HOME
FORUM
Account
Untitled Document
Admin
 

This area for Admins only!

Admin Login


Admin ID:
Password:


 ©

Untitled Document
Incredible Eats!
 
There is a problem right now with this block.
Untitled Document
Main Menu
Untitled Document
Who is where
 
Who is Where?
 Members:
01:  -> Content

Untitled Document
Security by Sentinel
 
You have been warned!
We have caught 191 shameful hackers.

NukeSentinel(tm)
The KJV only debate by SHALOM





So here we are with the age old debate about the King James Version of the Bible. Some of those in the KJV only camp will tell you that the new modern translations and versions are corrupt, of the devil, perversions and they say “they left out some of the verses of the Bible”. What really are they talking about? We are going to look at these complaints of the KJV only people and see really what is the truth behind their claims. Please let me reassure you that I am not here to bash anyone. Let’s explore the truth together. First I want to look at a man named Desiderius Erasmus, he was a Roman Catholic Priest who was a scholar in Greek. In 1516 he published a Greek New Testament. Unfortunately there were mistakes and he had to make a number of revisions to this text. Through one of those revisions comes the “Textus Receptus”. The Textus Receptus was a collection of five or six books dating from the twelfth to fourteenth century AD, these were Byzantine-era Greek texts. Erasmus’ biggest mistake was when he added some of the margin notes from the Byzantine texts which made there way into some of the verses in the Textus Receptus. The New Testament of the KJV was translated mainly from the Textus Receptus. I am sure by now you can already see how this would create some controversy. In the ancient times there were scribes, who would copy the original text from the original writers. If these scribes so much as made one small mistake, they would completely destroy what they had copied and start over, they left no room for error when copying the original manuscripts. The word manuscript comes from the Latin, manu scriptum, which means "written by hand." There would be no possibility that the scribes would add anything not from the original manuscripts. I think these are facts that need to be carefully considered when looking at the KJV Bible. Does this mean that the KJV has verses that are not in the originals or copies of the originals? Yes. So where do we go from here. Well let me just tell you, I don’t think the translators of the KJV where trying to do anything more than to make an English version of the Bible so that it could be used by any English speaking person. So who was King James and why is his name on the Bible? James Charles Stuart was born on June 19, 1566 at Edinburg Castle in Scotland. In 1567 his father, Lord Darnley was murdered and at 13 months old, James was crowned King James VI of Scotland. James' mother, Mary, was imprisoned in England by her cousin Queen Elizabeth and in 1587, was executed for her part in a Roman Catholic conspiracy to assassinate Queen Elizabeth. James had 4 tutors one of which was George Buchanan a Calvinist, and a very strict teacher. Buchanan taught James history, composition, cosmography, arithmetic, dialectics and theology. King James spoke fluent Greek, French, Latin, English, and Scots and was well versed in Italian and Spanish. In 1603 Queen Elizabeth died, James was now also known as King James I of England. The popes of the Roman Catholics tried numerous times to kill King James. He was known as an enemy of the Catholics because he knew the truth of the scriptures and that the Catholics wanted to dominate the religious world. William Shakespeare and King James were well known to be good friends, Shakespeare even wrote “Macbeth” for King James. In 1604 Dr. John Reynolds asked King James for a new translation of the Bible, he desired to have a modern version of the Bible. In the same year King James appointed 54 men to a Translation Committee, these were the best linguists of the day. The Roman Catholics were up in arms over this new translation of the Bible. The King James translators once wrote of the Catholics; "So much are they afraid of the light of the scripture, that they will not trust the people with it...Sure we are that not he that hath the good gold, that is afraid to bring it to the touchstone, but he that hath the counterfeit." In 1611 the Authorized King James Version of the Bible was released to the public. It was their desire to have a version that everyone could understand in their modern language. The King James Version translators would not appose a new modern version, that was exactly what they were doing. The translators never made a claim that their new version of the Bible was to be the only authorized version of the Bible. They even wrote this statement, “a variety of translation is profitable for finding out the sense of the Scriptures.” If the translators in 1611 would have known all that we know now, along with all the discoveries of older manuscripts, they certainly would have left out some of the verses that they added from the Textus Receptus. They would know of the mistakes of Desiderius Erasmus, instead of adding margin notes and turning them into scripture verses. Unfortunately for them, but fortunately for us, we do have manuscripts a lot closer to the original sources. The Codex Sinaiticus was found on Mt. Sinai and dates to the mid 4th century AD. The Codex Vaticanus, was found and is a volume of 757 vellum sheets containing most of the works of the Bible, and it dates to the early 4th century AD. Thousands of pieces of the Bible have been discovered dating earlier than the Byzantine-era. Earlier texts were used to translate the modern versions we use today, including the NIV. The 1611 KJV had errors. It took several rewrites to get to the version that is now used. In the 1611 edition, Matthew 26:36 reads, “Then cometh Judas”. Today, the KJV renders that verse as “Then cometh Jesus.” This is a HUGE difference. How do you mistake Jesus with Judas? Apocryphal books were included in the 1611 version and were later removed. The 1613 edition left out the word “not” from the 7th commandment, not that big a deal if you want people to commit adultery. They dubbed it “Wicked Bible.” We know the New International Version Bible has left out certain verses, for example: Matt 17:21, Mark 7:16, Mark 11:26, Acts 8:37, Acts 9:6, Why? Because they are not found in the earliest manuscripts, they were not taken out of the newer versions because they were never there, the KJV in fact added these verses that were never there to begin with. People, please do your homework. I have seen the KJV only group use a lot of arguments that don’t hold any truth when you investigate their claims. Again, I am not here to bash KJV people, I want the truth to prevail. I do think the KJV was a good Bible for it’s time. Do I have one? Yes. Do I think it’s the Word of God? Yes. Do I think it has errors? Yes. Would I ever give it to a new Believer? No. I challenge anyone to find somebody who talks with 17th century English in our modern world. If I use the King James scripture on my computer, the spell check goes nuts on me, because there are words that we just don’t use and even my computer don’t understand. The NIV is closer to the oldest manuscripts than the KJV, and it speaks very clearly to the modern reader. I can’t tell you how many people have told me that they can’t understand the KJV English, but the minute you give them an NIV, they can understand it, what would God have us to do? Make them take a course in 1611 English first. In fact, would it not be better to learn Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek so we can read directly from the manuscripts instead of the KJV. KJV only advocates will tell you that there were homosexuals helping with the translation of the NIV. The truth is that there was a woman named Virginia Mollencott who served as a literary committee member, when it was discovered that she was a lesbian sympathizer she was asked to resign. She in no way had any affect on the translation of the NIV. Clearly the NIV condemns homosexuality as sin. I don’t have any desire to change your view on which Bible to read, if you read the KJV, that’s a good version. If you read the NIV, that too is a good version. But don’t tell me I’m reading a perverted version or that it is from the devil, we are Christians, let’s put this debate to rest and share and live what we know from our KJV and NIV, The Love Of Our Savior Jesus Christ. Written by SHALOM










Copyright © by Crossroad2Faith All Right Reserved.

Published on: 2010-01-28 (1554 reads)

[ Go Back ]
Content ©


We are an online, non-denominational christian fellowship ministry. All are welcome here.Let's learn Gods word together!

PHP-Nuke Copyright © 2006 by Francisco Burzi.
All logos, trademarks and posts in this site are property of their respective owners, all the rest © 2006 by the site owner.
Powered by Nuke Evolution 2.0.7 - Nuke-Evolution Xtreme 2.0 Edition.

This site is cached. Click here to update the cache.
[ Page Generation: 0.12 Seconds | Memory Usage: 1.1 MB ]

Do Not Click