On the Nativity Star thread, ghost7584 wrote:silas

The KJV is the real unaltered original translated into old English. The byzantine or textus receptus new testament and massoretic text of the Jews old testament.
1John 5:7 in the kjv was deleted in the modern versions by someone that did not believe in the trinity, in the 4th century in Egypt.
1 John 5:7 is by far not the only reason. Changes that were made to the scriptures in Alexandria, Egypt, by unbelieving philosophers, in the Alexandrian text, attack other important doctrines of the Christian faith.
You can go to this website and see for yourself how the changes that were made to the Alexandrian text, affect important doctrines of the Christian faith; the unsaved philosophers that made these changes were not real Christians.
http://watch.pair.com/scriptures.html
Examples: The modern Alexandrian texts attack these doctrines:
The deity of Christ: 1 Timothy 3:16 " God was manifest in the flesh" - KJV
1 Tim. 3:16 " He who was revealed in the flesh - NAS

Heb. 2:11 " he that sanctifieth and they that are sanctified are all of one" - KJV
Heb. 2:11 "he who sanctifies and those who are sanctified have all one origin" - Revised Version
Christ did not have an origin: Jesus said before Abraham was I am,
John 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
Psalms 90:2 Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.
Micah 5:2 kjv whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting
Micah 5:2 Revised standard whose origin is from of old, from ancient days

Verse attacking the doctrine of salvation by faith:
1 Peter 2:2 kjv "desire the sincere milk of the word that ye may grow thereby."
1 Peter 2:2 revised version "long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up to salvation"
Salvation is obtained through faith in Jesus and repentance, you do not grow up to it by doing works:
Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Ephesians 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Verse attacking ressurection of Christ:
Luke 24:6 KJV He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee,
Luke 24:6 " Remember how he told you while he was still in Gallilee - revised standard
It left out, he is not here, but is risen

Verse attacking word of God:
Luke 4:4 KJV And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.
Luke 4:4 " And Jesus answered him, It is written man shall not live on bread alone" NAS
Leaves out " but by every word of God"

Verses attacking the virgin birth:
Isaiah 7:14 KJV Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
Isaiah 7:14 "behold a young woman shall conceive and bear a son" - Revised Standard version
Is. 7:14 Good News Bible, "a young woman who is pregnant will have a son"

Luke 1:34 kjv
Luke 1:34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
Luke 1:34 Revised standard "how shall this be since I have no husband"
The KJV plainly shows Mary to be a virgin: The revised standard opens up the possibility that she conceived a child by another man that was not Joseph.

Excerpts from
Lets Weigh the Evidence: Which Bible is the Real Word of God? By Barry Burton. Find it here:
http://www.chick.com/catalog/books/0184.asp


There are other examples of how the corrupted Alexandrian text modern Bible versions have changed the words aroung to attack important doctrines of the Christian faith.

Psalms 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Psalms 12:7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

The King James Version is God's true word in English. The modern versions come from a corrupted Alexandrian text that had the words changed in important places.

The New King James Bible (NKJV), has proven to be a hoax, and is not a true translation of the Textus Receptus. Some of the words were deliberately changed for reasons other than translation. http://www.llano.net/baptist/isnkjbwordofgod.htm

1 John 5:7 is in the textus receptus which was found in its original Greek form long before the fourteenth century. Research textus receptus on the internet. The textus receptus is the greek text of the New Testament that came from Antioch in Syria. This is the real original unaltered text. 1 John 5:7 was written by the apostle John and it is in the Syriatic Greek text.
Acts 11:26 And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.
The Syriatic Greek text, the textus receptus was carried by Christian missionaries into Alexandria in Egypt where unbelieving philosophers changed the words around, creating the corrupted Alexandrian Greek text.
The Roman emporer Constantine, in the 4th century ordered a man named Eusebius, the bishop of Caesarea, to make him 50 Bibles for the newly formed roman catholic church, which is a mixture of pagan roman religion mixed with Christianity; in short, Rome hijacked Christianity and created a perverted form of Christianity which is not really Christian. Eusebius had a choice to make up the 50 bibles, for the roman catholic church, either using the Greek manuscripts from Alexandria, or the Greek manuscripts from Antioch. [Eusebius was not a real Christian. He did not believe that Jesus was God almighty. He falsely believed like Jehovah witnesses do today, that Jesus was a lesser God.]
1 John 5:7 was in the manuscripts from Antioch, and there was no way that Eusebius was going to use those manuscripts, because they disagreed with his personal false belief. So Eusebius chose the corrupted manuscripts from Alexandria Egypt, to make up the 50 greek bibles for the Roman catholic church. Egyptian philosophers, that believed like Eusebius did, had already removed 1 John 5:7 from the corrupted Alexandrian greek manuscripts. Jerome later translated this corrupted Greek text into the Latin Vulgate.
So you see that John the apostle wrote 1 John 5:7, and it was in the original Syriatic Greek text from Antioch, and it was around before the 4th century.
References:
CONSTANTINE, published by Ramsay Mc mullen page 112
Sabotage, magazine by Jack Chick
For an in depth study of what was done to the manuscripts in Alexandria read these books:
WHICH BIBLE by David Otis Fuller, Institure for biblical textual studies,
2233 Michigan st. NE Grand Rapids, MI 49503
GOD ONLY WROTE ONE BIBLE, by J. J. Ray, the eye opener publishers, P. O. Box, 7944 Eugene, OR 97401
MANUSCRIPT EVIDENCE, by P. S. Ruckman, Bible baptist bookstore, P. O. Box 7135 Pensacola Fl. 32534
THE KING JAMES VERSION DEFENDED, by Edward F. Hills, THD. order from the eye opener publishers, P. O. box 7944 Eugene OR 97401

Website about corrupt manuscripts and corrupt Bible versions:
http://www.avpublications.com/

1.) The publisher of obscene material, Rupert Murdoch, controls the printing of the NIV.
2.) NIV stylist, Virginia Mollencott, is a lesbian, who promotes witch covens.
3.) The NIV usually matches the changes and omissions in the Jehovah Witness Bible.
4.) The word 'Lucifier', in Hebrew, cannot be translated 'morning star'.

5.) The NIV changes basic Bible doctrines.
6.) There are differences between NIV printings.
NIV Documentation $5.95
(Xerox copies)

How often have you heard a Bible teacher say, "The word here actually means," only to have him unknowingly parrot new version readings — all because he is unfamiliar with the corruption which has affected his Greek and Hebrew reference books (Strongs, Vines, Thayer, Gesenius, Brown, Driver, Briggs, Liddell and Scott, etc.)?

Partial List of Corrupt New Versions
AMP Amplified Version ASV American Standard Version CEV Contemporary English Version KJ21 21st Century King James Version NAB New American Bible (RC) NASB New American Standard Bible NCV New Century Version NIV New International Version NIVI New International Version Inclusive NKJV New King James Version NLT New Living Translation (The Book) NRSV New Revised Standard Version RSV Revised Standard Version RV Revised Version TEV Today's English Version (Good News For Modern Man)

The manuscripts from which the textus receptus was taken are the majority of the Greek manuscripts which agree with each other and have been accepted by Bible believing Christians down through the centuries. The King James was translated from these manuscripts. There are 5,309 surviving Greek manuscripts that contain all or part of the New Testament. These manuscripts agree together 95% of the time. The other 5% accounts for the differences between the King James and the modern versions. The textus receptus, King James, does not include the vaticanus and sinaiticus manuscripts from Alexandrian Egypt; these are the corrupted manuscripts in question. Manuscripts from which the modern versions are translated includes the textus receptus plus the vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts. The modern versions had to use the textus receptus since it contains the majority of the surviving Greek manuscripts. The problem is that when the textus receptus disagreed with the vaticanus or sainaiticus, they preferred these corrupted manuscripts over the textus receptus. That accounts for the 5% corruption in the modern versions. Where the textus receptus and the vaticanus and sinaiticus do not agree, it is because Marcion, 120 - 160 AD or Origin 184 - 254 AD [or whoever] corrupted those two manuscripts. (The vaticanus and sinaiticus disagree with each other over 3000 times in the gospels alone.)
The vast majority of the Greek manuscripts agree together. They have been passed down through the centuries by true Bible believing Christians. In 1516 Erasmus compiled and printed the Greek (textus receptus) the received text, from these manuscripts. This is the text that the protestants of the reformation knew to be the Word of God, from which the King James Bible was translated.

John Burgon, who spent years studying the texts wrote:
Sinaiticus is extremely unreliable. On many occasions, 10, 20, 30, 40, words are dropped through very carelessness. Letters, words or whole sentences are frequently written twice over or begun and immediately cancelled. A whole clause omitted, because it happens to end in the words of the clause preceeding happens 115 times in the New Testament.
The above is excerpts from the book:
Lets Weigh the Evidence: Which Bible is the Real Word of God? By Barry Burton. Find it here:
http://www.chick.com/catalog/books/0184.asp
This was such an excellent post from someone I consider an adversary, that I felt it deserved its own thread - as it was getting considerably off-topic for the thread it was on. So I'm reposting my responses here.

In answer to some of your points, I will first point out that I won't countenance any "arguments" proceeding from that virulent extremist indoctrinator, Jack Chick. That guy draws pretty little cartoons which basically say that all Catholics are satanists destined for Hell with no patriotism for their country. That kind of vicious 17th Century sectarianism has no place in rational debate, in my view.

The publisher of obscene material, Rupert Murdoch, controls the printing of the NIV.Ah, I wondered why there's a photograph of a topless girl on page 3 of my NIV!
2.) NIV stylist, Virginia Mollencott, is a lesbian, who promotes witch covens.Another thing that has no place in rational debate is ludicrous ad hominem attacks on individuals who happen to be connected to the organisation you are attacking (and I'm assuming that you intended "lesbian" as a derogatory term, although it isn't anything of the kind, of course). I don't particularly support the NIV myself, but I like to think I would restrict my disagreements to it with what is written in the book itself rather than exactly who contributed to it. (And I'm afraid I don't quite know what you mean by "stylist" - I don't generally get haircuts from my bibles....)
4.) The word 'Lucifier', in Hebrew, cannot be translated 'morning star'.Yes it can, and if you don't translate it as such it doesn't make any sense in the context.

I took a look at that www.avpublications.com link - I'm afraid that looks rather like Kabbalistic nonsense not dissimilar to the Bible Code.

Having taken careful consideration of your points, I've learned a great deal about the different kinds of text from which the Bible is translated. Again, I'm very grateful for your links, ghost7584.

Doing my own research I found this interesting article (http://www.bible-researcher.com/kutilek1.html) about the difference between Westcott-Hort and the textus receptus which contains a great deal about the history of both texts. That leads you to a site called www.kjvonly.com which, by the way, is totally misleadingly named! They are not pro-KJV Only views, they are against them. In fact they refer to "KJV Only-ism" as a heresy.

Let me state that in terms of beauty, poetry and majesty of prose there is certainly no better English translation in existence. But there are many obscurities and bad translations within it, nonetheless. You've defended the KJV very well and vigorously using a plethora of sources, but your argument boils down to, "The KJV was translated from the Textus Receptus". But how good is the textus receptus, really? If every modern Bible (including the NKJB) omits those items such as the back half of 1 John 5:7 it is because the almost unanimous consensus of opinion is that it's a late addition made by someone with doctrinal issues of his own. It's in Erasmus, but not in any extant Greek contemporaneous or near-contemporaneus manuscript.
The deity of Christ: 1 Timothy 3:16 " God was manifest in the flesh" - KJV
1 Tim. 3:16 " He who was revealed in the flesh - NAS

Heb. 2:11 " he that sanctifieth and they that are sanctified are all of one" - KJV
Heb. 2:11 "he who sanctifies and those who are sanctified have all one origin" - Revised Version
Christ did not have an origin: Jesus said before Abraham was I am,
John 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
Psalms 90:2 Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.
Micah 5:2 kjv whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting
Micah 5:2 Revised standard whose origin is from of old, from ancient days

Verse attacking the doctrine of salvation by faith:
1 Peter 2:2 kjv "desire the sincere milk of the word that ye may grow thereby."
1 Peter 2:2 revised version "long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up to salvation"
Salvation is obtained through faith in Jesus and repentance, you do not grow up to it by doing works:
Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Ephesians 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Verse attacking ressurection of Christ:
Luke 24:6 KJV He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee,
Luke 24:6 " Remember how he told you while he was still in Gallilee - revised standard
It left out, he is not here, but is risen

Verse attacking word of God:
Luke 4:4 KJV And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.
Luke 4:4 " And Jesus answered him, It is written man shall not live on bread alone" NAS
Leaves out " but by every word of God"

Verses attacking the virgin birth:
Isaiah 7:14 KJV Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
Isaiah 7:14 "behold a young woman shall conceive and bear a son" - Revised Standard version
Is. 7:14 Good News Bible, "a young woman who is pregnant will have a son"

Luke 1:34 kjv
Luke 1:34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
Luke 1:34 Revised standard "how shall this be since I have no husband"
The KJV plainly shows Mary to be a virgin: The revised standard opens up the possibility that she conceived a child by another man that was not Joseph.
But you cannot seriously suggest that the producers of these Bibles do not themselves believe in these doctrines? They aren't attacking the divinity of Christ, nor the Virgin Birth, nor the Resurrection! I personally believe that these doctrines (already evident in other parts of the Bible) were slipped into the textus receptus after they had already been adopted by the Church, in order to bolster their authority. The RSV and the NRSV in particular are trying to obtain the best translation of the words from the best versions of the ancient texts that they have - and if scholarship acknowledges that some parts of ancient texts are without foundation then that's all for the better in my view.

On another thread, ghost7584 said: AMP Amplified Version ASV American Standard Version CEV Contemporary English Version KJ21 21st Century King James Version NAB New American Bible (RC) NASB New American Standard Bible NCV New Century Version NIV New International Version NIVI New International Version Inclusive NKJV New King James Version NLT New Living Translation (The Book) NRSV New Revised Standard Version RSV Revised Standard Version RV Revised Version TEV Today's English Version (Good News For Modern Man)

[...]

The real unaltered Bible, translated into middle English is the King James version.
The modern versions are fake bibles with the words changed; 5% error.
Roman catholic bibles all have the corrupted Alexandrian text mixed in. The catholic church is behind the publishing of all of these fake bibles. They are trying to push the protestant bible, the kjv, out of the way and replace it with their corrupted Alexandrian text bibles. This is arrant nonsense. Nearly all the modern versions are fairly liberal attempts to bring the Protestant bible (ie without the Catholic Apocryphal books) into 20th/21st Century English by Protestant evangelical churches, in order to expand their ministry. If you can possibly think the highly conservative Catholic Church would sponsor or remotely agree with any of those translations you cited, you are deluded. Some of them are produced, on the other hand, by Conservative Protestant bible organisations who would be highly affronted at the implication that they were being infiltrated by Catholics, of all things.

I would not at all disagree, however, that these Bibles are all vastly inferior to the King James bible for poetry, for euphony, for sheer majesty. But that does not imply that the King James Bible is necessarily free of error in the translation of specific words and idioms.

The claim to the sole authority of the King James version relies almost solely on the academic ignorance of the "lay" person.

You can't compare two translations and conclude that 'this' has been changed or 'that' has been taken out. The "NIV" itself never changed any word, nor did any other version. It is a translation, and therefore any passage or word that is or isn't there comes from the source that was used. To simply accuse the character of the translators or the dark motives behind their choice of words isn't enough to discredit a translation. Allegations have to be supported somehow, yet simply quoting the KJV isn't a valid argument, since the KJV must be subjected to the same scrutiny (being a translation itself).

This is what happens when a Bible becomes idolized, and the truth has to make way for agendas. In their earnest quest to use only the best, most accurate manuscripts, and scholarly responsible methods in translation, many translators choose to work with earlier and more well-attested documents, as well as include new discoveries (such as those at Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls) and advanced methods, rather than rely solely on the later or even more generally accepted ("received") manuscripts -- even if it means having to leave out biased translations or favourable passages. This is honesty, not dishonesty.

No doubt the Greek and Latin manuscripts are more likely to show many Christian doctrines voiced more clearly, but that doesn't mean they are absent in the older manuscripts (and therefore the newer translations). Such allegations only show unhealthy paranoia and a pathological distrust that doesn't belong among Christians.

PS. I found this Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King-James-Only_Movement) a very helpful overview.

what i don't seem to be aware of reading here is any awareness about literary devices being employed in writing myth.

THE book that turned me onto looking more closely at mythologies was Professor JM.Allegro's very controversial book, The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross. I was amazed and intrigued--from Allegro's dmeonstrations--of just how layered the myths are. and that from a superficial literalist story there also are deper to be read, allusions, metaphor, word-play and puns, transliterations, etc.
This is same for both pagan and abrahamic mythologies. so it is quite amusing, and sad, to see here these texts ben takien at face value with no mention of those other 'hidden' meanings which allude to stuff for the eyes of the intitiated

ot that THAt is the 'word of God' or 'right'. but surely it needs KNOWING about? otherwise we are in fool-territory, and are ignore-ant

Ghost's defence of the KJV as the "true word of God" etc does infer that the "Textus Receptus" is infallible.

Unfortunately the history of the TR is not as neat as Ghost would have you believe.
This (http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn/TR.html) gives a brief overview, describing the various differing versions of the TR.
It also details the flaws in the KJV.

Now I haven't much studied the origins of the various Bibles, but it is obvious to me from what little I have read that the KJV is not as accurate a reproduction of the original scripts as its supporters would have you believe.

Not only are there the "translation by committee" problems it went through, plus the other inherent problems with translating texts from an archaic language (even in the 1500s the text of the original source documents, from over 1000 years previously, was deemed archaic and not fully understood), but there is the obvious problem of the authenticity/accuracy of those original source documents, as stated by Ghost himself.

Oh, thank heavens, I thought I was going to be the only one to contribute! Thanks for that wikipedia link, Jenyar - I've had a hard time of it trying to deduce the theological position of each translation based on website links!

That's a very good link you posted as well, Sarkus.

Can I again reiterate my thanks to everybody who has contributed (including ghost7584, by the way). I've learned more from reading about this subject than almost anything I've else encountered at sciforums.com, and I've found it most satisfying, intellectually.

duendy: what i don't seem to be aware of reading here is any awareness about literary devices being employed in writing myth.

THE book that turned me onto looking more closely at mythologies was Professor JM.Allegro's very controversial book, The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross. I was amazed and intrigued--from Allegro's dmeonstrations--of just how layered the myths are. and that from a superficial literalist story there also are deper to be read, allusions, metaphor, word-play and puns, transliterations, etc.
This is same for both pagan and abrahamic mythologies. so it is quite amusing, and sad, to see here these texts ben takien at face value with no mention of those other 'hidden' meanings which allude to stuff for the eyes of the intitiated

ot that THAt is the 'word of God' or 'right'. but surely it needs KNOWING about? otherwise we are in fool-territory, and are ignore-ant
*************
M*W: duendy, there had to be something more than words for this human race to believe! Whether it be sexual ecstacy or mushroom ecstacy, it had to be. Without ecstacy, there is no faith! All the nincompoops who believe in the bible, preachers and religion, are liars. They long for the ecstacy, but they do not receive it! How sad! Christianity is a false ecstacy. I know you know that! There is no dying demigod savior who gives us ecstacy. Ecstacy comes from within. The capacity for ecstacy is ours for the taking. I feel quite sure Jesus experienced ecstacy with Mary Magdalen.

I'im sure he did, Medicine Woman, but that was hardly the kind of ecstacy you're talking about... is it? And over the last few centuries, many, many women had faith without any kind of ecstacy. Count yourself lucky to live in a world in which the woman's right to ecstacy is taken for granted (at least by me), regardless of your Christian faith or absence of.

Written when out of my head on Jack Daniels

Silas: I'im sure he did, Medicine Woman, but that was hardly the kind of ecstacy you're talking about... is it? And over the last few centuries, many, many women had faith without any kind of ecstacy. Count yourself lucky to live in a world in which the woman's right to ecstacy is taken for granted (at least by me), regardless of your Christian faith or absence of.

Written when out of my head on Jack Daniels
*************
M*W: I guess ecstacy is a personal thing. For the starving, food would be ecstacy. For the religious, faith might be ecstacy. For Jesus... I believe his relationship with MM brought him ecstacy. For me... well... just tell Jack I said hello.

quelquechosedautre, please take your sectarian and verging on anti-semitic shit elsewhere.

You will find any and all bibles are based on myth and fairy tale, and by definition are completely inaccurate.

hahahahahaha

What a load of BS.

Another conspiracy theory of impending-doom-nobody-can-do-anything-about-anyway, and aren't we just so fortunate that quelquechosedautre (had to copy-and-paste that) is privy to this crucial information. And the Bible Code is the key... who would have thought?

A study in hysteria:
The professor and his colleagues plan to build a machine to test whether it's possible to transport a subatomic particle through time using a ring of light.

He hopes the energy from a rotating laser beam may warp the space inside the ring of the light so gravity forces the neutron to rotate sideways. With more energy, he thinks it's possible a second neutron would appear. This second particle would be the first one visiting itself from the future.
--Ananova.com (http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_560851.html)
...leads to:
"...it would allow a ZERO delivery time for flight path of a foreign missile to its target in the USA and/or the detonation somehere else in the world of a nuke and it`s transferance to New York by sending the blast a few hours forward in time to allow the natuarl rotation of the earth to place it in downtown Manhattan."

Can all this crap be put on its own thread, please? This has nothing whatsoever to do with KJV accuracy.

Actually this is one thing that has always confused me. I have a KJV Bible and my Finacee' has a NIV bible. I am just about to embark on a indepth study into the bible using various guides to help me - which would be the best one to use?

Both, at least. They follow different translation philosophies and are from different manuscript traditions. There is another thread here somewhere about Bible versions. you could try looking it up.

Both, at least. They follow different translation philosophies and are from different manuscript traditions. There is another thread here somewhere about Bible versions. you could try looking it up.


Ta. Will do.

Ta. Will do.
I looked it up for you: the thread can be found here (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=43786&page=2&pp=20&highlight=Bible+versions). If I recall there was a lot of cross-posting among a few threads, so you might find more if you do a search.

Please ask if you have more questions!

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, (for then the imputation of Sixtus had been true in some sort, that our people had been fed with gall of Dragons instead of wine, with whey instead of milk) but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principal good one, not justly to be excepted against; that hath been our endeavor, that our mark.

Preface to the KJV (http://www.bible-researcher.com/kjvpref.html)

• • •

In 1769 the Oxford University Press published an edition of the King James version in which many small changes were made. These changes were of five kinds: 1. Greater and more regular use of italics; 2. minor changes in the text; 3. the adoption of modern spelling; 4. changes in the marginal notes and references; and, 5. correction of printers' errors. This edition soon came to be known as "The Oxford Standard" edition, because it was widely accepted as a standard text by commentators and other publishers. The editions of the King James version published in our century generally reproduce this Oxford edition of 1769, with or without the marginal notes. The following information is given so that the reader may gain an accurate impression of how far the modern editions differ from the original King James version of 1611.

Changes in the KJV (http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon10.html)

• • •

The Chairman of the American Company of New Testament Revisers, President Woolsey, D. D., LL.D., thus summarizes these defects: "Our translators of the seventeenth century, in a great many instances, misunderstood the sense. To make this as evident as it may be made we should need to write a volume .... The main deficiency in our translation proceeds from want of exact knowledge of the Hebrew and Greek languages. Not only is the sense wholly misapprehended in a number of instances—as could scarcely fail of being the case—but a perception of the finer rules of grammar and interpretation was wanting. In the use of the article, of the tenses and modes of verbs, and of participles, and in a great variety of other instances, the modern scholar by his revisions can repair and beautify the building reared by the older scholars. Thus, while no book can be written more fitted in style and expression to do its work, more truly English, more harmonious, more simply majestic, than our Authorized Version; new revisers of the text and the version may hope by their salutary changes—to contribute to its preservation, in essentially the same form which it has always had, for generations yet to come."

Defects of the KJV (http://www.bible-researcher.com/kjvdefects.html)

(The above citations are available at Michael Marlowe's Bible Research (http://www.bible-researcher.com/).)

I found it odd that it was only after I started treating religious studies as something that deserved to be taken seriously that I found out the KJV fetish was bogus. On the one hand, it's almost surprising that the least-educated Biblical views in American society (often called "fundamentalist" in a derogatory sense) use the most convoluted English-language expression of the Bible possible. To the other, if you're going to bite off more than you can chew, do so with grandeur.

I'm so embarrassed, though. While I was looking up the above pages, I hopped over to look up a page that I had forgotten about, at the same site, dealing with the NASB, which is my paper-copy Bible for research. I use various translations online, but mostly RSV. I've been confusing the histories of the NASB and the RSV. Whoops.

The problem, though, can be expressed by looking at the NASB and RSV:

From the same website:

As its name implies, the New American Standard Bible is a revision of the American Standard Version (1901). It was produced by a company of conservative scholars who wished to provide a literal and conservative revision of the ASV, as an alternative to the Revised Standard Version (1952), which had proven to be unacceptable to conservative churches. Although the NASB revisers were influenced by the RSV's interpretation in many places, overall the NASB is a good deal more literal than the RSV, and thus it preserves the highly literal character that had made the American Standard Version so useful as a translation for close study. Also unlike the RSV, the NASB deliberately interprets the Old Testament from a Christian standpoint, in harmony with the New Testament.

On The New American Standard Bible (http://www.bible-researcher.com/nasb.html)

• • •

The RSV Old Testament was not well received outside of liberal circles, chiefly because the translators often deliberately rendered Old Testament passages in such a way that they were contrary to the interpretations given in the New Testament. This was done on the principle that the Old Testament ought to be interpreted only in reference to its own historical (Jewish) context. Christian interpretations, including those of the New Testament writers, are therefore deliberately excluded as "anachronistic." But this, as conservative critics perceived, practically amounted to a denial of the truth of the New Testament. As the conservative scholar R. Laird Harris wrote,
It is a curious study to check the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, a monument of higher critical scholarship, and note how every important Old Testament passage purporting to predict directly the coming of Christ has been altered so as to remove this possibility ... It is almost impossible to escape the conclusion that the admittedly higher critical bias of the translators has operated in all of these places. The translations given are by no means necessary from the Hebrew and in some cases ... are in clear violation of the Hebrew."
The verse most often mentioned by conservatives was Isaiah 7:14, in which the RSV translators rendered the Hebrew word almah as "young woman" instead of "virgin." While this was not a case of a clear violation of the Hebrew (the word must be interpreted according to its context), it was by no means necessary. And there were many other instances of the same problem, which revealed a pattern of systematic contradiction of the New Testament interpretations of Old Testament passages. For example, in Genesis 22:18 the RSV renders an ambiguous sentence as "by your descendents shall all the nations of the earth bless themselves" contrary to the interpretation given by the Apostle Paul in Galatians 3:8 and 3:16. The objections of conservatives were not merely captious criticisms concerning the meaning of a word here and there; the controversy was about whether or not a version of the Old Testament which ignores and contradicts the New Testament in so many places has any right to be received as the standard Bible of American churches. At any rate, the rejection of the RSV by evangelicals had serious consequences for the future of the version. At the time that it was replaced by the New Revised Standard Version in 1990, the RSV was one of the least popular versions in America, having only about 5 percent of the market share in Bibles.

On The Revised Standard Version (http://www.bible-researcher.com/rsv.html)

It would seem that the accuracy, on the one hand, and the gravity of variation, to the other, are the stuff of interpersonal politics. For instance, whether the RSV actually violates Hebrew seems a gray area, although there is certainly an argument to be had regarding stylistic updates for modern vernacular. However, perhaps conversely, the KJV suffers for being archaic. (cf "Defects" discussion of "forthwith" and "by and by".) Flip a coin.

More telling is the issue of contention between the RSV and NASB: Should the Old Testament contradict the New? (cf. On "The Revised Standard Version")

To go full circle on this digression, the New Revised Standard Version, which replaced the RSV, which in turn held only 5% marketshare at best when it was replaced, is less literal than the oft-lamented RSV, but more literal than the NIV (cf. On the "New Revised Standard Version").

And yet the NRSV is a further step away:

The deliberately non-Christian interpretation of the Old Testament which made the RSV unacceptable to conservatives is continued in this revision. In fact the most notorious verse of the RSV, Isaiah 7:14, in the NRSV is moved even further away from its connection with the New Testament. The RSV had rendered it "a young woman shall conceive" (future); but the NRSV has "the young woman is with child" (present), which effectively prevents the Christological interpretation (and there is no footnote to inform the reader that the RSV's "shall conceive" is a possibility).

On the New Revised Standard Version (http://www.bible-researcher.com/nrsv.html)

In short, it seems there's much debate to be had about whether or not the Old Testament should be treated in its own historical context, or presumed to be a natural precursor for the New Testament. By the former, variation and even contradiction between the two scriptures is acceptable, and even expected. By the latter, though, it is problematic.

Curiously, the question plays to accommodate that same bloc of Christians I mentioned earlier. It is an issue of simplification: some Christians presume that there must necessarily be complete harmony between the testaments, and that presumption is simply unacceptable.

For centuries, many Christians have looked past the arrhythmia of the Old Testament, the ministry of Christ, and the Pauline evangelization. Much of the problem comes from trying to manage the detail of discordant testaments that are supposed to be in complete agreement. The authors of the Old Testament didn't write as part of the Christian experience, the Jews of Christ's day obviously rejected the ministry, and today's Jews don't recognize that continuity else they would be Christians. We have no reason at all to expect complete harmony between Hebrew and Christian testaments. Only the Christians have a stake in establishing that continuity.

It's hard to find mention of the presumption in the King James Version; such a presumption does not seem to be an issue until the 20th century. Perhaps I'm wrong, but it seems the issue only came up after someone dared consider the Old Testament in its own context.

Generally speaking, I consider the presumption that the Old and New Testaments must necessarily be in harmony a strike against any given Biblical consideration that might require it. If virgins and forthwith are important enough contextual considerations to argue about, what of the fundamental presuppositions to which a translation is expected to agree?
____________________

Notes:

Marlowe, Michael D., ed. "Bible Research: Internet Resources for Students of Scripture". See http://www.bible-researcher.com/

tiassa, thank you for joining this debate with excellent reference material.

As might have been noticed from my other posts on the Bible I am quite exercised by the problems of Isaiah 7:14 myself. I had noticed that problem with the one translation rendering the "young woman" already with child.

A book I have read recently is Nine Questions About Judaism, a book written for Jews and Gentiles to explain some of the misapprehensions that people have about Judaism. There's a section on the difference between Judaism and Christianity that highlights the use made of messianic prophecy from Scripture in order to justify belief in the Christ, and Isaiah 7:14 is a case in point. The authors, as Jews, are anxious to point out (as I have done previously on this forum) that in the context of the whole of Chapter 7, any messianic interpretation is simply unfounded.

One thing that is not mentioned in this repudiation of the Christian interpretation of Isaiah, however, is that the originators of the interpretation were themselves Jews, and it was Jews at the time of Christ who spent a lot of time taking individual lines of Scripture out of context in order to justify their own Messianic expectations of being freed from the Roman hegemony.

Back later, my time has run out.

*************
M*W: There are no accurate versions of the Bible, including the originals (if there were originals). It's all myth based upon human stories about our solar system. Only the names have been changed to delude us as humanity immemorial has called it history.

Thankyou medicine woman, thats exactly what i was saying.

Also, the current bibles have been translated through at least 4 or 5 different languages.

Even so, as they were written thousands of years ago, some of what they say doesn't apply to today's world.

For example:

from "2 kings 6"

28 Then the king said to her, "What is troubling you?" And she answered, "This woman said to me, 'Give your son, that we may eat him today, and we will eat my son tomorrow.' 29 "So we boiled my son, and ate him. And I said to her on the next day, 'Give your son, that we may eat him'; but she has hidden her son."

Yes! Son eating! :eek:

Also some tips on farming and fashion!:

Deuteronomy 22

10 " You shall not plow with an ox and a donkey together. 11 " You shall not wear a garment of different sorts, [such as] wool and linen mixed together.

Generally speaking, I consider the presumption that the Old and New Testaments must necessarily be in harmony a strike against any given Biblical consideration that might require it. If virgins and forthwith are important enough contextual considerations to argue about, what of the fundamental presuppositions to which a translation is expected to agree?
A point very often overlooked is that most reforms (which leads to the perception of disharmony) happen intratestamentally and not intertestamentally. The prophets and faithful kings weren't contesting the consistency of their religion, but the inconsistency of its application! And there is little doubt of a heilsgeschichte - a salvation histroy - of how people come to new conclusions within their religious context.

The messianic expectation is just one example. The is little doubt that Jews did read various texts messianically. Maimonides' twelfth principle of Jewish faith is the expectation of the messiah. They got this expectation from the Hebrew Bible, as did the first century Christians. How it pointed to him, and exactly who it pointed to was open to interpretation within its boundaries. Joseph (Genesis 37-41) and Moses (Exodus 1-12) were both initially rejected by Israel, and who can forget that even the great R. Akiba was wrong about Bar Kochba being the Jewish messiah. For others, wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messiah) has a list of them. They were certain about all these people, but they are certain that Jesus was not? (See also Messianic Texts at Qumran (http://www.hebrew-streams.org/works/qumran/messiahs-qumran.html) for examples of how the Bible was interpreted messianically before the Christian era.)

So I agree with tiassa: assuming that there must be complete harmony between the testaments in all areas is as unfounded as assuming there is complete harmony within the testaments. Everything is never known from the beginning; knowledge is built upon sure foundations. Considering the Old Testament within its historic context is by no means new, and it's not such a threatening concept as conservatives fearfully imagine.

Are we sure R. Akiba was wrong about Bar Kochba being the Jewish Messiah? :)

Here's a joke I found on the jewsforjudaism.org website:

An old joke, but for the new people...

Jew: If Jesus was the Moshiach, our Rabbis would have know. Rabbi Akiva, the greatest of his generation never erred in such things and he never mentioned such a name even once!
Christian: Well he made a mistake! After all he believed that Bar Kochba was the Moshiach and he was wrong!
Jew: He wasn't wrong. Why would you say such a thing?
Christian: Well he was killed, the Temple was never built, and the Jews dispersed.
Jew: And you have a problem with that?
Christian: Of course! It's obvious!


I checked out the link provided by Jenyar, and here is an excerpt that I find interesting, concerning 11QMelchizedek:

..."and the messenger is the Messiah of the Spirit, concerning whom Daniel said, [Until an anointed one [Messiah] a prince] (Daniel 9:25)

So, all of the words which would actually relate to Daniel 9:25 specifically are assumed, apparently. It could have just as easily been a reference to Daniel 7:13-14, the Son of Man reference, right? "Coming with the clouds" seems like it could go with the idea of "the messenger", doesn't it? I think even Jews presently think that's a reference to the Messiah, although I think the translation is different from a Christian version.

Personally, I've yet to see any actual evidence that Daniel 9:24-27 even existed before Jesus. I'm not saying it didn't. But I've yet to see it. From my understanding, that part of Daniel was not found at Qumran. I know the NT makes mention of the "abomination of desolation", but this reference, to me, seems to be to Daniel 11:31 and/or 12:11, because Daniel 9:24-27 doesn't say "abomination", while Daniel 11:31 and 12:11 actually says "abomination that maketh desolate".

Well....... it has to be said, I've seen a lot of funnier Jewish jokes than that....

Deuteronomy 22

10 " You shall not plow with an ox and a donkey together.Actually one of the very first anti- animal cruelty statutes enacted.

Personally, I've yet to see any actual evidence that Daniel 9:24-27 even existed before Jesus. I'm not saying it didn't. As a matter of fact there is generally no doubt that everything included in the Seputagint predates Jesus by at least 100 years, and that includes everything in the commonly accepted Bible Old Testamen and the Apocrypha.