Is your bible really holy?

all-pictures-709.jpg

All right, this one is for the serious students of the Word. Yesterday, I was reading on Carol’s Bible Thumper soapbox where she was questioning her NIV study notes on references to God.

As I was reading the comments, I came upon this shocker. All Bibles are not created equal. I knew there were some questionable “versions” of the Bible out there. In this post, we mentioned that an MCC pastor is working on a “Bible” patterned after his disgusting cultic sex book. That’s an obvious hands off.

The others I kept a wary eye on.  But this shook me somewhat. Here it is. A commenter left a note stating that:

The holder of the Copyright to the New International Version Bible (NIV) also holds the copyright for porn magazine entitled “Hustler”. A Mr. Rupert Murdock, called “Media’s prince of Darkness” by Chicago columnist Mike Royco. Mr. Murdock owns, not only the copyright & exclusive printing rights to the NIV, he also owns the copyright on another corrupt Bible, the Amplified Version. Both are through Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids Michigan, which I might add, he owns as well.”

He left a link containing some eye opening information about why we should keep our hands off anything but The Holy Bible (its original name before different versions began popping up).

Anyway, take a look at this  (its fairly long) and give me your opinion on what is said. Pay attention especially to translation comparison and how versions different from the KJV leave our key words, thus changing the meaning of the scripture. Should we only read the KJV? Is the writer just biased?

What do you think about the Amplified Version’s liberal use of the word “fortunate” to define blessed?

Advertisements

21 thoughts on “Is your bible really holy?

  1. Great Post!

    Let me first say that I am not a KJV only. I’m sure many have read or bumped into some of the zealots who claim that you are going to hell if you read anything but the KJV. However, that being said I read ONLY the KJV because I know it is a very trusted and well founded version. The other versions DO LACK AND WATER DOWN SCRIPTURE. In other versions there are whole scriptures missing. The deity of Christ is lessened. The masculine references are also diminished. Lastly, some most recent versions even gloss over the homosexual issue. Like I said I am not a KJV only when it comes to salvation. However, if you want a solid reading of scripture stick with the KJV. If you have a difficult time with the language of the 16th century than go with the NKJV. Other than that you will run into translations that range from minor flaws to major blasphemy especially in the most recent politically correct translations. Lastly you will find that liberal theologians tend NOT to read the KJV for the very reason to justify their means. In other words its much easier to get away with heresy when you use a translation that lacks sound scripture.

    Kyle

  2. Im not a KJV only either and its just plain stupid for someone to use the you go to hell if you read anything else.

    That being said, as you pointed out there is sufficient reason to have KJV as your primary sourse of reading. AND to keep a sharp eye on the other’s renditions.

    I would think these others are flooding in becoming more and more “liberal” because the false prophets need something to back up their claims.

  3. If you believe what you like in the gospels, and reject what you don’t like, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourself.

    Saint Augustine

  4. There are many KJV only advocates that have very bad and dangerous theology. One person in particular is Peter S Ruckman. If you have never heard of this man then you need to google it.

    Kyle

  5. Good one Beth. These people who do not submit to the authority of God’s word are lovers of self and reprobates.

    Kyle

  6. To impugn a translation of scripture based on who holds claim to brining it into being means all 1611 KJV Bibles should be immediately burned!

    King James adored things of the occult. Which is why all of William Shakespeare’s plays include at least one ghost. King James loved those kinds of things. If you wanted a successful job making plays with King James running things, you better have included some ungodly spirits. Even the not always reliable Wikipedia notes King James was really into Witchcraft.

    So who holds copyright does not denote much. God can use the heathen for the benefit of the saints.

    The KJV is no totally accurate and not perfect. I would not say any version is 100% on point for the Hebrew and Greek, but regarding the KJV, take for example Acts 12:4. In the KJV the term “Easter” is used. We know that no such term existed when the book of Acts was written, but the term did exist in 1611. The translators should have said “Passover” as all other more modern translations of scripture do. The KJV translators MADE A MISTAKE. And that’s not the only one.

    The bottom line is, the KJV, NIV, NASB, NKJV and ESV when read in full all offer the gospel message in truth. Some adjust various things because of the findings in original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. Even the various manuscripts don’t all have the exact same words, so there’s even debate over the sources used, never mind the final English translations that are produced. The “originals” are no more and didn’t even exist in 1611, we just have manuscripts to work with. Copies of the originals and things have been written into some of them. That’s what newer translations strive to weed out.

    Which is why some translations don’t have several verses that you might find in the 1611 KJV. The KJV is based on manuscripts that possibly had verses added that can’t be found in many of the other manuscripts of scripture.

    Actually the 1611 KJV did not use the OLDEST manuscripts. And this is why the KJV has verses some other translations do not have. The other translations did not “omit”, they simply don’t add in what was not found to be in many of the early manuscripts. Like Acts 8:37 and yes manuscripts differ on I John 5:7 too, the Trinity is still throughout scripture regardless. It’s believed some folks favoring the Trinity went out of bounds and put it in the manuscripts at I John 5:7. Most manuscripts don’t have it. You don’t disprove a new version by saying “well the KJV says this”. You can only disprove a version by having the full history of the source manuscripts and being able to translate Hebrew and Greek.

    Personally, while I often read NKJV, I like the ESV and NASB and NIV too. I’ve been leaning towards ESV.

    I think if you want to debate AGAINST translations of scripture, take a look at “The Message” or the “Good News” translations. Those are two that really mess things up, as well as the JW Bible, Catholic Bible and Joseph Smith Jr. (Mormon) versions.

  7. Thanks for that info IC. Are you saying that KJV is also as “flawed” as the other renditions, therefore we ought not to be overly alarmed at mistranslations?

    I asked the person who left the quote what would he say to someone who says that who owns copyright, doesnt make the Bible wrong. You addressed that in a way.

    Now, I do happen to like reading the Message Bible, but I dont rely on it for my study.

  8. Are you saying that KJV is also as “flawed” as the other renditions, therefore we ought not to be overly alarmed at mistranslations?

    I think the 1611 KJV overall is reliable, but it has its flaws. I don’t think those flaws that I know of will harm anyone that goes 1611 KJV-only. But nobody should think the 1611 KJV is a perfect translation, it’s not. With the 1611 KJV, one of my MAJOR concerns is that today MOST people are not honestly fluent in reading 1611 text, so people are coming up with all sorts of false doctrines based on their inability to properly read the 1611 text. Also, when someone acts like the 1611 KJV is infallible, they resist being shown the truth about anything that might be a flaw in that translation.

    We should be alarmed about issues in translation, but we have to approach it knowing that even the KJV is NOT perfect it is NOT without errors. So it can’t always be viewed as the translation of excellence for every single verse and term. The fact the 1611 KJV uses the term “Easter” justifies the use of a pagan term, which is a bad idea.

    We have to accept that unless we are going to learn ancient Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, the translations we have vary in their degree of accuracy. While many don’t like to hear it, research of the manuscripts shows that a translation like NASB or ESV is probably closer to being accurate. However, the manuscripts used for the 1611 KJV came from a less sinful place than the manuscripts used for other versions. BUT the manuscripts used for translations like NASB and ESV are older sources that were better cross checked than the manuscripts used to make the 1611 KJV.

    Bottom line, pray before reading and admit you need the help of the Holy Spirit.

    The most respected translations like 1611 KJV, NASB and ESV all are clear that sin like homosexuality is wrong, God is triune in nature, Jesus Christ is the only hope for salvation via faith, the world was made in 7 days, there was a global flood because of man’s sin, Job was faithful even when God allowed Satan to take his stuff away, Christ was resurrected from the dead and so on. They all hit the points of sound doctrine when taken in full

    Most people who study Greek end up moving towards NASB or ESV. I’ve got Biblical Greek on my “way in the future to-do list” 😀 .

    I’ve found when debating with people in bad doctrines, it’s good to be able to make your case with MORE than just the 1611 KJV. It’s especially good if you can make your case using ESV, NIV and NASB translations, given translations other than 1611 KJV have the information if you’re willing to study it and you’ll learn a bit along the way.

    Work to make a sound case with scripture that reads similarly in all the major translations. As you learn them you’ll be able to roll with any of the major English translations and make a sound case rooted in scripture.

    The Message translation is one I like the least. It was made by 1 man who desired to excite his Sunday School class. Check the history yourself. Even the creator does not recommend using it as a sole source. I don’t use it at all personally. It’s not very well cross checked because one guy did it all for the sake of tickling ears in his Sunday School class. Joel Osteen and Creflo refer to the Message translation. Yet another strike. Pimps like those “exciting” words.

  9. I always use a NASB study Bible for studying. I would like to add I just bought a Holman CSB – THE APOLOGETICS STUDY BIBLE. It has been a great help, especially for studying the OT. Besides the many articles and notes in defending the faith, it uses the word ‘slave’ vs servant in the NT. Well done my good and faithful slave This in fact is the proper translation, we are slaves to Christ. I think it adds a deminsion to the message that can be missed when using the servant word. We were indeed bought and paid for and may only serve One master. The term should not be offensive, the folks in Jesus day were well aware of what slavery ment when He spoke it. Now we should also.

    With so much technonlogy and software cross referencing Greek and Hebrew words, we have never been in a better time to come to the truth with no excuses. But then again like IC points out, the age old problem will remain, if they have itchy ears somebody will indeed itch them, even calling it the word of gawd.

  10. LOL @ Mark: “word of gawd”

    Seriously though you make some great points along with IC and the others. We have to be careful that whatever version we are using is not an “itching ear” version catering to someone’s dislike of the truth.

    I consider myself a slave, servant and friend of Jesus Christ in that order. There are different contexts of each but all applicable.

  11. “However, the Papyri, which were discovered in the 1950’s, date back to A.D. 180-220 which are earlier than both the Vaticanus and Sinaicticus (A.D. 330). The Papyri support the reading in the King James Version (from the Textus Receptus). So, when they simply state that the Vaticanus and Sinaicticus are older than any other GREEK Manuscript they are being somewhat deceiving, for they lead the reader into believing that they are older than any other Biblical Manuscript – which they ARE NOT!”
    This is a quote from the article that we just read. IC keeps saying that the King James does not match up with the earlier texts when in fact it lines up with the oldest manuscripts that we have.

  12. forrest, please cite your source. Respected sources note that the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus both pre-date the Textus Receptus and I’ve seen no mentions of this that you mention. What has been found that is older than the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus has been found to be in agreement with the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.

    Papyri is a type of paper. If a new collection of papyri manuscripts were found, they should have a PXX number. What “papyri” are you talking about specifically?

    The New Testament is in GREEK in all discovered complete manuscripts, be it Textus Receptus, Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus or Bezae. So to say that there is no older GREEK means no older NEW TESTAMENT TEXT, which is where most debate exists. None of the Old Latin transcripts have a complete New Testament, but I await your source, to see if they are respected as being credible.

    Also regarding the 1611-KJV, there is debate over if the translators had a good grasp of Hebrew vocabulary.

    I did some searching and found that papyrus P75 (a copy of Luke and John dated c.175-200) has been shown to be in agreement with Vaticanus.

    Still the 1611-KJV is reliable overall and with all findings the tenants of the Christian faith all remain in agreement.

    I still use the NKJV mostly because I started with KJV (so my frame of recollection for wording has a KJV base) and the NKJV is the full text of the KJV with the words updated for modern English. Still I cross reference with the ESV and NASB often. Sometimes even the NIV. Only the NIV notes in Mark 12:41 that it was the TEMPLE TREASURY that people were putting money into, along with the widow who gave her last 2 mites. To fully explain that she was being robbed by the folks running the temple as Christ was describing in earlier verses in Mark 12. Without the mention of it being the “temple treasury”, some mislead people into thinking the old widow was giving to the treasury of Jesus because He was sitting opposite of it. Jesus never had kind words for those taking money at the temple. He never asked the widow to give her last. She was one who should have been receiving in alms, not giving up her last of all she had. She had faith, but was also being fleeced, by people who were not doing what the Lord desired be done and He did not like how they treated widows, her included.

    And today those who fleece saints run to Mark 12 as an example of how people should give to them. Give the last of all you have 🙄 … Give like the woman gave to Elijah when she was about to die… Only they never see that you receive anything after they pull that to fleece people. They use the text that explained a fleecing to do just that!

  13. I think that if any of the texts used were 100% without natural error, somebody would still use it as a means of hoodwinking people.

    I think the best example of that is satan who quoted Jesus scripture, but misinterpreted it because of his evil motives. Ultimately I would say that there is nothing wrong with the scriptures, but a lot wrong with the motivation of people’s hearts to misuse it for sinful purposes.

  14. IndependentConservative, thank you. I am so disgustingly tired of hearing KJV only folks who are essentially telling folks that they have to learn 17th century English in order to grow closer to God, or even know Him in the first place.

    I was raised as a Jehovah’s Witnesses and the greatest stumbling block that I had in coming to know Christ was Christians who put these hoops that I had to jump through in the way to getting to God. I can remember the first time that I read a true Bible in my heart language (Contemporary English Version). I could just read it and I didn’t have to get a dictionary out every few words. It felt like scales coming off of my eyes. There was so much there that I had never seen before.

    I do have issues with the NIV because of how it is marketed and how expensive it is. Not because it is a faulty translation. But, as you said, God can and will use the heathen for the benefit of the saints.

    Thank you for a well thought out and written response to foolish arguments.

    To those who push this illogical, un-Biblical, un-Christlike belief, that to know God you must change who you are and how you communicate to know God, I would remind you of the Parable of the Prodigal Son. You are the older son. Stop complaining about how your younger brother has failed and sinned, and embrace him just as your Father does. He loves him more than you will ever know.

  15. Oops, wrong URL. By the way, for those who might ask, I am a Christian now. No thanks to “KJV only” folks, of course! 🙂

    It was when an awesome Christian woman sat down with me on the phone for 7 hours as we poured over the KJV, NKJV, NWT (JW Bible), NIV, NLT, Darby, and another version I can’t remember now, and we went over dozens of key verses in the Bible when I started to realize that what I had been taught wasn’t true.

    Which brings up a good point, just because someone you trust told you something, doesn’t mean you should believe it. Especially if they only believe it because someone else they trust told them they should. This just creates a chain of untruth. This makes us a people of Lemmings.

    A hears an untruth, but for some reason believes it.
    A tells B, B trusts A and doesn’t question it, B believes A.
    B tells C, C trusts B and doesn’t question it, C believes B.
    C tells D, D trusts C and doesn’t question it, D believes C.
    D tells E, E trusts D and doesn’t question it, E believes D.
    E tells F, F trusts E and doesn’t question it, F believes E.
    F tells G, G trusts F and doesn’t question it, G believes F.
    G tells H, H trusts G and doesn’t question it, H believes G.
    H tells I, I trusts H and doesn’t question it, I believes H.

    But I start to ask myself if I am really sure that H knows what he’s talking about, even though I trust him and respect him. I research it the situation for myself and find out that everything I thought I knew wasn’t right.

    Now I am charged with the responsibility of teaching all these before me the truth. Ignorance trully is bliss.

    Many people sincerely believe false things, but that does not change the truthfulness of what they believe. The object of faith, the content, is what determines whether a religion is true or false, not the sincerity of its adherents. – Doug Powell

  16. Question.are you all aware of the book “king james and the history of homosexuality” are you aware that this is the same king james who commisioned the bibles writing and given that he was a homosexual do you think its possible that some of his lifestyle was transcribed into the writings since that is what homosexuals do they inculcate their acts into every aspect of their lives.

  17. gcmwatch can you please elucidate?

    GCMW: From my understanding KJ only commissioned the translation, but had no hand in the actual writing any of the translated texts himself. That’s why its unlikely that any of his personal sexual proclities ended up in the Bible. Every passage in the book condemns homosexuality in clear language.

  18. i asked this question because isaiah 37 and 2nd kings 19 read word for word the same and in a book called “the secret teachings of all ages” by manly p.hall ;he goes into the translation which was actually done by william shakespeare(group) and the reasoning behind the subtleties on ommision i pray you get a chance to read this work because it seemed to shed a great deal of light on the subject

Comments are closed.