Although, I would not waste my time reading at all from the NIV, NASB, NKJV or any other Alexandrian based English Version, they do contain the gospel which is what ALL men everywhere are saved by and nothing else, OT or NT. However, if you wish to understand prophecy and other deep mysteries of the Bible, you need a text that has not been corrupted. IN English, that is the KJV. If you wish to grow in the doctrines of the Bible, you need a pure word that will lead in you in the paths of righteousness which means again, you need a pure text.
37 comments
If your deity even allows the NIV, NASB, NKJV, and other "corrupted" Bibles to exist, then you deity isn't preserving its word that well, now, is it?
The uncorrupted KJV was a bad translation into English of a bad translation into Greek from the original Aramaic.
This is one of those times I wish I could sign up for one of their boards and have a dialog with this pinhead. I actually tried that a few times, but in reading the terms of use of some of these Christian boards they're very suspicious. One would only allow nonbelievers to post once per thread so there was no opportunity to discuss. You make your point they pull some crap out of the fire and you don't get to debunk it. So much for good ole American values of freedom of speech.
Oh boy! This shite is something that makes me cringe for all that is good and intelligent in America.
Let it be broadcast from the rooftops: the KJV is unreliable and contains many error of translation. Albeit the language is beautiful, that does not wipe out the unreliability. Besides, how many modern Americans actually understand clearly and without difficulty Jacobean English?
So you're saying all Christians need to go learn Aramaic, Ancient Greek, Hebrew, Semetic, and Latin? OK, good luck with that one.
<plug>
And these pure texts were found in Egypt in 1945 and translated directly from coptic greek to modern english.
The OT was debunked by these pure texts. Saul of Tarsus was totally excluded.
Mary M had some things to say, as well as Judas, Philip, my good buddy Doubting Thomas, and the rest of the gang.
Prepare to totally retool your definition of "righteousness".
gnosis.org has the full NagHammadi Library available online.
</plug>
Well, let's take one example: Acts 3:26: the KJV says "Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, etc.". The NKJV says "To you first, God, having raised up His Servant Jesus, etc."
KJV-only cultists say this is a "papist" change. Is it? The original Textus Recepticus from which the KJV was taken says "pais". "Pais" means (1) a child, boy or girl; or, (2) servant, slave. In the KJV, "pais" is translated 10 times as servant; 7 times as child; twice as son (Christ); and son, manservant, maid, maiden, young man once each. So the KJV translators themselves usually translated "pais" as "servant". They changed it to "son" for Acts 3:26 (and also John 4:51). Why? Because as they often did, they "fudged" the translation to agree with their theology. There's nothing "pure" about the KJV. Like almost all biblical texts, it was translated by men with an agenda.
The fun part is, even if you learn Hebrew so that you can read the "original" Old Testament, you'll soon discover that there's more than one Hebrew version of the Old Testament floating around!
The Masoretic Hebrew scriptures are the ones accepted by orthodox Judaism today, and they differ from the Hebrew texts that were used as the basis for the Septuagint.
Biblical scholars refer to the different versions of the Hebrew scriptures as "traditions." Personally, I think that word is too nice for what they really are -- different edits made by different groups with different axes to grind.
... which means again, you need a pure text.
Which means again that you need the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts, since the "purity" of the English translation is all but gone. I guess some evening language courses will be in order. There are still places... enroll now!
If you are serious, you will not waste your time reading any English translation. Learn your Greek and Hebrew.
If you want to see the pure word given to humanity by God that is authentic and valid, it is listed here.
Here is everything that has been authenticated and validated to have been a communication by God to humans.
::
It is everything after the first colon and before the second one.
"..if you wish to understand prophecy and other deep mysteries of the Bible.."
This is fortune telling and is strickly forbidden within Christianity in any shape or form. WITCHCRAFT!!!
This guy needs a complete course on Greek, Latin, Elisabethan English and theology if he's unable to understand that OT is the book that contains the Pentateuch and several other books which are the core of the Jewish faith and the NT is the Gospel(life and work of Jesus) plus an appendix with the following up of his disciples.
correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the first written versions of the new testement were all written in greek. Also, considering the area in which he (aledgedly) lived, Jesus most likely spoke aramaic. Therefore, the best anyone can do as far as "straight from the horses mouth" is an aramaic-to-greek translation.
It would seem you lack any knowledge of foreign languages. Funny thing about language is that words are created to identify concepts, sometimes multiple words for the same thing and sometimes phrases are needed for one concept. As such, between languages you can't just cut and paste words all the time. As such, even without any alterior motives the translations begin to suffer because the translators have to decide how to interpret something that doesn't necessarily have a direct counterpart in the target language. Do this over and over as has been done with the Bible and you end up with a big mess. Add to that fact that deliberate changes were made during translations such that the new text better reflected the translator's motives and you have a totally corrupt version of the original text. That's your magnificent KJV for ya.
Is there a word for KJV worship?
Of all the strange doctrines and odd beliefs within Christianity, it is perhaps the one that perplexes me the most.
@The Last Conformist
This belief that there is only one pure translation of the Bible is not a Christian belief. In fact, there honestly is no basis for the the claim that the Bible is God's Word. The passage that is used to back this claim up is:
"16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"
The first obvious issue is using the Bible to prove the Bible is God's Word. The original claim came from the Catholic Church, in an attempt to define the doctrine. However, all this passage says is that to know what is good (for Jews and Christian) read the scriptures, which happen to be the established holy texts. It's not exactly the "Bible is the innerant word of God" support people claim it is.
"Yes it is. It may not be part of the flavour of christianity you prefer, but it certainly is of some flavours."
No, simply because one group who claims to be Christian believe in something do not make it a belief of the faith. The passage I pointed out refers to this. If you want to know the tenants of the Christian faith, read the Scriptures. Those are where they are found.
And yet NKJV is Byzantine (Textus Receptus and Hodges-Farstad), not Alexandrian (Westcott-Hort/Nestle-Aland). These people don't even know or care what they're talking about, they just spew their idiocy.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
