one can be sure of anything." -- M. H. Reynolds, Editor, Foundation Magazine.
Half of all customers who walk into a store intending to buy a Bible leave empty-handed, according to Brenda Lugannani, a vice president of Family Christian Stores, the nation's largest Christian chain.
"When they look at what's available," she says, "it begins to confuse them."
'There is an even more serious issue, which is that the multiplicity of versions as well as editions are seriously undermining the authority of what is the Word of God. Which one is the right one? Which one contains all of the original?' MAV
Trinitarian Bible Society: "The NIV contains enough truth to be used of the Holy Spirit to draw a man to the Saviour. But although it contains truth, is it the very Word of God? If not, Christians must be urged to return to the truth."
There is no denial that sinners may be saved through the modern versions..versions contain enough of the gospel (1 Cor 15:1-4) just like a person may be saved by hearing a sermon or reading a tract. This however does not mean that God sanctions such versions or that the Church should continue using them..God still holds His people responsible to use the most faithful translation, based on THE PUREST TEXT' jk
The love of money is surely a root of evil, Wayne. Just not all evil.
"The Love of Money? The root to the bad fruit? Obviously money gives the first opportunity to buy a prostitute (maybe not an evil thought until money was readily available in a big fat wallet), the lust follows as does the adultery."
If this were true, poor folk would never do evil. Evil begins in the heart, not in the wallet. One does not need a fat wallet to look upon a woman with lust, which Jesus called adultery.
To name a few- adultery/lust, taking the name of God in vain, making/worshipping false gods, bearing false witness for starters. None of these evils have as motivation love of money, thus love of money is not the root of these evils.#####
Hi Mike
Like the scripture 'Out of the heart proceeds evil thoughts, murders adulteries etc
Can there be 'murder' without the evil thought first? Interesting the Lord Jesus begins with 'evil thoughts' and obviously the heart is where evil begins and the thoughts lead to even greater evil fruit.
The Love of Money? The root to the bad fruit? Obviously money gives the first opportunity to buy a prostitute (maybe not an evil thought until money was readily available in a big fat wallet), the lust follows as does the adultery. Money buys it all- gives the opportunity. How many Hollywood actors would sell their soul for money? All manner of blasphemy and taking the Lord's name in vain to follow in their films? Isn't money (Gold) a false god and worshipped and then the ruin of nations?
Just plucked one sinners ode to 'the love of money' out of many with that song title-sadly interesting
"Q: In context...What evil or sins will not men be drawn to by the love of money?"
To name a few- adultery/lust, taking the name of God in vain, making/worshipping false gods, bearing false witness for starters. None of these evils have as motivation love of money, thus love of money is not the root of these evils.
John, I do appreciate you for your concern. Yet I must say where I place my faith is in the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Spirit's revealing of the meaning of the word of God. I will continue to avoid making of a version of the Bible into an idol, but will continue to use the AV in the discussions so as to not offend others.
1 Tim 6:10 "money" from Strongs: 5365.philaguria, from 5366; avarice-love of money 5366.philarguros, from 5384 and 696; fond of silver(money)
avarice(the Free Dictionary): extreme greed for wealth.
For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows. 1 Timothy 6:10 KJV
This is a correct translation.
Mike, here is something I would recommend you try, if you would increase your faith in the Bible, as you obviously have difficulty with that. I say this as a friend, eh?
Ask the Lord to reveal to you the meaning of the word 'money' in the text. If he shows you what he showed me, you'll have perfect peace about it, and come over to the KJV with ne'er a word more needing to be said.
After all, you ask the Lord for help as you read the Bible, don't you? Just be more specific about this one word.
"You don't force scripture to your doctrine, you forge your doctrine from scripture."
"For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows." 1 Timothy 6:10 KJV
This is a correct translation."
Now bro, if this is a correct translation, and you believe what it says to be true, you have to believe what is false is somehow true, for the love of money is not the root of all evil. What should we say then? Since we agree that we cannot force Scripture to say what it does not say, is it a correct translation of a text error, or is it an incorrect tranlation of a correct text?
For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows. 1 Timothy 6:10 KJV
Mike
Q: In context...What evil or sins will not men be drawn to by the love of money?
It was the sin of Judas, and the root of all his iniquity
But John, my response was to the issue of whether the deity of Christ was denied in the NIV. But if the text issue is more important than the deity issue, the text that leaves out God in Rev 1:8 obviously shows deity less clearly than the one that includes it. And deity was the subject brought up.
Okay Mike, well you said that the KJV left out the word 'God' in Rev 1:8, and I said that the word 'God' is not in the original greek text. You don't force scripture to your doctrine, you forge your doctrine from scripture.
For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows. 1 Timothy 6:10 KJV
"It is not the KJV that is the issue, but the TEXTS that Bibles are translated from.
For eg the Rev 1:8 you quoted, the text does not have God in it."
But John, my response was to the issue of whether the deity of Christ was denied in the NIV. But if the text issue is more important than the deity issue, the text that leaves out God in Rev 1:8 obviously shows deity less clearly than the one that includes it. And deity was the subject brought up.
In any case, it isn't an issue for me. That's why I use the KJV in discussions on SA. It keeps from getting sidetracked into pointless version stuff.
But just for fun,
1 Timothy 6:10 KJV "For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows."
Since the love of money is not the root of ALL evil, what might we conclude?
"p.s. The JW's just love the NIV, because it denies the deity of Christ."
Actually, the NIV doesn't deny the deity of Christ, and sometimes emphasizes it better:
Actually Mike, the NIV does deny the deity of Christ. Think about it, bro. If you wanted to create a Bible which subtly creeps in unawares, and fools the Christian into believing it, even though it denies the deity of Christ, how would you do it? You start changing one or two verses only. The NWT is denied by the whole of evangelical Christendom because it was too obvious. But I assure you that the NIV will be shown in the history of the world to be one more stepping stone for Satan to infiltrate the churches, and desensitise them to what is coming next. Remember that the NIV has gone through several phases already, and in a few years time, you will see Bibles which are more blatantly heretical. Trouble is, who will notice it? Many folks are on the slippery slope already, and those who say we can have God's Word in our hand are continually being poo-poo'd by the devil's advocates, including me at one time. Thankfully I woke up and realised what was happening.
It is not the KJV that is the issue, but the TEXTS that Bibles are translated from.
For eg the Rev 1:8 you quoted, the text does not have God in it.
"p.s. The JW's just love the NIV, because it denies the deity of Christ."
Actually, the NIV doesn't deny the deity of Christ, and sometimes emphasizes it better:
John 20:28- "Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"
John 8:58- "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"
Rev. 1:8- "I am the Alpha and the Omega" says the Lord God, "who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty." (Note-AV omits "God")
Titus 2:13- "while we wait for the blessed hope-the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ," (Note how this makes unmistakeably clear the deity of Christ, compared to AV which says "the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ")
2 Peter 1:1- "Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who throught the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours." (note the better clarity of the deity of Christ here also, compared to AV which says "..the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:"
Question- Is the power of the Holy Spirit limited to a version in order that God's meaning might be understood?
You used to be happy with the King James until you read this James White article, and now you have far less faith in God's word than you had previously. Man, that's progress! In the wrong direction!
Or has this Mr White recommended a Bible which is accurate through and through? Or, reading between the lines of your post, you now need half a dozen Bibles to study, and hopefully, you might just find God's word in one of them, which you can trust.
Mr White and myself are just fallible men, so if you are willing to listen to one, listen to another.
The King James Bible, known here as the Authorized Version, is the most accurate version of the scriptures in English, and if you follow it you will never end up with false doctrine, because the text it is translated from is the Received Text, which means it is the text received by the church in all ages. All other Bibles use other texts such as Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, and are easily proved to be spurious because of the false doctrines they promote.
p.s. The JW's just love the NIV, because it denies the deity of Christ.
Doesn't James White believe I Timothy 3: 16 should contain the word 'God'? You will find he does indeed.
Now please can you explain why most new versions omitt 'God' in that verse?
I studied with the Watchtower Society and know they abandoned the KJV as it certainly does bring out the deity of Christ like no other bible...consider why they abandoned it for their NWT!
BTW i was offered a NWT in my indoctrinisation studies with the Watchtower but God put it into my heart to decline. I went home and my wife greeted me with these words: I have just been spring cleaning and found my unopened 'christening' bible all dusty (KJV)!
In God's provision I was brought under conviction by that one scripture I Timothy 3: 16 on the deity of Christ having been indoctrinated that Christ was the archangel Michael. Now can you understand why I won't use any version that omitts 'God' in that scripture?
Abandon the kjv if you so wish but you'll find it is proved as a Holy Spirit blessed accurate English translation and the word of God used in all the major revivals. Not bad for such a woeful translation
Can you say the same of the NIV as one example-now the bible of ecumenism but once championed by evangelical scholars as the new best thing?
The verse I was referring to in the previous post concerning Erasmus' challenge is 1st John 5:7. By the way, I used to be KJV-Only so I understand the mindset that relies on needing to believe God's preservation method is via a translation. James White's book, however, gives another view of preservation which for me is a much better foundation than the "through a translation" method.
I just read "The King James Only Controversy" 2nd Printing - 2009 by James White. No other book has ever excited me so much in describing how God has preserved his Word. Every church member should be given the book and even if you are in the KJV-Only camp you should be secure enough to handle the challenges the book presents. The book gave me concern as to how the KJV does not bring out Christ's deity as clear compared to other versions which is why you often need to use a different version when witnessing to Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses. It was interesting to read about Erasmus' challenge for anyone to verify it was a legitimate verse but ended up putting it in his 3rd edition once someone presented a manuscript with it in the margin pointing to where the "verse" should go. I also had no idea the book of Revelation had so many errors in the KJV. I didn't know that Revelation 16:5 had a phrase in the KJV only to be found in the mind of a 16th century man, Beza, and no where else in history. It also briefly touches on why the KJV may be softer on homosexuality than other versions. The book presents the method God actually used to preserve his word rather than the "trust us, the KJV is the standard and we just know it is THE translation" method.
the King James Bible is the best Bible one can read(try finding one with all black print, being as Jesus Christ is ALMIGHTY GOD and is the Author of the whole Bible)the niv bible and a lot of these newer bibles are so watered down, they will give one a false pretense that everything is ok in the world. The Old Testament is just as important as the New Testament-the whole Bible is GODS Law Book for every human that will come into existance, the Bible is the only way GOD saves anyone (Romans 10:17)
Can I add one simple thought? Read what the Holy Ghost uses to inspire. I have read many versions, but only one has the Holy Spirit used to speak to me.... The King James Bible.
Older
Top
USER COMMENTS | 
10/25/09 9:36 AM
It was the sin of Judas, and the root of all his iniquity
