The title is tongue in cheek, but does seem to be a strong contention for many christians.

Typically, there are those who feel only the KJV is acceptable, and no other bible is ok at all. Typically, the stance also follows that the KJV is actually better than the original languages the bible was written in. Better, as in from God, that it is more true than the original language.

The NIV is sometimes thought better since the translations were made from documents older than the ones used for the KJV. That's thought that since they are older, there is less time for them to alter copies from the original documents. I am not aware of any significant movement for those who use the NIV to suggest only the NIV is authorized, but that other translation, including KJV, can be used.

For those not familar with the background of the 1611 KJV,



The 1611 edition does include the Apocrypha, a series of books that is not in later editions of the KJV. The only other bible I know that includes the Apocrypha books is the Douay-Rhymes version which is used by catholics.

Also those who are not aware, there are different editions of the KJV. Typically, the 1769 edition is the one used, since it is the ones that has corrected the mistakes that were in all the previous editions. All KJV that were editions not from 1611, do not include the apocrypha books.

I think Mentat was reffering to a 1769 edition of the 1611 KJV. (And yes I know that sounds odd) Perhaps he will clarify.

"Reasonable guidelines" leaves a lot of leeway, such as I mentioned on the other thread.

But the bible you are reading is not in the original tongue. It is due to an educated man that the translation to a language you can read the bible at all. If you are educated enough to read the original, then let's make the comparison to the "common" man who cannot read several languages. We do need to rely on people more learned then ourselves. Quite simply not every common man has the ability to read several languages and study history to know the use of word as they way it would have been used back then. For example, without knowledge of the way insect feet were counted, the common man would think the writer cannot count.

It also occurs to me that the KJV has a language that is not fully clear. Many people use a second book to understand some of the odd words that are no longer used in today's language. In other words, the common man does not understand some of these words, and need educated assistance from those who have studied history of the old style english.

Well there are many Bibles the Jerusalem Bible is one I find very well done and accurate in areas such as the Book of Genesis, the KJV (severl versions) and the NIV. I find except for those created by the fringe ,such as The Way Bible, are quite accurate. All use differnent styles of translation and unless one can read Hebrew and Greek we must rel on Godly translators doing their best. I think it strange any endeavor blessed by God should have any errors so grave a Bible cannot be used.

But I must add is not a Bible meant to be read by the common secular man its not supposed to be difficult to read but in a form you, I and the janitor down the street can read. The Catholics used to forbid reading the Bible by limiting all copies to the Latin a tongue known to clergy, wealthy mervchants and tradesman and the nobility all who could afford to learn the language. The protestant reformation was a direct move to give the Word to the hands of common people so THEY can study the scriptures themselves. The older KJV Bible is no longer easy to read to the modern reader as much as I adore the language even I with a college education and experience have trouble in spots. I think requiring the KJV 1611 as the only text smacks of elitism and goes against the reasons for the protestant movement. We are to have a Bible that breathes and lives and can be read by all to glorify God.

Then there is another problem every translation to a native language other than English surely if deciphering and scribing the holy words is hard to English. Putting those same words in French, Japanese or Hindi is even more of a challenge. Is it not better than to take the scrioptures and using all the skills of the translators guided by God they translate the text into a native language. Surely God if He didn't mind the Torah in Hebrew, New Testament in Greek and the earliest assembled Bibles in Latin is not offended by doing a translation in a modern language.

That's an interesting point. It becomes difficult for the KJV only argument, since anyone who can't speak english could not read the KJV without a translation, and therefore that would mean much of the world would be forced to use a translation that is different than the KJV original.

The irony is that what we call the 'old king james' is not the 1611 edition at all.  Back in 1611 words were spelled differently, so it looks like there are a whole bunch of misspellings.

If God really re-inspired the bible in 1611 why did we need to edit / spell check  it?

Thank you, everyone.

Yes, Rogue is correct. I am referring to the 17th century version. The other versions underwent several spelling and grammatical corrects, the only one of any doctural significance was when a passage in Psalms was changed from "good" to "God" and that error was corrected within the lifetime of many of the KJV's authors. Once corrected the rest of the passage made a lot more sense.

The grammatic and spelling errors are actually of very little significance, barring the one just mentioned. Why? Because most of the people who actually recorded the Bible's passages and preserved them were NOT scholars or scribes. They were common believers who had almost no training in how to write, and because of this their writing tend to be dismissed as inferior. Much of the Textus Receptus was actually formed from these peoples writings. Brave on there part too. Greek at one point was actually proclaimed by the Catholic church to be the language of the Devil. (This was largely responsible for the Dark Ages.) Guess what many of the New Testament writings available at that time were written in? The fact that they have spelling/grammer errors does not diminish the idea that the writings are divinely inspired. All it does is prove that a common man believed in them enough to risk death over writing on a scrap of whatever they wrote it on. Even tanned fur was used.

I wouldn't have any problem with an update to the Bible's Middle English. Yes, it is cumbersome and some words in it could use a serious update. However, not everyone who writes the Bible does so with a true heart in mind. I know that may shock more than a few people here and really get me put under heavy fire, but know this: the Bible, the Word of God, has been Satan's primary target for about 7000 years now. Give or take a millinia or two. Men are offended by the idea that God may send a soul who falls short of His standard to an everlasting lake of fire. They presume God is joking or their must be some kind of mistake in the translation. Read the NIV. Nearly every mention of damnation or Hell has been removed. Lucifer is NOT mentioned by that name in the Book of Isaiah, no doubt leading some of you to wonder what the heck I was talking about in earlier passages. Instead, he is referred to as the morning star, and is cast down to earth, not hell.

The absence of Hell or damnation informs me that the authors of several of the modern versions are not interested in preserving the Word of God. It tells me that they want a Bible that agrees with what they want to believe. In fact, it was the threat of damnation which motivated God to take a finate form and die for us in the first place. Without the threat of divine punishment, the whole "he died for your sins" thing actually becomes rather pointless and stupid. I speak from the perspective of someone who once thought Christians in general were self-deluded and stupid.

In point of fact, nearly all moderrn spinoffs of the KJV don't use the Textus Receptus as their guide. They use the Westcott-Hort version, which in turn borrow nearly all of their ideas from just two sources: Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus (I may have mispelled these). These two were regarded as false in their own time, taking 900 years for a man to get desparate enough to prove God wrong to dig them up and use them again. Vaticanus is accurate when it comes to Old Testament, but cannot be trusted with the New. Indeed, the last passage i the Book of Mark is missing. There's even a large blank space where the passage should be, implying that the author knew about it and ignored it anyways. As for Sinaiticus, it was rescued from a trash can and was found with markings proving that it had been "corrected" several times, as one author modified the other's work.

As for the Apocrypha, note that in the New Testament, neither Christ nor any disciple following in his wake ever quotes them as scripture. This is because while they were well-known in his time to all who studied the Word of God, whether or not they were divinely inspired was a matter of question. The Scriptures may astonish at times, but it is consistant with itself if nothing else. The Apocrypha, being of questionable inspiration, was later removed from the KJV as England offically broke its ties with Catholicism altogether.

If it could be done with a pure heart, and an intent of keeping the Word of God true to itself, than I would take a different tune. I don't see any evidence of this happening however, and as a result I'll choose to read a clumsy dead language for my scripture rather than trust writings from men unwilling to take a honest look at there own hearts.

So, what did I miss or fail to address?

You realize that you have just said translations are ok into other languages, but have pointed out earlier, translations into modern english is not ok?

Again, if it could be done with a true heart, I'd sing a different tune. The point is one of distrust. I wrote in another post that doubt is first line of defense against the devil. I am exercising that doubt. Christ himself wrote that there would be wolves in sheep's clothing rising up among the flock. That is how I view the authors of many of the variants. They are aiming to glorify themselves at the expense of God's followers.

I don't think it's quite clear. KJV went through updates, and changes to match the language as it changed.

Why can't other bibles be translated into updated english like the KJV was? It's still a bit unclear why translators can translate just fine into non english languages, but not english. Should we distrust anything not in english?

To add to the problem, you stated mistakes aren't a huge issues for minor stuff, only doctrine issues. Would that allow for modern bibles that are not different in doctrine?

I don't think it's clear why other bibles are from satan? Does the bible say that anything translated from old english is from the devil? Or something else from modern man is stating this idea? Does the bible refer to the wolf in sheep clothing speaking modern english? How do you bring that verse up and say it is a reference to modern english?


Lots of questions, I know.

I think you meant 18th century? 1769.

According to what you said, not anyone does so with a true heart. However, it was clear the KJV was updated several times, so updating shouldn't be an issue. Why update it? Because it needed to be.

I have read quite a few translations, I have never been given the impression that hell is a joke, nor a mistake about the eternity of hell. More detail should be spent on the differences you mention, and I will come back to that later.

I am under the impression you are stating that hell or damnation does not exist in non KJV bibles?

It's not the langauge of modern English or old English, or any language for that matter. It's the authors of these modern variants who I find questionable in their intent. Mankind seeks honor and glory. It is what we are willing to do to get this that makes life...interesting, to put it lightly.

And in many variants, yes. The NIV does diminish the seriousness of Hell and the significance of the Bible itself for that matter. Check me if I've quoted this little gem from the NIV properly:

"...and the word was a god."

John 1:1. Probably slurred a bit on my part, but I distinctly recall that "a" followed by a little case "god."
This message was last edited by the player at 21:13, Mon 15 Jan 2007.

That's not in the NIV. That's NWT, New World Translation. That is a Jehovah Witness edition, and is to be read with non biblical writing.
As to NIV and hell, I'm not sure why you say that. Hell is quite final according to the bible.

Earlier, you spoke of speaking of hell and damnation less, but does that mean there are blank pages about hell that are not included with NIV?

Lastly, why are the modern translators questionable in intent for english, but these same modern translators are not questionable when in a different language? They are still translating, and using different words that could change the meaning.

What about the New KJV which uses the same documents as the KJV to translate into a more current english?
This message was last edited by the GM at 23:50, Mon 15 Jan 2007.

Actually, it should be noted that the original KJV had name changes, and missing words that changed some of the meaning. It was made clear after the fact, but really, the KJV made numerous editions to correct the errors. The purpose of this intent was to provide a bible the common man could read. The KJV translators continued to update to keep it readable to the common man. I think they would have agreed that making it readable to the common man still applies. Since they updated it regularly, why all of a sudden should they stop, and not allow updates to language?

Well, obviously there is not an elimination of anything of hell or damnation. You are referring to the actual names attributed to hell. In other words, the suffering and eternal punishment is still in reference to the final judgment, to a fiery lake of sulfur, etc. That's not a removal of hell, nor damnation.

As to Isaiah, you're referring to Isaiah 14:12 where it mentions the word mornigstar, instead of the KJV which says lucifer. You're suggesting the NIV is to mean morningstar is not lucifer. In the Wycliffe english dictionary stated lucifer meant morningstar.

Here's a better link which details it over and over about how many references of bibles previous to the KJV pointed out lucifer meant morningstar.
http://www.kjv-only.com/isa14_12.html
The conclusion being that morningstar is accurate.

To clarify, it is not the elimination of the concept, but translating to words used in copies closer tot he times of Jesus.

And we know the translators of the KJV had hell and damnation correctly because it matches who's belief? Realistically speaking, since you later point out that the NIV uses documents older than the ones used by KJV, that actually points out the words hell and damnation was added after the fact.


The Textus Receptus was a bible printed in 1516. The Codex Sinaiticus and Codex  Vaticanus are both from the 4th century. Which means between  years 300 and 399. That's a difference of about 1200 years sooner to the time Jesus walked and spoke the words they were copying.

Better still, the NIV and other modern editions had access to the older documents, and the documents used for the KJV. The KJV did not have the older documents to help them out.


  Could you provide evidence they were considered false, and one found in a trash can.



I don't disagree the apocrypha shouldn't be there.  However, that is one major change in the original KJV. A change of hundreds of thousands of words.

It's been two weeks, but I'm finally ready to respond.

Question: does the Word of God need to be preserved or restored? This question will need to be answered before wither side can be proven right or wrong. But for the time being, my stance is going to be one of preservation. That is, we already have access to God's undiluted Word, and all evidence anyone gathers will simply reinforce this.

Thankfully, I don't have to defend the KJV any further. I've already asked that others show me all the flaws they could bring up, and the one's that I personally didn't have an answer for were either solved by others who had an answer or they were meaningless in scope (see prior threads for details). Thus, my task is purely one of offense. Proving beyond resonable doubt that the NIV is, at the most generous, inferior to the KJV 1611.

I'll start with some passages, comparing one to the other, and I will clearly demonstrate where the NIV left out select words and passages.

COL:14
KJV= In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
NIV= In whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.

MAT 5:44
KJV= But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them that despitefully use you, and persecute you;
NIV= But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.

MAT 9:13
KJV= ...for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
NIV= ...for I have not come call the righteous but sinners.

1CO 5:7
KJV= Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us.
NIV= Get rid of the old yeast that you may be a new batch without yeast as you really are. For Christ our passover lamb, has been sacrificed.

MAT 19:9
KJV= ...Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
NIV= ..anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness and marries another woman commits adultery.

MAT 20:16
KJV= So the last shall be first and the first last: for many be called but few chosen.
NIV= So the last will be first, and the first will be last.

MAT 23:14
KJV= Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.
NIV= (If this is in there without a footnote explaining its own potentially dubious nature, please inform me.)

MAR 10:21
KJV= ...and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.
NIV= ...give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.

MAR 10:24
KJV= ...Children, how hard it is for them that trust in riches to enter the kingdom of God.
NIV= ...Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God.

MAR 11:26
KJV= But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses.
NIV= (See MAT 23:14)

JOH 6:47
KJV= Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
NIV= I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life.

1TI 6:5
KJV= Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.
NIV= And constant friction between men of corrupt mind, who have been robbed of the truth and who think that godliness is means to financial gain.

Now in my experience twelve people can get a man put to death, if they happen to be in the right place. I've left the usual smart aleck taunts that would accompany each one of these comparisons normally to demonstrate just how serious I am being about this. But I'm just getting warmed up. I've saved destructive number thirteen for dead last.

Isaiah 14:12, 15
KJV= How thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!
     ...Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell.
NIV= How you have fallen from heaven O morning star, son of the dawn
     ...but you are brought down to the grave.

The New American Standard and all of the modern version read almost exactly like the NIV on this passage (except the NKJV). Yet historically this passage has been cited as the sole biography and identification of Lucifer. The new versions have removed the name "Lucifer" thereby eliminating the only reference to his true identity in the entire Bible. This is not a result of transation either.

Now I've been avoiding the language card, but not because I can't match that field myself. I have been avoiding it because it is a belief of mine that a man should use his faith to spread the Gospel, not his knowledge. And besides, it would leave many who have no information of such things confused. However, there comes a time when false knowledge is spread, and men follow it because it is more lovely than the truth. This should not be permitted.

The Hebrew here is helel, ben shachar, which translates "Lucifer, son of the morning." The NIV, NASB, etc. read as though the Hebrew was kokab shachar, ben shachar or "morning star, son of the dawn" (or "son of the morning" thus disagreeing with each other). But not only is the Hebrew word for star (kokab) nowhere to be found in the text, but "morning" appears only once as given in the KJB-not twice as the modern versions indicate. Moreover, the word kokabis translated as "star" dozens of other times by the translators of these new so-called bibles. Their editors also know that kokab boqer is "morning star" for it appears in plural form in Job 38:7. Had the Lord intended "morning star" in Isaiah 14, He could have avoided confusion altogether by repeating kokab boqer there. God's choice of the word helel (Hebrew for Lucifer) is unique as it appears nowhere else in the Old Testament.

Lucifer (helel) does not mean "morning star." It is Latin (from lux or lucis=light and fero=to bring) meaning "bright one", "light bearer" or "light bringer." Due to the brightness of the planet Venus, from ancient times the word "Lucifer" (helel) has been associated in secular and pagan works with that heavenly body.

I believe Revelation 22:16 has an interesting comment on that. I wonder if it's in the NIV...

Most of my ammo has been generously supplied by Floyd Nolen Jones, author of Which Version is The Bible? I'll should only need one source, who in turn relied on dozens of other sources, too numerous for me to have the patience to recount here.

I'm done for now.

But here is my question what does it matter?

Both editions the KJV and the NIV don't change the FUNDAMENTAL Gospel Message do they?

That Man was born sinful after the Fall, that Jesus was born of the line of David, lived a sinless life God and Man together born of a virgin, was persecuted, died, descended to Hell to declar His victory over death, rose from the dead and ascended to heaven. And that through this sacrifice all mankind is saved from damnation.

Show me where the NIV gets that wrong so badly its not there. That is what is imprtant is it not?

"Where are you going with this?" is the summary of your statement, Ruby.

Simple. If the message is incomplete, than it is NOT the uncorrupted word of God. The message needs to be reconstructed. And that is exactly what I was referring to at the beginning of my latest passage. Do you believe the Word of God need to be preserved or reconstructed? If it has not been preserved, than Mark 13:31, "Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away." was utter bullcrap. If the Word of God cannot be understood by any save those who devote their lives to deciphering ancient language, than it is quite dead.

The message of God as written in the KJV is quite straightforward. John 6:47. Compare the sacrifice of Christ as being akin to the brass serpent in the Book of Joshua. All you have to do is look at it and you will not die. That's it. Believe in the sacrifice of Christ for your sins, and be saved. Don't, and it's hell for you. I didn't make the punishment, but it sure is easy as pie to escape. It is actually every lawyer's dream, now that I think about it.

I have demonstrated that the NIV is, at it's best, misguided and at it's worst a deliberate tool of disception. As God inspires, so does Lucifer. I'm not sure what image is in peoples minds when they envision such an evil act. This is the same entity that inspired the serpent to tempt Eve. Historically, he is not an overt enemy.

If this message is indeed preserved by those who have used the NIV as their guide to God, than I am impressed. But I do not see it. The point is that the message is lost. How many people calling themselves Christians live by faith alone? How many trust their own works more than the sacrifice of Christ to save them from hell? And, on a side note, how many people have said "while MY bible says differently?" These confusions should be eliminated. God is truth, and truth does not confuse.

So...is his name Lucifer, or helel?  Didn't the writers of the KJV hide his "true" identity by giving him a new name?  Shouldn't they have called him "helel," since that is his true name?  Why should they have translated "helel" into a latin word that "from ancient times" meant Venus, but not translate helel into english words which in modern times mean Venus?

The problem here seems to be that you think "Lucifer" is the correct English translation of "helel."  But as you pointed out yourself, it's a latin derivative.  And its meaning, at the time it was translated in the KJV, was a colloquial term for Venus.  At the time of the translating of the NIV, they put "helel" into the English words that mean the exact same thing: a colloquial term Venus.

As for your response Ruby, is it fair to say that your arguement can be summarized as follows:

The bible says that the bible will "pass away."
If the bible needs updating, it has already "passed away."
Therefore, anyone who tries to update the bible is in the wrong.

If this is your arguement, how do you explain the KJV in the first place?  You say "If the Word of God cannot be understood by any save those who devote their lives to deciphering ancient language, than it is quite dead."  But for a very long time, this was precisely the case.  The bibles were all in latin, unreadable by anyone who didn't devote their lives to deciphering an ancient language.

Another way you state your arguement is:  "If the message is incomplete, than it is NOT the uncorrupted word of God."  with the implied conclusion, "therefore the message cannot be incomplete."  Your arguement is invalid unless you start with the a priori knowledge that what you have is the uncorrupted word of God.  Why do you reject the possibility that no one has access to the uncorrupted word of God in the first place?  What makes you sure that the bible, in any version, isn't the product of fallible human beings?

That's the danger of the NIV, I think.  Lucifer was symbolic in several senses, including references to a ruler at that time.  So to try to change it to anything else ruins the intended symbolism of the author.

But "Lucifer" wasn't the word used by the author, as Mentat has pointed out.  If changing "lucifer" for "Star of morning" destroys the symbolism, I don't see how changing "helel" to "Lucifer" doesn't do so as well.  In both cases, the word "helel" is being translated into something that has the meaning "venus."  If Mentat is saying the name shouldn't be translated, I could perhaps agree.  But if he's saying "Lucifer" is the word of God, and "star of morning" isn't, I think his logic is flawed.

Using the KJV only advocacy I would say if you want the exact words then everyone should learn Hebrew and Greek and read them in the original languages. I think the general arguement is silly if the translation is a Godly one and the NIV was done by learned scholars who are of faith unless you can prove me wrong. Then its a just translation.

I must add a friend is translating the Bible into Hindi and the language wording is hard its just going to not be precise to the language. She says in this case you have to try and be as precise as the languages allow this includes concepts like even lamps and the like the locals can understand. She at least says YOUR interpretation would mean the English on KJV could be used. Most poor people are lucky to READ English a little in parts of India. Now Hindi is taught much more so that is the Bible language translation that must be used. To force it the other way keeps the Word from the people its meant for. And the Protestant Reformation started by Luther was OPPOSED to having the Bible for just the educated classes in Latin. His first Bible a good translation was in German! So was HIS Bible unworthy?

Well, I do agree with that. We have original languages, and the people who are able to really understand what is meant when they use a word that is different than how we use it today. A simple example would to hear your great grandfather being described as gay. Today that means homosexual. Back then, he was simply a happy or joyful person. That happens all the time. That is why the translations were put into english in the first place. So we could understand the intent.

Respectfully, I stopped presenting additional points when you didn't respond to earlier questions. If you're up for more, I'll present more. It's a difficult stance to defend, as Jesus, nor disciples took the stance of KJV only. It's not a biblical concept, and needs non biblical sources to back it up.

I will agree that the NIV has not all the same words as KJV. As we have both pointed out, the NIV used books older than the ones the KJV used. In other words, the translators did not add words to the older texts they found. They translated what was in those older texts.

But because the NIV differes from KJV does not mean the NIV is flawed.

Look at it this way. Saying the NIV is flawed because it differs from KJV, is the same argument that can be used by picking any text, and comparing to any other. I know the KJV is flawed, because when compared to the NIV, the KJV has added words that aren't even in the oldest of bibles. I don't actually believe the KJV is flawed, simply different. I'm just presenting the flaw in your argument.

I believe that is called circular reasoning.

If you look at the link I provided when I pointed out that it is more accurate to say morningstar, you'll see many proof of this. Included was a picture of a 1611 bible that had a side note of daystarre where it spoke lucifer.

In the 1672 edition of the KJV, it pointed out in the margin, "for the morning star that goeth before the sun is called Lucifer"

 When I looked at my Strong's hebrew and greek translation, I found the word translated as morningstar, lucifer.  At this point of your post, your biggest evidence that the NIV and others got it wrong, was because they translated the word directly from hebrew to english, rather than hebrew to latin to english.
http://strongsnumbers.com/hebrew/1966.htm

I understand this arguemnt. You're taking an english word morning, and translating it to Hebrew. Then you take an english word star, and translate it to hebrew. So the logic states that is what should appear. However, when you look at the original Hebrew, and the word, (Which is actually hêylêl), which originates from halal, it means a variety of different things. Some of which include boastful, and to shine.
http://strongsnumbers.com/hebrew/1966.htm

Use the link to verify yourself.

You are correct, Lucifer is from latin.

I believe you're trying to reference Jesus being spoken of the morningstar. And Jesus is called a morningstar. However, morningstar is not a reference to Jesus alone.

Let's look at KJV Job 38:7
7When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? Morningstars, plural. This is not a refernce to Jesus and Satan being brothers. This is a reference to the term morningstar to other angelic beings.

I realize that you have used an educated man who does a lot of research to back his points up. Plenty of people do. Nothing wrong with using people who have taken the time to become educated in these fields in order to provide for those who do not have the time to educate themselves in all fields. The original authors of the KJV felt this way as well, and wanted to provide the results of this knowledge to the common man.

Some questions that weren't addressed

That's what I'm talking about.  The original word used was used to describe a Babylonian king.


The original says:  "heleyl, ben shachar" which can be literally translated "shining one, son of dawn."

So to answer your question, I wouldn't trust either translation.

I disagree to some extent because Lucifer came from Jerome's Latin Vulgate, and was a correct translation for that time.  Lucifer did not mean Satan until after Jerome's time, so Lucifer is a correct translation too...except for the meaning that Lucifer has come to mean to us now.

Therefore, the error in translation does not occur until many years after it was translated due to a shift in the language.

***

So to get back to the question, Lucifer DID have the meaning of "God of Light" to the ancient Romans even before Jerome.

Contrast this to the way Christians later interpret it as "Angel of Light."  Some have said that this is a way the Christian world whitewashes the ancient polytheistic beliefs of the Jews...i.e. that there were multiple gods, but that they should worship only one.

Why not use "helel"?  Well, helel is the base root of the word for which we get "hallelujah."  So today it may not be the best word to use in that context.

Also, using Lucifer to mean devil gives some credence to New Testament scripture:

2 Corinthians 11:14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.

Luke 10:18-19  And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.

And the symbolism in Revelations where John talks about the devil sweeping down and taking with him a third of the stars of heaven.

So Helel and Shahar were Babylonian astral deities, and we have symbolism both for the deity and for the king.  So the reference is saying that even the Babylonian gods cannot save the king, and will themselves be cast down.
This message was last edited by the GM at 23:08, Mon 29 Jan 2007.

Heath: Are you certain that it is just allegory? I believe that the passage in Isaiah is quite clear that it is the devil. It is not some king on earth, who has been dead for centuries. This passage is extremely important because it ID's the enemy. This is the same entity that tempted Christ in the desert about 1000 years after Isaiah had this prophecy.
   As for that reference to "shining one," I honestly do not have an answer as of now. This is the primary reason I've avoided the language issue. To have an explaination as to why the scribes responsible for the KJV chose that particular choice of words eludes me. I'm willing to wait until I have more ammo before I get back to that one. However, the implication that no word can be trusted brings up an interesting point. If nothing can be trusted, then God's Word is in fact lost. If that is the case, then the teachings of God as I have come to understand them are crap, and Satan is absolutely correct. God would be flawed under those circumstances, because he failed to keep His promise about preserving His Word.
   I do not see an error in the translation regarding Lucifer's identity. He is exactly what the Bible says he is (Isaiah 14:12-17), nothing more or less. A fallen angel, who sought to put himself above God, who gets cast down into hell. This is both a past event and a future to come. That's Lucifer's entire life as God has foreseen it. Beginning to end. Really a scary thought if you happen to be Lucifer. But unless Lucifer repents towards God, this is it. In Isaiah 14:18 he shifts from referring to Lucifer (or Satan, if you prefer; if I recall, it means "enemy of God" and would thus be acceptable as an interchangable term for the same entity) to the kings of the nations. The understanding of the topic shift makes the rest of that passage a little more sensible, and maintains consistancy throughout the Bible.
   As for Christians whitewashing the Bible, I actually have to give you a Tip of the Hat for pointing that out. The Bible does in fact speak of gods, entities of very real power. In Exodus, do you honestly think God was opposing imaginary beings? What force could have turned the Egyptian priests' staves into serpents (which were promptly eaten by the staff of Moses)? Perhaps God was opposing himself for amusement.
   Yeah, that explaination makes perfect nonsense.
   As for "helel" being the base word for "hallejujah," why not? Lucifer is a fallen angel. But I didn't choose the wording for the Bible. I have the trust that thousands of scribes with access to material across the board had some reason for using the wording that they did. And yes, I am banking my faith on the idea that they weren't foolish or wicked. If they were, then mankind truly is lost, because I have not encountered anything else that I haven't blown massive holes through.
   It's funny, actually. I asked for an attack on the validity on the KJV 1611, and now I get one. About bloody time, if you ask me.

Rogue4jc: Your use of the word "gay" is actually pulled right out of my mind as a valid reason as to exactly why Modern English would be an inappropriate medium for translating the word of God. Middle English is a dead language. What a word in that language means today, it will mean in a century. On the other hand, who here can foresee the shifts our current language will take. Few indeed, and none who are posting here today.
  Yes, I have deliberately avoided replying to earlier points. I simply required some time to pave a landing zone for the rest of my arguement. Thank you for your patience.
   I have shown not only where they differ, but I have presented twelve passages where words have been omitted, not altered. In fact, entire passages condemning the priesthood of his time, an explaination of exactly what it is that is redeeming us, who this savrifice was for and why it was done. As I have stated earlier, by themselves they may have been insignificant. Add them up, and what I have shown you is merely the tip of the iceberg.
   Shall I present more? More areas where the Word of God has been added and subtracted frequently? How much does the Bible need to be altered before it becomes clear that the message is NOT being preserved? All additions made in the KJV AV 1611 are italicized so they can be recognized for what they are. Does the NIV grant the same courtesy? I already know the answer to this last question, so don't bother answering it.
   That is not circular reasoning in the slightest. I am stating that the NIV is not preserving the message of God. You have also quoted proof of this. I fail to see where such omissions can be considered "preservation." I call it "butchery."
   I used your site to back track to "helel" or "halal" or however the hell it is spelled. There are many meaning given, and one of them just happens to be "give (light)."
   What a coincidence.
   You are correct about "morningstars" refering to angels. That is obvious given the text it is used in. "The bright and morning star" used in Rev 22:16 is singular, not plural. It is referring to a particular, that can be traced back to Rev 2:28 (referring neither to a weapon, to Lucifer or a long and dead king) and II Peter 1:19 (although here, interestingly enough, it has been translated as day star. Neither one are references to Lucifer. Invariably, they are referring to angelic forces. In fact, such an observation only demonstrates that the "morning star" referred in the NIV should be viewed as a direct assualt on Christ and the angels themselves. "Cut down to the grave" indeed! At best, in the most favorable light, this is the identification of Lucifer as a specific being is eliminated.
   What's a common phrase I hear from the clergy? "The greatest trick the devil performed was convincing the world he did not exist." Not scripture to be certain, but pretty sound observation to me. I wonder if such confusion as this NIV passage has helped clear that up.
   I have answered two out of your three questions already. I have saved one for last.
   Vaticanus B. For those who do not know what this is, it is a Greek manuscript written on vellum containing 759 pages, each being 10 1/2 x 10 1/2 inches. It adds to the Bible as it includes the Old Testament Apocrrypha. It contains the Epistle of Barnabas (part of the NT Apocrypha) which teaches that water baptism saves the soul, which is utter crap. However, this little manuscript (V-B) also deletes the Word as it does not include: Genesis 1:1-46:28, Psalms 106-138, Matthew 16:2-3, Romans 16:24 and it lack Pual's pastoral epistles (Timothy 1 and 2, Titus and Philemon). Missing are Revelation as well as Hebrew 9:15-13:25 which teaches that the once for all sacrifice of Jesus ended the sacraments forever. There is also a blank space left at Mark 16:9-20, indicting that the writer knew of its existance and simply didn't write it in.
   Sinaiticus A, also known as Sinaiticus Aleph. Discovered in 1844, has 147 1/2 pages, each page being 13 1/2 x 15 inches. It adds the Sheperd of Hermas and Barnabas to the NT. It omits John 5:4, 8:1-11; Matthew 16:2-3, Romans 16:24, Mark 16:9-20, I John 5:7, Acts *:37 and about a dozen other verses.
   Both of these, interestingly enough, read John 1:18 the same way: that Jesus was the only begotten "God" instead of the only begotten "Son." Nicoletian heresy at its finest. This translated would means that God had a little God named Jesus who is thus a lesser God than his father.
   Thus Jesus comes out as a created being, a God with a little "g," but at the incarnation a god was NOT begotten. God begat a son, who insofar as God is concerned, is quite eternal (Micah 5:2).
   These two were copied around 350-380 AD. Constantine ordered these copies prepared for him in 331. Fifty to eighty years of work sounds like a reasonable time frame. The material that Jerome used (Origen Hexapla and, in places, his related NT) was almost word for word like Sinaiticus A and, especially, Vaticanus B.
   Helvidus, a great orthodox scholar of the fourth century and a contemporary of Jerome's, accursed him of using corrupted Greek manuscripts. Jerome was using Origen's work and from the he created the Latin Vulgate. Likewise, Aleph and B have their roots in Origen, having drawn heavily from his work. Thus Helvidus condemns them all, for even in his day those documents were known to be corrupt.


So, what did I miss?

Who can say for sure?  It may be ID'ing Satan, but that's why I was suggesting multiple layers of symbolism, making me even more hesitant to start changing wording.

In other words, it may be a symbol of the ancient gods, and also a symbol for Satan imbedded in multiple symbolic meaning.  The Jews very commonly did just that.

I agree with you, but the point is that this is stuff that comes out in the New Testament, and the claim is that Jerome or others translating wanted to also insert such a meaning into the OT text to create a smooth flow of meaning, as I quoted above.


Not so palatable.

Even the KJV authors did not have that view. They updated and corrected word use in each addition so that people could read it clearly and understand it with the intention. They included notes to explain as well.

So your reasons are not what the KJV authors intended. They intended to make it readable and understandable to the readers of the day, including updating to fit the times.

Another problem is that while you suggest that a middle english no longer has changed it's meaning, with the word gay, I have just shown that the meaning has changed. Gay is not a modern word. The added meaning to the word is modern. This happens even with middle english. New meanings added that were not intended. While we don't speak with thee's and thou's, that doesn't change there are still verses in the KJV that cannot be understood by just reading the bible alone in today's age. The words do not always mean the same thing they were intended to mean.

I don't think I quite understand what is said in that part. My first reading makes it appear as if your saying that the NIV is suggesting something other than the KJV. I'm not sure what or how you can show this. I can go to the NIV and show many times how it's the blood of Jesus that was required for our salvation. But it appears you are saying that the NIV suggests far different things than the KJV speaks of.

If I go that correct, why don't we go over one point at a time. You point out where the NIV is lacking something the KJV is strong on. For example, you said that NIV didn't say the blood of Jesus was required, or something like that when comparing two verses from the NIV and KJV. So I would then point out several verses where it clearly speaks of how it is the blood of Jesus that is required using the NIV.

If I go that wrong altogether, then I would need clarification what you meant.

It would be good at this point to back that up. Could you show where the NIV is adding to the bible?

If you refer to omitting items, then as we both have said, they translated what was contained in those texts that are much closer to the times of Jesus.


 
Actually, by circular, I meant you stated that the KJV was correct, and not the NIV, because it did not contain the same things in the KJV. By the same process, one could say the NIV was correct, and that the KJV was wrong. The proof for the KJV being wrong is because it doesn't match the NIV.

That is what circular means.

However, we have both agreed that the texts used in the translations of the NIV were indeed much much older. They did not include all the words that are in the much much later editions. That means the much much later editions had words added to them.

So a large flaw to the problem right now, is that you agree the JKV was allowed to be updated through several editions, but at what point was it no longer allowed? Would an 1850 KJV edition be correct?



  Uhm...the NIV speaks clearly of the devil satan. The NIV very clearly speaks of this evil, dark fallen angel that has rebelled against God, and wants to do everything he can to make us suffer with him.

If you agree that morningstar does not reference only Jesus, then why did you hint it did before by directing us to revelation 22:16? You didn't come right and say it, but you suggested if the NIV called him morningstar, then the NIV was suggesting Jesus was satan, or something like that.

So far, it seems you're strongest and only evidence that the NIV has it wrong is because the KJV says lucifer, which you fully admit is latin. Since The OT would have been written in hebrew, and even the KJV in different editions had side notes of daystarre, and morningstar, I'd have to conclude that the evidence is clearly more in my favor. Understandable, I am biased in that decision. But the only evidence you provide is the KJV says it is lucifer, so that is the correct meaning, even if the KJV had side notes that would agree with me.




  Ok. That should help with understanding the amount of information they contained.




In the last one, it appears you have showed that one person did feel they were corrupted. It is not shown that one was found in a garbage can.
This message was last edited by the GM at 07:01, Tue 30 Jan 2007.

Some interesting points here.  I'm not going to reply to everything, since I'm a pretty bad biblical scholar compared to some fellows here (languages have never been interesting to me.  3 years in Moscow and all I can say in Russian is "little banana" and a song about how I know nothing.)

The idea of translating the bible into Middle English is only slightly less useful than translating it into Latin.  No one speaks Middle English any more, so in order to read the bible, you're back to having to learn a new (albeit, related) language.  Otherwise when you come upon words like 'gay' or 'faggot' or "porpentine" or what-have-you, the reader will become more confused than if they had a well done modern translation.  It sounds like your complaint is that translations need updating, and those updates are different and therefore wrong.  But if you imagine, as our words change in definition, the words we use must be changed to meet the meaning of God's message.  Hence, God's message CAN still live, when otherwise it would be dead and lost.

Related, I don't think Satan's fall is God's message, nor do I think the exact dimensions of Noah's ark or the number of legs on a locust are God's message.  God's message is one about our redemption through Jesus Christ.  There are secondary messages about the threat of temptation and the value of love, etc. as well.  However, everything else is incidental.  Who cares if Noah's ark was 100 feet long or 400?  That's not God's message.  Who cares if we call Satan "Lucifer" or "Helel", if there's one or many (or any at all, since it is not Lucifer but temptation we are told to avoid).  NIV contains God's message just like KJV does, the difference being that an uneducated person can read the NIV without feeling like he's reading Shakespeare (and how many uneducated people do you know who read Shakespeare?)

Related to the Lucifer question, wiki has some background that agrees with Heath:
"In the Vulgate, an early-5th-century translation of the Bible into Latin by Jerome, Lucifer occurs in Isaiah 14:12-14 as a translation of the Greek word heosphorus ("dawn-bearer"), an epithet of Venus. The original Hebrew text of this verse was הילל בן שחר (heilel ben-schahar), meaning "Helel son of Shahar." Helel was a Babylonian / Canaanite god who was the son of another Babylonian / Canaanite god named Shahar.

In modern Jewish theology, Helel in Isaiah 14 is not equated with the Jewish concept of HaSatan (the adversary). Instead, the prophet is speaking of the fall of Babylon and along with it the fall of her false gods Helel and Shahar. There is satan which is a Hebrew word meaning "adversary" and in the Tanakh one will find many instances of the word used to describe human and angelic adversaries to man."

So we have an interesting question.  Even the Jews don't recognize that line as referring to Satan, and they do still speak the language.  The attachment between Lucifer (who is a strictly Christian creation) and Satan (which is a Jewish reference to a position, like a prosecuting lawyer in court) took place well after Jesus' death.  The KJV could possibly be perpetuating a false myth, a literalistic interpretation and condemnation of an individual who does not, strictly speaking, exist any more than there is a person named Mr. Prosecuting Lawyer.

This may be worth bringing to another thread (and I think we've already debated it), but there's not a lot of biblical evidence (as in, referring to the original documents, not the myths that sprang up and attached themselves to canon well after the last books of the bible were penned) that indicates Satan is an individual who is not in fact intentionally serving God.  If we find this is the case, then the KJV has served to accidentally corrupt the word of God, and the NIV is serving to undo that corruption.

The language issue. Again, and the last time I will say this, I have no problem with the Bible being translated into any language.

On a side note, the question still bears answering, and unfortunately for now, it is a question of faith: Does the Word of God need to be preserved or restored?

I've noticed that I was criticized for only mentioning one person who criticized the Vulgate at the time it was being constructed. Shouldn't you be more surprised that anyone criticized the texts being endorsed by the Holy Roman Emperor? Based on what I know of history, that was a brazen move. The Catholic Church doesn't have a record for taking criticism very well, which is a rather tame way of saying they martyred over 9,000,000 people during the course of the Dark Ages. And that's an extremely conservative estimate.

I've looked over my current notes, and I've noticed that any observations on additions are attributed to equally corrupt variants (NASV and others of its ilk) and simply mention a similarity in the NIV. Irritating, as specifics would really help my cause right about now. For the time being, I'll concede that as a loss.

So, the omission of MAT 23:14 and MAR 11:26 was closer to what was being expressed. Really? I thought something was actually being said. But I have just learned today that silence is a much closer expression of what was intended.

Wow.

I haven't implied that Jesus and Satan were the same being based on the use of "morningstar." The KJV is quite consistant in maintaining the distance between those entities. I simply pointed out a critical inconsistancy in the NIV.

As for the admission that they are older, yes, this is true. However, their is a reason they are referred to as the "minority texts." That's because on numerous points, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus B disagree with 90% (give or take) of the other manuscirpts.

One advantage that is significant about the KJV. At no point, and I state this boldly, at absolutely no point does the KJV disagree with itself. None. You may call the translation into question, and I can only assume the thousand involved in the translation knew what they were doing, and that their work was inspired by God and motivated by men who had seen the viciousness of the Inquisition firsthand. You can point out the NIV preaches a watered down version of the scriptures, which it does, because the fact remains that many verses and parts of verses have been omitted and this has not been adaquately addressed. But it will not change the fact that to date, the King James Authorized Version 1611 does not turn on itself.

I have pointed out everything within my current power to demonstrate the inferiority of the NIV and parts where it fails to deliver. I could send more, but what would be the point? If twelve won't suffice, why would twenty? Thirty? One hundred, if it could be found? Again, how much must be lost before the message is considered incomplete? Appearantly, I'm the only person here who doesn't understand how much effort I have to go through to complete this task.

It is incomplete at best. Prove otherwise.

Actually, if you read census reports and other Roman documents, you will find that the martyrdom is probably not as high as typically reported.  I'll have to pull my book to check it out, but it talks about how martyrdom was actually a rare thing.

Unless you're talking about the Crusades...?  That's an actual war, so I would count that separately.


I'm not sure what you are referring to here.  Could you repost the argument?


It sounds you are like me in finding that the apocryphal texts probably contain a whole lot of truth.

The LDS church has explicit revelation stating that the apocrypha has much truth in it, but also some falsities.  So it has never been accepted as canon.


Believe me, I know.  I've gone through those types of efforts myself.  I try to look at it all in one big context.  If you look at the KJV to the exclusion of everything else (historical texts, apocrypha, other translations, the original language, etc.) then you do lose something.  HOwever, if you look at it only for the general messages inside, then I'm sure that's fine, and that's fine for most people.

I understand that you feel the NIV has an omission. However, if the words did not exist previously in much much older editions, that would suggest it is an addition in later copies. With the words you like to use, that suggests restored in the KJV.



I thought you were implying the NIV was saying Jesus was satan or something. That's why I pointed out morningstar was not a title reserved for Jesus alone.

So in other words, I understand you believe it inconsistent, but since we both agree morningstar is not a title reserved for Jesus alone, how is it inconsistent? Especially considering that even the earliest editions of the KJV agreed that morningstar was another translation of it in the margins. To be sure, are you saying the early editions of the KJV had that in error?


Could it be because those two are older than any other copies? And therefore older copies are made from older copies than the two we are speaking about?

The KJV 1611 edition contains many of the notes you just complained about in the NIV.

Essentially, the argument is circular. The NIV is wrong, because it doesn't have everything the KJV has. But the reverse of that is the NIV didn't add everything the KJV added.

It's God's word. The KJV onlyist groups are making a man made doctrine that cannot be supported in the bible, but from outside the bible. God does not say His word is the 1769 edition of KJV. The people who are saying this are getting their authority from non biblical sources. One of your defenses for why the various editions of the KJV were still the word of God because even though errors occurred, there were no differences of doctrine. So in answer to your challenege to prove otherwise, I offer there is no doctrinal difference between the NIV and KJV.


Really, your strongest evidence the NIV is not God's word, is because it differs from KJV. But the Septuagint which contained errors, and the Apocrypha was called God's word by the JKV translators. The stance you take was not taken by the translators you consider making an inspired translation.

The martyrs I'm referring to wouldn't be mentioned as offical martyrs by the Romans. They would be referred to as "heretics." I don't count the Crusades. To me, that was two corrupt faith killing each other off. Incidentally, the Muslims ultimately won that fight. So much for the infalliblity of the Holy Mother Church.

I'm willing to indulge you. Simply read the twelve examples presented. You will notice that in the NIV (I'm really uncertain as to which of the two circumstances it is), either these passages are footnoted and called into question or they are not in the NIV at all. I don't own an NIV, but I don't own a copy of the Koran either. If I did, it would be for the same reason: to study my enemies better, so I could tear them apart more efficently.

I said they contain truth? (Apocrypha)

I don't recall that. If anything they do, in fact, contain crap. If it is as you say and they do contain falsehood, I don't want it in my Bible. Period. I don't want a Bible with general ideas, or the tone "maybe this is true," and I wouldn't expect anyone in their right mind to take such a work seriously. We are discussing God! Either He meant exactly what he wrote or He did not. Either the authors believe they have the uncorrupted Word of God in their hands or they don't.

I don't tolerate gamesplaying from others when it comes to morality, law, history or an explaination of what wisdom is. If sarcasm is involved, make it very clear. I expect them to say exactly what they mean otherwise. Why in the world would anyone want an inferior message, other than to gratify their own wounded egos? Hasn't it occured to anyone that maybe language barriers aren't the only reason these variants have such a huge market?

I'm not your enemy.

Your enemy is satan, the dark forces, a spiritual battle.

I'll have to pull out my book for details.  Regardless, the numbers have been much exaggerated.


Not sure if you are responding to me.

It seems to me what you are saying is this:

If something doesn't have 100% truth, then you don't want it in your Bible.  However, the Bible itself contains many errors, even the KJV, so why do you want the Bible in your Bible?

I think maybe you are saying the canonical Bible is the most reliable and therefore you can trust it.  I can understand that, but I am one who likes to look for all truth, whether from science, history, philosophy or religion.  So I would study the apocrypha, not as scripture, but as context and texture to help interpret the Bible better.

I don't understand this.  Maybe you are referring to something said by rogue here.

I am not referring to anyone here regarding that last. No one here has dealt with me in such a manner. If they had, I would address them very quickly and harshly, by name.

I am referring to a basic question: why would anyone want a Bible that is not without a doubt, the uncorrupted Word of God? Would you want someone to approach you and tell you "Christianity is illegal" without being absolutely 100% percent certain he knew exactly what in the world he was talking about? That is a very serious thing to say. How about the statement "Warfare is wrong, but I really don't know for certain?" Such a person would be very irritating. Make up your mind. If you don't know, either shut up or convince me you believe it enough to make a fool out of yourself. The latter deserves some respect for trying.

As for falsehood in the KJV, I have not had this brought to my attention. I have pointed out my side at great personal cost to my fragile state of mind. Please show some me some dignity and return in kind. Demonstrate that you believe with 100% certainty that KJV is flawed. Win, lose or draw, I'd respect that move. :)

Sorry, Mentat, I forget you haven't been here for long.  We've gone through exhaustive detail on these points going back several years.  It would take me all night to do it again, but maybe I can find the thread and bump it for you.

As such, this thread is for the KJV vs. the NIV, so I don't want to derail it.  I think neither is perfect, but they are both witnesses that God is real and that Jesus is the Christ, and that is their most important message.  If that is your only witness and testimony of such a profound statement, then I can see why it would be so important to preserve it as being as "perfect" as possible.

People often feel they have a right to fight back if someone starts it first. However, in this forum, it is not encouraged.

You haven't shown the others are corrupt. You've shown they are different than the KJV. Interestingly, the older the texts away from the two that are oldest, the less times the full name of Jesus is spoken. The KJV speaks Jesus' name many times less than the NIV. Why would satan want Jesus' name spoken so many times? You'd think satan would want Jesus' name spoken less, no?



Essentially, that person would have to show only one flaw.

2 Samuel 24:13
3So Gad came to David, and told him, and said unto him, Shall seven years of famine come unto thee in thy land? or wilt thou flee three months before thine enemies, while they pursue thee? or that there be three days' pestilence in thy land? now advise, and see what answer I shall return to him that sent me.

Another account comes from 1 Chronicles 21:12.
2Either three years' famine; or three months to be destroyed before thy foes, while that the sword of thine enemies overtaketh thee; or else three days the sword of the LORD, even the pestilence, in the land, and the angel of the LORD destroying throughout all the coasts of Israel. Now therefore advise thyself what word I shall bring again to him that sent me.


NIV uses older texts than the KJV, and in 2 Samuel 24:13
13 So Gad went to David and said to him, "Shall there come upon you three years of famine in your land? Or three months of fleeing from your enemies while they pursue you? Or three days of plague in your land? Now then, think it over and decide how I should answer the one who sent me."

Now, since I know the answer here, I'll save some trouble of research. The KJV used copies that contained the same issue, and simply translated it. The NIV used older texts, and had that option to compare. It is noted the change in the notes, but it has opted to use an older copy that matched, rather than a copy that did not. So the KJV does not have a copyist error, it used a copy with an apparent error.

We do have to remember it is the original word that is God words. The originals are inspired. The copies and translations are near perfect, but copy errors do exist. How does one have an "inspired translation"?  My point is not to say the KJV is worthless.

I have the exact opposite view.  Anyone who is unwilling to consider the possibility that they are are has given up reason.  They are no longer using a conclusion based on evidence, and are an assumption that disregards evidence.  They've stopped thinking about it, and are acting like a machine.  Doubt is a good thing.  It's a healthy thing.  People who don't have doubt, aren't thinking hard enough about the subject at hand.  There's not much point in talking to them, because you're not going to learn much from them, and they're definately not going to learn anything from you.

Complete aside, Mentat, you keep bringing up the iniquities of the Catholic Church.  Would you be interested in addressing this in another thread?

For what they are worth, I'll toss my two cents at this problem:

The question carries with it the assumption that we have the word of God that we can either preserve or restore.  I question the assumption.  What should be preserved is the original meaning, but that requires "restoration" as the meanings of words change.  If an english word doesn't mean the same thing it did in the seventeen century, the meaning of the text has changed, even if the text itself hasn't.  In order keep the meaning the same, the text must change as well.  Granted, the original sources (or as close to them as we have) are the gold standard, and what we should refer to every time we try to update the wording so as to reflect the original meaning.

As for whether the KJV or the NIV is superior, I have no strong opinion.  I will agree with rouge4jc, however, that you've only shown that the two differ, not that one is superior ot the other, Mentat.  The fact that they differ is accepted by everyone here (even if they might not agree that the differences are significant).  But your claim of superiority requires additional evidence beyond just difference.  Cheerios are clearly different from wheaties, but that doesn't prove that one is better than the other.  I think you should suggest some metric by which the quality of a given version can be judged.  The metric "matches the KJV" would clearly show the KJV as superior, but I hope you'd agree that that's an entirely arbitrary metric that pre-supposes what you're attempting to demonstrate.

I don't think there were as many "iniquities" in the Catholic church as Hollywood and similar media seem to represent.  There were some bad people, but every religion has that, and there were people who abused power, and I think there were changes, but the Church as a whole unified beliefs in a time when Christianity meant a hundred different things and would have made itself go extinct otherwise by sheer volume of diversification.

I don't think so either, but I didn't want to derail the thread :P

Thank you, Heath. I have read the old thread and from it I have drawn my own conculsions.

History has demonstrated that the KJV has been flawed. Usually this is limited to spelling, grammar, or something equally insignificant. However, Rogue pointed out a passage just now that I honestly have no explination for. And while it occured to me to come up with some crap that sounds plusible, I'm not going to bother. In fact, I'm actually going to go a step further.

At the beginning of the thread Heath bumped for me, someone points out the inconsistancies the apostles had with the accounts of Christ's resurrection. All of them agreed it happened, certain characters were involved. It was the same event described in varying amounts of detail until one inconsistancy came up: Luke decribes two angels, while Matthew and Mark describe one. Now I'm inclinded to presume there is just one, but that isn't the issue here is it? No, the issue I was defending was that the KJV is consistant with itself, and for this moment, in addition to David's terms from God described in Samuel II and Chronicles II, there is a confliction.

Now obviously they cannot both be true at the same time, unless one angel left shortly after the conversation began. That just doesn't sound right. I don't buy it and I wouldn't expect anyone else to. Same goes for Samuel/Chronicles. Was it seven or three? Why would the scholars go with that, and why in the world has it not been corrected? To maintain an error like that is inexcusable. Same with Luke. One angel or two? These confusions should be eliminated.

I'll concede I didn't notice them either. However, this is why I sought opposition in the first place. My allies don't tell me where I am weak. Only an enemy to your cause will tell you that. Therefore, I'll grant the idea that the KJV is erronous a probationary basis.

Translation: If I find proof that I was right the whole time, I fire up this thread again. But I won't hold my breath about it.

However, (one change of tune coming right up) thus far, the KJV 1611 still remains an excellent measuring stick. As far as doctrine goes, it is still consistant, and the NT in particular retains the idea that works do not save you, only Christ.

With that in mind, my opinion of the NIV has not changed. In point of fact, the error you pointed out in the KJV could be found by simply going through the KJV for yourself and pointing it out. The NIV is unnecessary for that. Does the NIV imply at any point that works can save you? The KJV, if sliced into enough fragments, can be used for a compelling arguement in this direction, but read it the way it was presented. It does not back a work-based faith. The NIV seems to be rather shifty on the subject, switching back and forth between the two views. Irritating.

I'm permitted to backtrack on a view which is in error. It's called being human. Besides, whatever view I hold in life, I believe it, to the point where I will ruin myself attempting to defend it. But I'm not so narrow and conceited that I cannot admit I was wrong. So I'll just say it:

On the defense of the AV 1611 KJV, I was wrong. It does have errors in it which have not been addressed properly by church leaders.

(Since I'm still staying out of this debate except in incidentals, I feel it's safe for me to say that it's not only alright, but good that you're willing to shift your ideas in the face of new information.  It's the position to the contrary, that no piece of evidence could possibly change your mind, that makes it cease to be a discussion and become a monologue.)

Keep in mind that, except for John, the other three gospels were not actually written by the apostles themselves, but were either written by witnesses to the apostles' spoken word (like dictation) or were taken from other documents and pieced together.

Kudos Mentat, for being willing to change your mind when shown new information!  Very big of you to be so open about it, too.

Bump!

Found this when looking for the age of the earth thread, and thought it might be useful for the discussion in the "accusations" thread.

Two points to be considered here, one, The purpose of the King James Version was to produce a bible that everyone could be read, (see Rennerd, 2002), many matters were overlooked for the speed of descimination.

Also, Marshal Venter, an asteemed studies of eye witness accounts states that the four gossipls match all of the markers of it (Venter, 1991;1989;1986).

I've heard that, but at teh same time anyone at all familiar with police procedure knows that real eyewitness accounts have for more diversity in what is expressed to have actually happened than teh gospels. The gospels are more like what the witnesses testify to in court after being prepped by the lawyer and given 'example' questions about how their testimony differs from someone else's and how do they explain it?

Actually know, there inconsistencies would be more uniform, both  Hung Cha', (1946), and Hoperner, (1988), took that route in their investigation and realized that if they were trained, then the older texts would have greater consistency then they do.  Keep in mind, neither of these two were Jewish, or Christian.  Hopner, was an avowed achiest up until his death, although some of his comments against  various religious practices were very much on the mark, and Cha', was a Dowist, so they had no vested interest in reaching these conclusions.

Where would I find these texts? Internet searches seem to draw no results for searching for this pair.

more acurately 0 results for Hoperner gospel as a search parameter.

I can give you Hopner, now, I'll need to track down the other one, it's in my garage somewhere.

Hopner, P. 1988). An investigation of the value of religious texts; using a legal perspective.  Gothenburg Press: Berlin.

I'm sorry I can't give you internet sources, but there are so few sights that I can acces, that I have to go with what's around here, or at the Library of congress.

Okay then, do you have any actual points to make from teh text besides "somebody you should accept as impartial already looked at this and wrote a book"?

I did make a point; the point was that there would be a greater level of consistency between the gosssples if they were coached.  I then sight a source, two sources demonstrating this point.  Furthermore, what historical evidence we do have states that Luke did indeed write his own gospel, both him and John.  Sure the other two are debatable, but there is no evidence that anyone can find that at any point collaboration took place between those that wrote them.

For what it's worth, I haven't really heard of anyone saying they were written by "collaborators" as such, though I think it's widely accepted that the author of Luke knew of the book of Mathew.  Also, many believe that either Mathew was based on Mark, or that they were both based on an older "Q document."  I think most people consider it to be more a case of people telling the same story, but disagreeing slightly about the details.  Also, I don't think most biblical scholars think any of them were written by eye witnesses (I think Heath is of the opinion that they think John may have been, though, so it's not unanimous on that part probably).

   I was drawing a parallel to the coaching, not saying it was the result of collaberation or intentional coaching, merely pointing out that actual independent eyewitness accounts vary wildly in terms of what happened, whereas there has obviously been some communication after the event that has had a result of bringing the testimony in line with each other- simply standing arround reminiscing about past events csan have this kind of effect, but it does dilute the source value of the testimony.

With the flip side being, why did anyone have to be coached when, of the hundreds of testaments written, only the ones vetted by the early church were actually included as scripture?

Not saying that good data was intentionally excluded, but if you're going to make a conspiracy theory, you may as well take the easy route.

And agin, not trying to claim a conspiricy, just informational crossover.

"Jiizas - di buk we Luuk rait bout im"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16285462

Saw this article today, and got a bit of a grin from it.  I was up at Stirling castle yesterday, where they had a display about the KJV there, and some of the controversy at the time of translating the bible into a "vulgar" (in the literal sense) language like English.  Then saw this article today about the controversy of translating it into Jamaican patois.  Plus ça change... and all that.

What about translating it into a language that is not nearly like English Chinese is a very delicate language with the meanings of one word even very fluid in how its used?

Maybe it might be best to use the Psalms, Proverbs for the OT and the sayings and teachings of Jesus tossing out the rest it would solve many issues IMHO.

But back to the topic does it matter if its different?

"Thou shalt not murder"
"Thou shalt not kill"
"Thou shalt not kill another living being."

"the greatest of these is love."
"the greatest of these is passion."

Yes, different translations are important. They give us completely different meanings. I agree, I'd worry a lot about translating to Chinese, for exactly the reason you need. I'm glad that's not my job.

Tycho -- they're also writing a lolcat version. My dad, a deacon, thought that's pretty funny, so I guess it's not really an issue. But yeah, strange how things change.