KJV vs. newer versions
By foxyfire33
@foxyfire33 (10005)
United States
March 18, 2008 6:28pm CST
I know this is all very long but I'd really like feedback and opinions! I know it may open a can of worms but I really don't want to argue, I think we are all entitled to our opinions and this isn't meant as a put down to anybody! Just leave whatever response you feel is pertinent and keep this friendly!I was just reading a friend's blog. I wish I could give a link but since it's on her personal page I don't think I should and it is all way too long to copy/paste here. Basically it cited several Christian "experts" stating that all these newer versions of the Bible are wrong and the the King James Version is the only one that can be trusted as the true word of God. I completely disagree and the following is the message I sent to her explaing my position.
[i]Anyway, I read your blogs about how the newer versions of the Bible are corrupted and found them to be interesting BUT (if you don't mind a little friendly debate) I had a question or rather a point to make too. I readily admit that I don't remember the exact details nor do I have any sources on hand since all of my study materials are packed away still but here goes...
The KJV is the English translation from the Latin version used by the Church of England way back in (I think) the Middle Ages. The Church then was widely known to repress the people and alter Christianity to fit their own government's agenda. So it's doubtful in that sense that the KJV is the "true word of God" And to be more blunt...I don't believe a man from the Middle East (that would be Jesus) who spoke Aramaic and Hebrew and whatever would have ever spoken in Latin or Old English (as in England English). The KJV with all it's 'thou', 'thee', 'shalt' and so on is nothing at all like the words that were actually spoken.
HOWEVER...it's not likely that the world as a whole will learn Aramaic or Hebrew so the best option we have is to take the words of the Bible and translate them into a common language and 'Old English" is certainly not a common language.
But there lies the problem, the closest thing we have to the 'original' are those old Latin versions which were most likely already altered back when the Church did not want the common person to be able to actually read the Bible for themselves (presumable because the Church knew that what they were teaching was not in alignment with what the Bible really said...and that is probably why the first publisher of an English version was burned along with his manuscripts. It was only later that a "Church approved" English version finally made it to the people.
The only way we will ever have an "authentic and true" Bible is if we are able to find more of the original scrolls written in the languages of Biblical times...and find enough scholars to translate them, which is a much more difficult task than you might imagine.
So my point is...I agree that the NIV and others have altered the content of the KJV...but the KJV wasn't accurate to begin with so it really doesn't make much difference anymore. God isn't in a Book anyway, reading it daily isn't what makes a person a Christian, knowing God with the brain will only get a person so far, people must know Him with their hearts.[/i](And please excuse if I have a few things a little wrong, I typed this up from memory as all my Bible study material is packed and unwelcome in this house 
)
)5 people like this
10 responses
@mamasan34 (6518)
• United States
19 Mar 08
I have heard this argument time and time again in the church and even in my own house. My father is adamant about the King James Version and The American Standard Version 1901 being the only true versions, closest to the original scripture. It is true that the NIV has 8 verses taht have been changed in literal translation. however, I also believe that with changing times, language changes as well. So, I personally believe that the word of God is the word of God. I do believe it is a necessity however to read the Bible to better understand the will of God. Without the Bible, we would not know what God expects from us and we would not know God in our mind. I hope that makes sense. In regards to the translation issue, I believe it is each persons own choice to choose what translation to read.
2 people like this
@ShardAerliss (1488)
•
19 Mar 08
I Like Young's Literal Translation.
For the most part the books of the OT were written in Hebrew. They were then translated into Greek when the Greeks took over Israel. The NT was written partially in Hebrew, Greek and I think Latin (I may be very wrong on the Latin). They were translated, re-translated... and remember that copyists were only human. Not only could they easily make mistakes but that those mistakes might not have been so innocent...
It is impossible to know exactly what the books say in their original language unless you can read the original language. But you're right; who today is going to go to those lengths?
The KJV was supposedly worked on by many learned men, working without bias. We know this is pretty much untrue; how could they work without bias under such a stringent and obsessive ruler, a man with a mission?
I'll stick to my Young's, going to the NIV when I have trouble understanding its old fashioned language... but I will always look back to Young's for the true meaning.
However, I agree with you that God is in the mind, not the book. We interpret the word the way we want to see them, no matter what language they are in...
Ramble, ramble, ramble... sorry... it's hard to put my thoughts into a [b]short[b], coherent post at 11:50pm.
1 person likes this
@theprogamer (10532)
• United States
19 Mar 08
But Shard, I thought your explanation was well done. I definitely like the conclusions at the end to.
And I'll be seconding the "ramble ramble yawn" part in a few hours time too.
Have a good night =3
1 person likes this
@ShardAerliss (1488)
•
19 Mar 08
Heh, thanks :)
I try to cover all bases in my posts, to prevent people saying "ah, but you don't know this!"
But covering all bases and keeping a first post simple is not easy.
@AJ1952Chats (2331)
• Anderson, Indiana
19 Mar 08
One of our former ministers (Chuck Cox 1976-1985) said that the King James Version is probably near the top when it comes to the most accurate translations of this day but that this didn't make it the most sacred version and that all other interpretations were blasphemy or something.
In fact, his favorite translation was The Jerusalem Bible. Like KJV, it goes back to the original translations (even more the original translations than Latin, I believe) to get built instead of translating a version in English (such as KJV) into modern language.
I've read that Bible from cover to cover. Very fascinating translation--and it has extra books in it, too.
There were actually more books to the Bible--that is, more books as candidates to be included in it--than got accepted to it by a long shot. I would be curious to know their content.
1 person likes this
@cher913 (25781)
• Canada
19 Mar 08
well if you want to get a young crowd to start reading the Bible, you have to make it user friendly...but i do agree that what we have was left to the interpretation of the writer (rather, transcriber) and we should all learn new Testement Greek and Hebrew to get the original!
1 person likes this
@worldwise1 (14885)
• United States
19 Mar 08
I do have a preference for the KJV, foxyfire, but only because it is what I grew up reading and it is the most familiar to me. I also must respectfully disagree with you on a couple of points: If Jesus could walk on water and perform miracles I don't see why He couldn't have spoken in any language He desired. The second point I disagree on is "God isn't in a Book..." The Bible is supposed to be the inspired Word of God, and we are told to study it to make ourselves approved unto God.
@bradhart (659)
• United States
20 Mar 08
every bible is just a collected group of writings that Constantine felt met his political needs. What didn't was ordered destroyed and called heresy. Some of those apocryphal test still survive, but very few. It is estimated the new testament as you know it today was only about 10% of the works reviewed for inclusion. I think you probably lost a lot of the more militant toss the money lenders out of the temple stories, because they were too noninflammatory and too much of a political risk to include.
1 person likes this
@carmelanirel (20942)
• United States
19 Mar 08
She must be one of those, King James Only people and I have run into them before, but don't agree..I feel whatever version you are reading, G♥d is the one to guide you in understanding, especially when prayer is also involved..Personally I would like to have the complete Jewish Bible which I believe is taken directly from the original Hebrew/Greek language and translated into English, but I only have a King James and NIV.. I also have access to others on line, but I don't like to read on line, especially long chapters or books..
1 person likes this
@theprogamer (10532)
• United States
19 Mar 08
And we've discussed this before here on lot. I've at least said that texts can be wrong, things can be misinterpreted no matter the version or reiteration. There is also translation and retranslation between the ages which further convolutes the text. While it is possible that only the original counts, there are still issues to question with that text (the era, the intent of the ruler, the flaws/intent of the writers). Religion has been a way to control the masses in the past (and even the present), the text itself could be flawed in that regard; but really it is rogue elements(people) that cause something like this to happen. In other cases, religious doctrine does evolve either through text, or through movement, through societal change, through reformations. Newer versions of the text would be required in that respect (but still open to interpretation, analysis, questioning, skepticism, perversion).
Despite this, the things that count are your belief in the faith itself and coming to the beliefs through your own path and experiences. You say God is in the minds and people must know him in the heart. I can at least agree to some extents with that. I would also add, that God could also be found by ones positive actions. Goodwill, love, honor, hardwork (simple examples, there are plenty of specifics)... things like this could also be a path to God. Or perhaps it is the faith and conviction that drives said actions.
Oh now I've stumbled onto a paradox. Such is life and higher learning.
The text maybe right or wrong, but it is written and reinterpreted by flawed beings. It will be disputed, it will have mistakes, people will question it. However, if it guides others, if it helps others, if it encourages others, if it is used productively... that is a noteworthy end.
I'll keep thinking about this one for a few more days.
1 person likes this
@Foxfire1875 (2010)
•
20 Mar 08
btw I'm not a christian but here's my tuppence worth.
I don't think it matters which version you use as no one knows the true story anyway. The bible that is used is what Constantine decided it should be and we will never know what should or shouldn't be in it.
People should concentrate more on the message Jesus brought to the world than what is in the bible. As you say the only way you will know for sure, is when you get to read the original scrolls from that time but even then you are at the mercy of the writer, who may or may not be telling the truth.
