“[Y]e
have perverted the words of the living God.” Jeremiah 23:36.
We have the
faith that God has preserved His Word throughout the ages. The Bible was
originally written in Hebrew (most of the Old Testament), Greek (New Testament)
and Aramaic (Ezra, Daniel, Jeremiah), as this languages are unfamiliar to most
of us we need to dependent on a good translation.
There is
generally no question about the translations for the Old Testament. But the
only versions using the Received Text as the basis for the New Testament are
those of the King James tradition. Foremost in this tradition is the King James
Version (KJV) itself.
Both the
Old and New Testaments of the KJV, which has been used for over 300 years, are
based on text-types that have been providentially preserved.
As all
translations, the KJV is not a perfect translation. Its main weakness is its
readability. It is true that its English has not been updated since 1769, and
it contains archaic expressions. This difficulty has often been exaggerated by
detractors of the KJV and after reading it for a few weeks one can easily get
used to the language as God gives Him grace to understand it.
During the
early 1600’s, King James VI of Scotland wanted to settle disputes that had
arisen during that time due to the rise of Protestantism and the Catholic
Church’s reaction to it. For this reason, King James set guidelines to the
translation of the Bible so as to ensure that the text had been
"translated out of the original tongues, and with the former translations
diligently compared and revised (by His Majesty's special command.)
The KJV translators not only provided an accurate English translation of the
best manuscript tradition, but they masterfully rendered the English in a
literary style befitting the dignity of Sacred Writ.
Although
publishers have hoped to multiply their profits by producing a version which
would replace the KJV, it still remains the most trusted Bible for the majority
of English-speaking Christians.
As we stand in these last days of earth's history, our faith in the Word of God
must be strong. “[T]he scripture cannot be broken.”
John 10:35. We must confidently turn to the Scriptures for guidance and be able
to present its saving truths to others clearly.
While,
other versions of the Bible often make the most relevant truths ambiguous, the
King James Version resoundingly affirms them. No other version speaks so convincingly
of last day issues. Certainly there was a divine purpose at work in the
production and preservation of such an authoritative transcript of Holy Writ.
As we study the Holy Scriptures, may each of us individually be assured that “the word of our God shall stand for ever.” Isaiah
40:8. And may we accept its wondrous truths not only intellectually, but make
them a dynamic, meaningful part of our everyday lives.
“If
any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that
are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the
book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life,
and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.” Revelation 22:18-19.
For more information on why we believe that the KJV is the most
reliable version of the Bible read:
“New Age
Bible Versions:
An
Exhaustive Documentation Exposing The Message, Men and Manuscripts Moving
Mankind To The Antichrist’s One World Religion.”
By G.A.
Riplinger.
This book contains the latest research supporting the authorized King
James Version and is a new case against the NIV, NASB, NKJV, NRSV, NAB, REB,
RSV, CEV, TEV, GNB, LIVING, PHILLIPS, NEW JERUSALEM, & NEW CENTURY.
“New Age Bible Versions” is the result of an exhaustive six year
collation of new Bible versions, their underlying Greek manuscripts, editions
and editors. It objectively and methodically documents the hidden alliance
between new versions and New Age Movement’s One World Religion.
The following is an excerpt from “New Age Bible Versions”:
[T]his book objectively and
methodically documents the following discoveries, which stunned the author as
they will the reader.
1.
The New Age movement’s expressed goal of
infiltrating the evangelical church and gradually changing the Bible to conform
to it One World Religion is evident in the current new versions. Their words
and docotrines prepare the apostate church of these last days to accept the
Antichrist, his mark, image and religion – Lucifer worship.
2.
This has taken place because the editors of the new
versions as well as the authors of the Greek editions, manuscripts, lexicons
and dictionaries used in their compilations, hold beliefs which an orthodox
Christian would find shocking. Research opens the door exposing them in séance
parlors, mental institutions, prison cells and courtrooms for heresy trials. A
few examples include:
·
The Greek text used to translate the NIV, NASB, and
other was an edition drastically altered by a Spiritualist (one who seeks
contact with the dead through séances), who believe he was in the “new age.”
Two other ‘new’ version editors where also involved in spiritualism.
·
The NIV’s chief editor vaunts his version’s heresy
saying:
This [his NIV] shows the great
error that is so prevalent today in some orthodox Protestant circles, namely
the error that regernation depends upon faith . . . and that in order to be
born again man must first accept Jesus as Savior.
Few clear and decisive texts say
that Jesus is God.
·
The NASB’s progenitor, called “the mediator between
East and West” by his colleagues, was and instruemental member of he
‘gathering’ which East-West Journal calls the
kick off event for New Age movement and “East West Synthesis.” This new version
editor referred to his alerations of the articles of faith saying:
The changes thus far . . . are in
the right direction . . . and should contain the germs of a new theology.
·
A surprising number of new version editors have
permanently lost their ability to speak (five and still counting).
·
Insantiy marked another prominent new versions
editors whose commitments to mental institutions served as bookends to a life
fraught with derangement and hallucinosis.
·
Ther reference dictionary used by new version
editors to research Greek etymology was edited by Hitler’s propaganda ‘high
priest’, who later was tried and found gulty of war crimes as an accessory in
the death of millions.
3.
Contrary to adversiting claims, the new versions
are more difficult to read than the KJV, according to
research using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level Indicators.
4.
A ‘new’ Christianity is emerging from the new
versions which substitutes riches for righteousness, a crown for a cross, and
imitation for a new creation.
5.
The few Greek manuscripts underlying new versions
contains yet unreleased material which is an exact blueprint for the
antichrist’s One World Religion. A complete translation of these being called
for by new versions editors and New Agers alike. This ‘new’ version could be
the final “universal Bible” called for by the U.N. Assistant Secretary General
Robert Muller.
Subscribe to this comment's feed
|
Transalations Written by Gnanadhas Selvakumar, January 04, 2010
I wonder how many transalations are available in English for the Bible ?
|
|
h Written by 罗 君蓉, November 18, 2009     
|
|
which version continued Written by Genci Cesula, November 07, 2009
Also to me this does not add any value to the argument: During the early 1600’s, King James VI of Scotland wanted to settle disputes that had arisen during that time due to the rise of Protestantism and the Catholic Church’s reaction to it. For this reason, King James set guidelines to the translation of the Bible so as to ensure that the text had been "translated out of the original tongues, and with the former translations diligently compared and revised (by His Majesty's special command.)
Why another group of translator can't do the same? Also this statement:The KJV translators not only provided an accurate English translation of the best manuscript tradition, but they masterfully rendered the English in a literary style befitting the dignity of Sacred Writ. We can not say that KJV translators did a good job just because a king of England asked them to do so. I agree that KJV is good literal translation and it is kind of majestic and poetic language that kind of gives you a good feeling about God's word but that is true of all the other literature of that time. The English language of that time was at a good hight because it reflected the great times of England (Times of revival)but such is the language of Shakespeare. I believe that is why the KJV are so in love with it. I like too. I really do not want to comment on some of the arguments brought about New Age Bible versions because I am sure there are out there strange things people are doing with Bible translations. But I think this not a very good argument about KJV. Because there are people that produce bad versions does not prove any point. One more thing I want to say about the manuscripts that KJV uses. These are manuscripts that these translators used or Erasmus came up with for the New Testament. NASV and some other good translations used all of the manuscripts that were available. The issues is that we do not have the original copies. We have a great number of copies out of which through the good Text Criticism we can construct what the originals looked like. All of the manuscripts have problems and not a singe one has been preserved without coping errors, so no copies that exist have a corner over the other copies. The best is to look at them all. I think this debate of versions has created more problems then it has solved anything. The accusations that are raised a lot of times do not have a good ground or are subjective. It has allowed the enemy of our God and our faith to use this debate for his purposes, and for us to lose focus on advancing God's kingdom by proclaiming God's word faithfully. I am not saying at all that a healthy discussion can happen among Christians about it but not the way it is happing. I am not saying to ignore the problems and the issues but to a healthy discussion. I say all of this because this debate has come even in a country like Albania. I have seen Albanian believers who knew no English and they were discussing among each other which was the best version in English. An Albanian who did not a singe English word said that the best English version is KJV. I started laughing with it. All I am saying is that I see no reason for such a unhealthy discussion going on. I can see a discussion going on about the accuracy of translations and make sure that we are translating well and as best as we can God's word but not that a translation of over 300 years can be the only good translation no other one can be. We should be talking about the accuracy of God's word. We should be talking and examine all the manuscripts and do our job to reconstruct the original text. We should talk about makes sure that what we are translating it as best as we can the Bible, God's word. Genci
|
|
|
Which version? Written by Genci Cesula, November 07, 2009
Although I do agree that King James is a good translation but I do not think we need to go that far and say it is the best. At the end of the day is just a translation that has gone a number of revision. This King James it is not the same as the 1611. The 1611 had even Apocrypha books on it.
I agree with this statements: "We have the faith that God has preserved His Word throughout the ages. The Bible was originally written in Hebrew (most of the Old Testament), Greek (New Testament) and Aramaic (Ezra, Daniel, Jeremiah), as this languages are unfamiliar to most of us we need to dependent on a good translation" God has promised to preserve His word but he has not told how. And what does God preserve? The content of His word or certain types of texts? The general feel of the Bible is that he will preserve the content of His word. But I am not sure I agree with this: "Both the Old and New Testaments of the KJV, which has been used for over 300 years, are based on text-types that have been providentially preserved" How do we know that? Why can't we say that the other texts are not preserved by God providentially? I have seen the arguments that KJV people use and they are ambiguous and Bible texts out context. Frankly I find this comment "This difficulty has often been exaggerated by detractors of the KJV and after reading it for a few weeks one can easily get used to the language as God gives Him grace to understand it." very funny. God has given to people the ability to look at that translation and modernize it to the today's language. God gives grace for what we can not do. God had given to the 1611 translators ability for their time to do a good job. Can't He give today someone the ability to do another good translation from the same manuscripts?
|
|
... Written by Catherine CHAKOR, September 28, 2009
Yes, I like the KJV the most in English. Sometimes I think that there is not that much difference between the translations, if they have the same meaning although it is said with different words. However, where you see a huge difference is in the prophecies! It might be ok if one's uses the word "charity" in one Bible version or the word "love" in another, like in 1 Corinthien 13,but when it comes to prophecies, especially old testament, there is a tremendous difference, as in translating them, most of the translators slip in their own interpretation. So personnally, I'd rather use the KJV even if the language is a little more complicated, and get the more accurate translation! By the way, I'd like to say that the closest translation to the KJV in French is the Darby version. Just like the KJV, it is a little more complicated language for our current time, but it is the more accurate, and it is so close to the kjv that you could think it has be translated right out of it!
|
|
... Written by Evamae Reyes, September 02, 2009
hi gud evening brethren..
one of a member here in our church show us the video about the changes of the phrases in the bible.. there are some words in the verses were ommitted that changes its meaning.. pls.if you have defferent bible version at home..pls compare NIV,revised version from the KJV,then you can found out the words ommitted from the KJV. I proven that KJV is the best sword in christian living. God Speed!..
|
|
... Written by Matthias, May 19, 2009 Hi Abel Gonska, I am from Germany and just wanted to tell you about a few good German translations of the Bible: - Luther 1912 - Schlachter 2000 - Elberfelder I am sure in other languages you can also find good translations. As far as I know is the living bible not a translation but a paraphrase. I would recommend to anyone to get a translation of the Bible.
|
|
Bibles Written by Abel Gonska, February 11, 2009 i have many friends in other languages who can not understand kjv because it is like shakespear. i travel all over the world. the gospel will be taught. kjv or not. i like the living bible also because jesus is alive not dead on a cross. my girfriends' mom is from germany.. she don't speak english.
|
|
KJV Written by Joseph Breunig, January 15, 2009
I've always used and enjoyed the KJV over other translaions. It's always worked for me.
|
|
Response to Andri Sutrisna Written by galal Doss, December 30, 2008
Dear Andri
It is important to remember that there is no error free translation for the Bible. However, there are better translations than others. Nevertheless, at the end of the day, His truth can be taught and found even in the Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible. This is the power of His word, that even human intentional or non-intentional errors of translation are over ridden by the shear power of His word. So as you study His word, it may be helpful to have different translations handy to arrive as much as possible to the original meaning. To this end, the NKJV would be a fine Bible in such a collection of translations. In His love and service, WLC Team.
|
|
|
bible Written by andri sutrisna, December 30, 2008
how about the New King James Version bible ? thank you
|
|
|
... Written by andri sutrisna, December 30, 2008
how about New King James Version bible ? Its ok
|
|
|
Response to Naveen Joshy/KJV Written by galal Doss, November 28, 2008
I think it would be the 1611 version since it is the KJV.
In His love and service WLC Team.
|
|
whoops Written by Naveen Joshy, November 28, 2008
purchased
|
|
|
Which version Written by Naveen Joshy, November 28, 2008
I ourchased a KJV Bible, does anyone no which version it is ?
1611 version or the 18th century version ?
|
