My answer to a question about why some Christians say the KJV is the best.

[arcticmonster2003]

There is no short answer, but there is most certainly a good answer if you are willing to put even an hour or two checking out my references. The KJV is really the Word of God in the english language. I didn't realize the extent of this reality until I really researched into it, and what I found was shocking.

I would encourage you to read this first:
http://www.forgenerations.net/truthseries/pdf/modbibleversions.pdf

I would also encourage you to read this:

NASV Committee Member Admits...

"I'm afraid I'm in trouble with the Lord"

"I must under God denounce every attachment to the New American Standard Version.
I'm afraid I'm in trouble with the Lord...We laid the groundwork; I wrote the format; I helped interview some of the translators; I sat with the translator; I wrote the preface. When you see the preface to the New American Standard, those are my words...it's wrong, it's terribly wrong; it's frightfully wrong...I'm in trouble;...I can no longer ignore
these criticisms I am hearing and I can't refute them. The deletions are absolutely frightening...there are so many. The finest leaders that we have today haven't gone into it new versions of Hort and Westcott's corrupted Greek text just as I hadn't gone into it...that's how easily one can be deceived...Are we so naive that we do not suspect
Satanic deception in all of this?"
-Dr. Frank Logsdon, Committee Member for the New American Standard Version
http://wayoflife.org/~dcloud/articles/logsdon.htm


And another good one:
Forever Settled
http://www.buzzardhut.net/index/htm/Forever.Settled.pdf

Hope those references help.

[firstborn888]

 :sigh:

[Paul Hazelwood]

The KJV is really the Word of God in the english language.

You use the 1611 King James version then, correct?

[chuckt]

The KJV is really the Word of God in the english language

It is little known, yet it is an incontrovertible fact, that the Authorized Version of King James was not a translation, but simply a revision of the "Bishop's Bible." The translators say in their preface, "Truly, good Christian Reader, we never thought from the beginning that we should need to make a new translation, nor yet, to make of a bad one a good one,...but to make a good one better."


http://www.gtft.org/Library/loudy/GodsEonianPurpose/GodsEonianPurpose02.htm

[arcticmonster2003]

The KJV is really the Word of God in the english language.

You use the 1611 King James version then, correct?

Yes,  though it it is a later edition. I do own a copy of the first edition however. There is only one King James Version, that translation that was put out in 1611, there are several editions that version that corrected or updated spellings on words, as in 1611 there was no standardized spellings for the english language as there are today.

[WhiteWings]

AM,

"You shall commit adultary"
"The wicked shall inherit the kingdom"
Is the ommision of "not" a typo?
There are several prints of the 1611 version.

[Paul Hazelwood]

Well, there are KJV people who practically think you'll go to hell if you read any other translation.  When it comes down to it, if there was such a greatness about it, it would have been fine from it's first printing.

The KJV 1611 version has books that are not in later versions and I understand spelling or punctuation errors that have been corrected don't mean a whole lot now if your first introduction was with a corrected version.  But I wonder how much error was introduced into religion before that?

What I am getting at is that as a part of a persons collection of bibles and study materials there is nothing wrong with the KJV at all and I like reading the original 1611 version and it's included extra books.

It doesn't mean I know more, but it certainly is interesting.   I think the error is when anyone thinks one translation is it and anything else means that there is error paramount to reaping Gods vengeance for entertaining such. 

[WhiteWings]

I was reading the introduction of my "Christian Bible" and found something that fits in this thread.
I just scanned it. And then OCRed it.
The blue and especially the bold part is a (strong) indication the KJV translators may not have been inspired at all.
The HS surely knows about the differences in Greek.
Perhaps the incorrect translations in the KJV are due to doctrine or due to the fact that they didn't have the advantage of reference material like more recent translators.
So they did a fine job with the few references they had. Fine job might be good by human standards but is it for inspired standards?
:2c:


Introduction
This Bible is the most accurate and literal translation of the
"New Testament" into plain English in over 450 years. Its does NOT
contain any of the following words: Jesus, Christ, lord, church,
bishop, archbishop, cardinal, deacon, elder, overseer,
pastor, preacher, minister, evangelist, presbyter, apostle,
brethren, priesthood, disciple, saint, sinner, clergy,
layman, baptize, christen, tithe, sacrament, absolution,
penance, atonement, confession, communion, tabernacle,
rapture, dispensation, administration, Scripture, Lent,
Easter, Christmas, Hell, Hades, Devil, sin, evil, holy, soul,
angel, archangel, forever, eternal, advent, crucify, cross,
gospel, evangel, epistle, righteous, grace, ye, thee, thou,
thine, bide, bestow, repent, exult, abhor, blaspheme, yea,
covet, abide, lust, beget, yearn, avow, travail, verily,
thence, sovereign, wanton, wretched, devout, oracle,
herald, precept, psalm, manifest, statute, sepulcher,
vesture, wreath, Gentile, patriarch, prostitute, proselyte,
scribe, sojourner, trangressor, Sanhedrin, synagogue,
vengeance, adultery, vexation, abomination, or vilification.
The New Contract Writings ("New Testament") were written in the
Greek language. However it wasn't the Classical Greek of Aristotle;
rather, they were written in Koine ("Coin-A" or everyday) Greek, which
was the everyday language used by almost everyone during the First
Century A.D. in conversation and commerce throughout the Roman
Empire. Our Savior talked plainly to people, the way we would talk to
one another. Therefore, plain everyday English has been used in this
Bible to properly translate the everyday Greek that the writers used,
instead of using the religious and theological terms found in the other
Bible translations, which distort the original meaning.
The translators of the King James Version (KJV) were unaware of
the differences between Koine Greek and Classical Greek. The relevant
manuscripts had not yet been discovered. As late as 1886 Joseph Henry
Thayer could still list 767 distinctively "New Testament" words with no
known parallels in any known Greek literature. But now, because of
recent discoveries and research over the past 100 years, well over 99%
of the words of the New Contract Writings have been found in other
Greek literature. Moreover, in 1611 the KJV translators followed the
syntax of Classical Greek; but we now know that the Greek of the New
Contract Writings corresponds syntactically to Koine Greek. This makes
a tremendous difference in how many words and phrases are translated.
Until 1895 the language of the New Contract Writings was known
as "Tired Greek," "Bad Greek," "Jewish Greek," "Biblical Greek," "New
Testament Greek," or "Holy Ghost language," because it was different
from Classical Greek. But in 1895 (284 years after the KJV was first
published) the Greek and Bible Scholar Adolf Deissmann discovered
that the New Contract Writings were written in Koine (everyday) Greek.While studying some recently discovered collections of nonliterary
documents, he suddenly recognized a great similarity between what he
was reading there and what he was accustomed to reading in the
Greek New Contract Writings. These nonliterary documents that he was
studying were many different types of legal documents, business letters,
personal letters, love letters, diaries, horoscopes, magic formulas, etc.
However, even though almost a century has passed since this universally
accepted great discovery, not until now has a translation into true
everyday English been accomplished.
In translating the original words of God's Pure Spirit, we have taken
great care to find those exact English words that tell God's Message both
simply and precisely. Also, because some traditional "religious" words
do not teach the root meanings of the original Greek text, a special effort
was made to translate these terms into exact expressions which can be
understood by everyone, especially by those who have never read the
Bible.
This Bible may seem quite revolutionary and radical because of its
many improvements over the KJV and the other Bible translations; and
yet, when these numerous improvements are taken individually, they
each have substantial acceptance among reliable Greek Scholars who
have thoroughly researched these individual items. While there are
"experts" who will hold to their traditions from the "Dark Ages," and
who would disagree with some of these improvements, none of these
improvements are far-out ideas that have been dreamed up by a group
of misguided scatterbrains.
While translating from one language to another is not a pure science
but is also-;n art, that doesn't mean that one shouldn't try to do it as
scientifically or analytically as possible! A purely artistic translator is
most concerned with what is"beautiful and tasteful to him as he produces
what he has preconceived in his mind. As he merrily translates along, he
will paraphrase or interpret the original to meet his preconceived notions.
If while translating he comes across the exact same sentence separated
by several pages, he will likely translate the two slightly different. The

[thinktank]

I was reading the introduction of my "Christian Bible" and found something that fits in this thread.
I just scanned it. And then OCRed it.
The blue and especially the bold part is a (strong) indication the KJV translators may not have been inspired at all.
The HS surely knows about the differences in Greek.
Perhaps the incorrect translations in the KJV are due to doctrine or due to the fact that they didn't have the advantage of reference material like more recent translators.
So they did a fine job with the few references they had. Fine job might be good by human standards but is it for inspired standards?
:2c:


Introduction
This Bible is the most accurate and literal translation of the
"New Testament" into plain English in over 450 years. Its does NOT
contain any of the following words: Jesus, Christ, lord, church,
bishop, archbishop, cardinal, deacon, elder, overseer,
pastor, preacher, minister, evangelist, presbyter, apostle,
brethren, priesthood, disciple, saint, sinner, clergy,
layman, baptize, christen, tithe, sacrament, absolution,
penance, atonement, confession, communion, tabernacle,
rapture, dispensation, administration, Scripture, Lent,
Easter, Christmas, Hell, Hades, Devil, sin, evil, holy, soul,
angel, archangel, forever, eternal, advent, crucify, cross,
gospel, evangel, epistle, righteous, grace, ye, thee, thou,
thine, bide, bestow, repent, exult, abhor, blaspheme, yea,
covet, abide, lust, beget, yearn, avow, travail, verily,
thence, sovereign, wanton, wretched, devout, oracle,
herald, precept, psalm, manifest, statute, sepulcher,
vesture, wreath, Gentile, patriarch, prostitute, proselyte,
scribe, sojourner, trangressor, Sanhedrin, synagogue,
vengeance, adultery, vexation, abomination, or vilification.

I'm not sure how this bible version would work without these words. What word does it use for Jesus Christ?

How does it describe lust for example? or adultery?

[Cardinal]

 :cloud9: Beats me, since it was in Greek. Yahshua HaMaschiah? Blessings...

[WhiteWings]

I'm not sure how this bible version would work without these words. What word does it use for Jesus Christ?

How does it describe lust for example? or adultery?

Jesus = Yesu (the annioted One)
Lust = desire
adultary = extramarital sexual intercourse
Son of man = Son of Humanity

[thinktank]

:cloud9: Beats me, since it was in Greek. Yahshua HaMaschiah? Blessings...

I've heard of Yashua but that last word does sound a bit like themessiah :Chinscratch:

[WhiteWings]

TT,
Jews are funny people. They don't use regular English names  :winkgrin:

http://www.tentmaker.org/forum/index.php?topic=6282.msg66174#msg66174

[thinktank]

I'm not sure how this bible version would work without these words. What word does it use for Jesus Christ?

How does it describe lust for example? or adultery?

Jesus = Yesu (the annioted One)
Lust = desire
adultary = extramarital sexual intercourse
Son of man = Son of Humanity

I'm not sure if I like these translations, I do in some ways, but here's why Im skeptical

Yesu the annioted one, I don't see the problem with the word Jesus the annointed one and it sound better in English, but I think any additional words we can use to describe Jesus is a good thing for all languages have something to offer, it's nice to be able to speak more than one language.

lust = desire , I like it , but could be misleading, for one can use the term desire for other things, such as I desire to see chalice cup, doesn't mean I lust after a cup.

Adultery - extra martial intercourse, seems to explain it better for those who don't know what adultery is, but is also an interpretation of what the author thinks adultery is, so from their point a married man can go french kiss another woman, for it does not address this.

son of man = son of humanity, This could be misleading for it implies that Jesus is our son and elevates mankind, maybe encourages pride  :dontknow:. But I think the original is that Jesus is a son of a woman, God came in the flesh through the wo-man Mary, who is of Abrahams seed, so the son of man is a true title, for woman and men are called mankind.

[WhiteWings]

I'm not sure if I like these translations, I do in some ways,

It's not about what you like. It's what the HS said.
I think it's a good translation.
If you like I can scan and post a NT chapter of your choice.

but here's why Im skeptical

That's good.

[WhiteWings]

son of man = son of humanity, This could be misleading for it implies that Jesus is our son and elevates mankind, maybe encourages pride  :dontknow:. But I think the original is that Jesus is a son of a woman, God came in the flesh through the wo-man Mary, who is of Abrahams seed, so the son of man is a true title, for woman and men are called mankind.

I think part of the problem is the translation of Genesis. First Adam and Second Adam. Half of the time we read Adam it should have be translated as Mankind according to some. Adam and Mankind are very similar in Hebrew. Of course we are speaking about Greek now. But still it may be part of the explanation.
Read verse 14 of the most literal translation I know. http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/mar14.pdf
(also a downloadble program that links to CLV commentary)

[jabcat]

Altough I personally don't believe it's a perfect translation, still, The Christian Bible (1991) is reportedly the most literal translation available to date.  It's been verified through a published Greek-English literalness test.

The words used are in line with the actual Koine Greek words used in the oldest manuscripts available.  Just because they sound "different" to what we're used to, doesn't mean they're not accurate.  It can be our own biases showing through.

For instance, Yesu was the name put on the cross in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin. The definition of Yesu in Hebrew is Yahweh the Saviour, or Yahweh salvation.  Now, do I still use the word Jesus?  Absolutely, it's what fits our language - and God gave us languages at Babel.  The power of the name is not in its pronunciation but in the person to whom it refers, our Lord and Redeemer and King.

[shawn]

Does the Christian Bible go by another name? 

Altough I personally don't believe it's a perfect translation, still, The Christian Bible (1991) is reportedly the most literal translation available to date.  It's been verified through a published Greek-English literalness test.

The words used are in line with the actual Koine Greek words used in the oldest manuscripts available.  Just because they sound "different" to what we're used to, doesn't mean they're not accurate.  It can be our own biases showing through.

For instance, Yesu was the name put on the cross in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin. The definition of Yesu in Hebrew is Yahweh the Saviour, or Yahweh salvation.  Now, do I still use the word Jesus?  Absolutely, it's what fits our language - and God gave us languages at Babel.  The power of the name is not in its pronunciation but in the person to whom it refers, our Lord and Redeemer and King.

[WhiteWings]

Does the Christian Bible go by another name?

No
ISBN 0-9645829-0-2
http://www.amazon.com/Christian-Bible/dp/0964582902/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1278965601&sr=1-1
Vastly overpriced. I payed $35

[jabcat]

Snail mail; (self-described "simple" people, simpe organization)

Christian Bible Society
P.O. Box 530
Mammoth Spring, AR 72554

Isn't it $20 for the Bible, $35-40 for both the Bible and Concordance, WW?

[WhiteWings]

$35 Bible
$25 Concordance
Both free shipping in the US.
Discount if you order both.

Could be wrong. Just typing it from memory...

[jabcat]

I'm not sure how this bible version would work without these words. What word does it use for Jesus Christ?

How does it describe lust for example? or adultery?

Jesus = Yesu (the annioted One)
Lust = desire
adultary = extramarital sexual intercourse
Son of man = Son of Humanity

lust = desire , I like it , but could be misleading, for one can use the term desire for other things, such as I desire to see chalice cup, doesn't mean I lust after a cup.

Adultery - extra martial intercourse, seems to explain it better for those who don't know what adultery is, but is also an interpretation of what the author thinks adultery is, so from their point a married man can go french kiss another woman, for it does not address this.

A few thoughts while I was mowing my lawn  :bigGrin:

Sometimes we may say something like "lust for life", and I don't believe that's generally considered bad.  As far as "french-kissing another woman", although surely not desirable for a married man, IMO, still doesn't technically fit the description of adultery.  However, Jesus put a bit of a different twist on it didn't He, as the following indicates.  The following also indicates the differences in useages/translations.  I personally think, at least in many instances, the Christian Bible is actually clearer, in that it a) specifies exactly what it's talking about, rather than using a word that leaves it open to individual interpretations, assumptions, or current jargon, and b) again, is supposedly most literal to the Koine greek words - yet still, extremely readable.  WW, being from the Netherlands and English not being his primary language, has found it very clear and understandable, I do believe.

Matthew 5:27,28 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.  KJV

"You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.'28But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.  NIV

You have heard it was declared, 'You must not have extramarital sexual intercourse.  28.  Yet I say to you, whoever looks at a woman to desire her, has already had extramarital sexual intercourse with her in his heart. The Christian Bible

[WhiteWings]

http://www.aboutus.org/ChristianBibleSociety.org  -> includes e-mail and phone
http://www.theexaminer.org/volume7/number6/best.htm

[jabcat]

In venturing into this next post, I'll suggest aloud, that at some point maybe we can get too picky?????  :sigh:  Hard to know when that is though, because obviously translational issues can be so important.  The word "Hell" is obviously a glaring example of that.  I'm one that does like to pay attention to words and their accuracy, but at some point I don't think that should become THE major focus or a continual bone of contention.  However, sometimes, some words and their useage are probably crucial.  As with everything else, we need to be led by the Spirit.

Soooooo,  Tony, tied into the list of words not used, does TCB (and/or other sources) state that a lot of the terms used in the KJV and many other subsequent English versions are terms from pagan origins, and/or words with bias from the translators of the time, not specific to the oldest manuscripts?

In the Foreward of the Christian Bible it states "In translating the original words of God's Pure Spirit, we have taken great care to find those exact English words that tell God's Message both simply and precisely.  Also, because some traditional "religious" words do not teach the root meaning of the original Greek text, a special effort was made to translate these terms into exact expressions which can be understood by everyone, especially by those who have never read the Bible."  Which means in part, that they used the Concordant method, rather than picking and choosing at random/as they saw fit.

Again, IMO, we probably don't have a perfect translation yet.  Though no matter what, God has preserved His Word, I believe some of the translations are getting better as we go.  I read TCB, Young's, the CLV, and online sometimes the New American Standard.  I do think the KJV is "pretty" and majestic, but it's not one of the first ones to which I turn.  I do know though, some on here almost exclusively read it, and despite its thees, thous, hells, and forevers, God still showed them UR and many other truths by His Spirit while using those very words.  Goes to remind us Who's in control  :bigGrin:.

[WhiteWings]

Matthew 5:27,28 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.  KJV

"You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.'28But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.  NIV

CB translates it as you+. The plus means plural. That info is lost in many translations. KJV is not one of them...

Believe it or not, some of the features most criticized in the King James Bible are among the best reasons to keep it! For example, consider the "thee's" and "thou's." The King James Version was not written in the everyday language of people on the street in 1611. It was written in high English, a very precise form of our language. In modern English, the second person pronoun is expressed with one word, whether in the singular or the plural. That word is "you." Most other European languages have both a singular and a plural pronoun in the second person, as well as in the first and third persons. The first person singular pronoun in the nominative case, for example, is "I," while the plural is "we." The third person singular pronoun (also in the nominative case) is "he," while the plural is "they." Modern English, however, has only "you" for all its second person pronoun uses. High English uses "thou" for the second person singular, and "you" for the plural! In this way, the King James Version lets us know whether the Scripture means a singular "you" or a plural "you." "Thou" or "thee" mean one person's being addressed, and "ye" or "you" mean several. This feature often helps us interpret a passage.