Changes in Scripture - A Comparative of the KJV/NIV Side By Side

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: chr0naut

Well that is the difference between you and I. I have faith in God's words and you have faith in the works of men.

Which is more secure faith in God's words or faith in men?

The AKJV was translated by men.

King James Translators & Facilitators

a reply to: chr0naut

by men but the preservation of the text is of God. that is whee we differ in faith.

Well it seems I am not the only one seeing that Text, Grammar, syntax, and sentence structure means anything and where they come from. This sounds like some of the commenters here, that all bibles are equal and make up the word of God even though they differ and are lacking in many cases. They do nothing but to gender strife of which we are said to avoid and as I am trying dearly to do, that is why I have not replied to every post. But just look at some of the comments in this thread to see what I say is true, strife strife strife and none of it would be if those verses were not published in the first place.

a reply to: Raggedyman
Look Raggedy, anyone can read you post above and see that is exactly what you said. Remember if you meant otherwise you wouldn't have structured you sentence in that way.

a reply to: Raggedyman If someone chooses to believe the bible is perfect, good on you, God bless, that's great
If they don't, that's awesome as well, I am glad to hear that as well

Clearly if you believed differently it would have been the other way around and I would have still called you on it if you said the AKJV is Awesome and the others were good. Why because I woulds have asked if you think the AKJV is awesome why not just believe in that one version.

But your Awesome text is a plethora of Bibles that you call the word of God and none of them agree. That is why I started this Thread.

See above post that refers to four versions and they believe with all they have the whole word of God. The truth is only the AKJV has all the words (NKJV removes and changes words) (NIV and all other versions removes and changes words, verses, phrases, and sections) in it.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Neighbour, you seem to be missing the point.

YOU are claiming, one of the most heavily edited (for politcal reasons no less) bibles, is the preserved word of God. This is clearly faulty logic. At this rate you will be claiming the British Israelites are right

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Raggedyman
Look Raggedy, anyone can read you post above and see that is exactly what you said. Remember if you meant otherwise you wouldn't have structured you sentence in that way.

a reply to: Raggedyman If someone chooses to believe the bible is perfect, good on you, God bless, that's great
If they don't, that's awesome as well, I am glad to hear that as well

Clearly if you believed differently it would have been the other way around and I would have still called you on it if you said the AKJV is Awesome and the others were good. Why because I woulds have asked if you think the AKJV is awesome why not just believe in that one version.

But your Awesome text is a plethora of Bibles that you call the word of God and none of them agree. That is why I started this Thread.

See above post that refers to four versions and they believe with all they have the whole word of God. The truth is only the AKJV has all the words (NKJV removes and changes words) (NIV and all other versions removes and changes words, verses, phrases, and sections) in it.

Yeah whatever
I believe the AKJV is full of errors as are so many of the other versions and I don't really care that you think I think whatever
Truthfully believe what you want, say what ever you want about me but I don't think the AKJV is the perfect inspired word of God

There is no point harping on and on and on CJ, I don't care or believe you
I am not arguing against you, I am giving people who read this thread a different opinion and a reason why my opinion is different and in my opinion more reasoned and logical

I don't want people to believe that a person has to be like you to be a christian

Nobody has to believe any version of the bible is 100% perfect and accurate to believe Jesus is perfect and the truth

That's it buddy
Whatever more you read in to my comments is in your head

a reply to: Raggedyman

So then you believe that God did not preserve his word to every generation for ever as the word of God says he would.

That means you don't believe the word of God is pure, true, perfect as well.

So why read it? Why argue over it? Just leave the whole issue for those of us who do believe in a preserved word of God. Or do you like others have a motive to mislead and discourage people from the truth of God's words?

a reply to: ChesterJohn

You of course can prove that people are trying to mislead people? Discourage them from your little deity? OR are you jsut making broad sweeping comments?

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Raggedyman

So then you believe that God did not preserve his word to every generation for ever as the word of God says he would.

That means you don't believe the word of God is pure, true, perfect as well.

So why read it? Why argue over it? Just leave the whole issue for those of us who do believe in a preserved word of God. Or do you like others have a motive to mislead and discourage people from the truth of God's words?

No I don't believe it's perfect,,we have been saying that for many months so why ask again,,why go on and on and on

I don't just need the bible to love Jesus, I have other Christians, have the Holy Spirit.
Stop putting your petty values on me
We disagree, get over yourself

I am not arguing with you, I am offering an alternate view to yours

When I read your testimony here I get the idea without the bible you wouldn't love Jesus
That's pathetic

You are a Pharisee, you have the law but no love, be careful

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: chr0naut

by men but the preservation of the text is of God. that is whee we differ in faith.

We have much older extant texts than the AKJV. How is the AKJV translation more preserved than its source texts?

And if it is so much better and truer to the Word of God, why did it give rise to the nonsense of British Israelism? It is clear in 'The Revelation of Jesus Christ' that the Church is not a proxy for Israel, that the tribes of Israel will be restored and that the Church has a separate destiny.

a reply to: chr0naut

We have much older extant texts than the AKJV. How is the AKJV translation more preserved than its source texts?

chr0naut,I understand what I think Chester is trying to say or at least what Chester is saying to my understanding. Firstly we had John Wycliffe in English. That work was put aside as incomplete. Next we had William Tyndale, In English. whose work was also incomplete. Next we had the English work of the Great Bible which also did not survive the test of time. Next we had the English work of Coverdale which also failed to be the preserved English rendition. Then we had the English rendition of the John Rodgers bible which also went by the wayside. We next had the Geneva Bible which stormed the English world even to days of the pilgrims in America and is also very well respected today. From the Geneva Bible came the birth of the KJV Bible of 1611 which used about 85 to 90 percent of the Geneva Bible.

The KJV bible up to the date of 1611 was the preserved word of all the other bibles which preceded it and which did not survive as the preserved word of God. Now that is not saying that other bibles since 1611 are not of God but it does to this date shows that the KJV bible is still the most sought after English bible and is preserved as the most favored words of Christianity. To this date it is by far [30%] of the biblical sales in this country.

What does that tell a new Christian in my opinion? It suggests to that new Christian that this rendition is truly the preferred and tested by time preserved text of Christian theology. If the KJV should lose its lead in the future and become obsolete, then that is another matter but as of today [2018] it is the preferred preserved Christian literature. -- lol

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: chr0naut

We have much older extant texts than the AKJV. How is the AKJV translation more preserved than its source texts?

chr0naut,I understand what I think Chester is trying to say or at least what Chester is saying to my understanding. Firstly we had John Wycliffe in English. That work was put aside as incomplete. Next we had William Tyndale, In English. whose work was also incomplete. Next we had the English work of the Great Bible which also did not survive the test of time. Next we had the English work of Coverdale which also failed to be the preserved English rendition. Then we had the English rendition of the John Rodgers bible which also went by the wayside. We next had the Geneva Bible which stormed the English world even to days of the pilgrims in America and is also very well respected today. From the Geneva Bible came the birth of the KJV Bible of 1611 which used about 85 to 90 percent of the Geneva Bible.

The KJV bible up to the date of 1611 was the preserved word of all the other bibles which preceded it and which did not survive as the preserved word of God. Now that is not saying that other bibles since 1611 are not of God but it does to this date shows that the KJV bible is still the most sought after English bible and is preserved as the most favored words of Christianity. To this date it is by far [30%] of the biblical sales in this country.

What does that tell a new Christian in my opinion? It suggests to that new Christian that this rendition is truly the preferred and tested by time preserved text of Christian theology. If the KJV should lose its lead in the future and become obsolete, then that is another matter but as of today [2018] it is the preferred preserved Christian literature. -- lol

Cool.

I agree that the modern translations of the KJV are the most popular but Chesty is specifically referring to the AKJV, which is the far less popular 1611 version.

And I'm not outright panning the KJV, it is a beautiful translation even though original text poetic styles, names, titles and wordplay get lost in the translation. But at least in the KJV, care was taken to ensure that it sounded good spoken out loud (something most modern and literal translations lacked as a goal). This,unfortunately has led to confusion about meanings, like in Paul's letters where his Roman styled legal prose (and some of which no doubt were the words to songs, psalms and hymns) gets butchered and reordered with confused tense, object and subject, or in the song of Moses where it has been incorrectly assumed that it was addressing a council of demigods among which was YHWH. and the anti-semitic idea that Christianity had replaced Israel.

Peterson's "The Message" does actually try and recapture many of the stylistic and poetic forms of the original texts but it is a paraphrase rather than a word-for-word translation (and, similarly, there are a couple of other paraphrases that are quite beautiful, too).

All in all, the biggest issue I see with the KJV isn't just that the language is dated, but that in the Anglicization of terms, names and titles were lost, such that the finesse of meaning, that was in the original text, is replaced with generic terms (e.g, most of the names and titles of God are changed to either "God" or "Lord" in the KJV).

a reply to: Seede
Do Not Be a Victim of Propaganda!

“A fool will believe anything.”—PROVERBS 14:15, TODAY’S ENGLISH VERSION.

...They sift the facts, exploiting the useful ones and concealing the others. They also distort and twist facts, specializing in lies and half-truths. Your emotions, not your logical thinking abilities, are their target.

The propagandist makes sure that his message appears to be the right and moral one and that it gives you a sense of importance and belonging if you follow it. You are one of the smart ones, you are not alone, you are comfortable and secure—so they say.

How can you protect yourself from the types of people that the Bible calls “profitless talkers” and “deceivers of the mind”? (Titus 1:10) Once you are familiar with some of their tricks, you are in a better position to evaluate any message or information that comes your way. Here are some ways to do this.

...
Do not just follow the crowd: If you realize that what everybody thinks is not necessarily correct, you can find the strength to think differently. While it may seem that all others think the same way, does this mean that you should? Popular opinion is not a reliable barometer of truth. Over the centuries all kinds of ideas have been popularly accepted, only to be proved wrong later. Yet, the inclination to go along with the crowd persists. The command given at Exodus 23:2 serves as a good principle: “You must not follow after the crowd for evil ends.”

I don't recommend following after the 'King James Only'-crowd, a.k.a. "the King James Only movement". There's a little more to the phrase "Popular opinion is not a reliable barometer of truth." Sometimes, it can actually be a clue regarding this situation described by Jesus at Matthew 7:13,14:

13 “Go in through the narrow gate, because broad is the gate and spacious is the road leading off into destruction, and many are going in through it; 14 whereas narrow is the gate and cramped the road leading off into life, and few are finding it.

So don't walk with the many on the spacious road leading off into destruction, find the few that have found the cramped road leading off into life. The spacious road is the popular one, the cramped road is quite unpopular in comparison, to the point of being depicted and perceived as false, deceptive, indoctrination, brainwashing and every accusation true Christianity has had to endure in the past, such as:

To outsiders Christianity was referred to as “The Way” (Ac 9:2; 19:9, 23; 22:4), and opponents called it “the sect of the Nazarenes” or just “this sect.”—Ac 24:5; 28:22.

Source: Christian: Insight, Volume 1

"Sect" being a synonym for "cult". Acts 24:5 (the accusations of Jewish religious leaders against Christianity and Paul):

For we have found this man to be a pest, stirring up seditions among all the Jews throughout the inhabited earth, and he is a spearhead* [Or “chief leader.”] of the sect of the Naz·a·renesʹ.

28:22

But we think it proper to hear from you what your thoughts are, for truly as regards this sect, we know that it is spoken against everywhere.”

And it still is (spoken against everywhere often including the same accusation: 'it's a sect/cult').

Eccl. 1:9

What has been is what will be,

And what has been done will be done again;

There is nothing new under the sun.

Cult or Christians? Persecution of a peaceable people (I recommend the subsequent video as well)

Matthew 7:15-20 (Jesus continuing after discussing the 2 roads):

“Be on the watch for the false prophets who come to you in sheep’s covering, but inside they are ravenous wolves. 16 By their fruits you will recognize them. Never do people gather grapes from thorns or figs from thistles, do they? 17 Likewise, every good tree produces fine fruit, but every rotten tree produces worthless fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear worthless fruit, nor can a rotten tree produce fine fruit. 19 Every tree not producing fine fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Really, then, by their fruits you will recognize those men.

a reply to: Seede

A further example of the potential confusion caused by word-for-word translation (like the AKJV), from a strongly typed language like Koine Greek:

2 Corinthians 10:1-3

From the AKKJV - a word-for-word translation.
"Now I Paul myself beseech you by the meekness and gentleness of Christ, who in presence am base among you, but being absent am bold toward you: 2 but I beseech you, that I may not be bold when I am present with that confidence, wherewith I think to be bold against some, which think of us as if we walked according to the flesh. For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh: (for the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds; )"

From The Message - a paraphrase.
"And now a personal but most urgent matter; I write in the gentle but firm spirit of Christ. I hear that I’m being painted as cringing and wishy-washy when I’m with you, but harsh and demanding when at a safe distance writing letters. Please don’t force me to take a hard line when I’m present with you. Don’t think that I’ll hesitate a single minute to stand up to those who say I’m an unprincipled opportunist. Then they’ll have to eat their words.

The world is unprincipled. It’s dog-eat-dog out there! The world doesn’t fight fair. But we don’t live or fight our battles that way—never have and never will. The tools of our trade aren’t for marketing or manipulation, but they are for demolishing that entire massively corrupt culture."

Which do you find the most understandable and least likely for its meaning to be misconstrued?

a reply to: chr0naut

You don't get it do you. The only Koine Greek is 1) just in pieces and never a whole and even the putting together of all the pieces don't give you a whole New Testament or Old Testament, 2) No one today or in 1611, 1582, or 300AD could even profess to know what the Original Koine and how was it spoken, 3) not one Dictionary of Koine Greek has yet to be discovered. This means that the Greek Scholars of the time before, during or after Christ did not even think of the Necessity to put the Common (Koine) Greek into a Dictionary form because they felt the common language was agnositc, meaning it ignorant. Agnostic transliterated into old Latin (even modern Latin) as Ignoramus, Imagine that God inspired the original in a language the scholars of the day would not preserve because they thought it to be a ignorant language.

Many who look to new translation say this about the AKJV just as you did.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: chr0naut

You don't get it do you. The only Koine Greek is 1) just in pieces and never a whole and even the putting together of all the pieces don't give you a whole New Testament or Old Testament, 2) No one today or in 1611, 1582, or 300AD could even profess to know what the Original Koine and how was it spoken, 3) not one Dictionary of Koine Greek has yet to be discovered. This means that the Greek Scholars of the time before, during or after Christ did not even think of the Necessity to put the Common (Koine) Greek into a Dictionary form because they felt the common language was agnositc, meaning it ignorant. Agnostic transliterated into old Latin (even modern Latin) as Ignoramus, Imagine that God inspired the original in a language the scholars of the day would not preserve because they thought it to be a ignorant language.

Many who look to new translation say this about the AKJV just as you did.

Arguably, the Dead Sea Scrolls are closer to the Septuagint (Greek) translation than to the Masoretic and we have the entire old testament represented in the DSS and totally supportive of the Septuagint fragments which together make up the whole Old Testament and accord with later complete texts and other translations.

Koine Greek existed as a world language well before Christ and glossaries to Homer's works exist that explain, in depth, the words used in his writings (which date from 700 years before Christ).

Lexicons (meaning dictionaries, in Greek) of Koine Greek were common due to the language's spread through most of the world after Alexander the Great's conquests (330 to 320 years before Christ).

By the time of Christ there were hundreds of lexicons in use and an example of a famous lexicographer at the end of the first century was Pamphilus of Alexandria, part of a long tradition of lexicographers and grammarians tracing back to Aristarchus of Samothrace, the chief librarian of the Library of Alexandria.

The idea that the predominant single language of the Greek and Roman empires, in use over a span of 1,700 years, had no dictionary (lexicon in Greek) is unhistorical and not reasonable. Lexica were required for the language to maintain its meaning over such a period of time and such geographical distribution.

We have thousands of those biblical New Testament fragments from the first and second centuries, with complete single books from the 2nd century and the entire extant canonical copy (Codex Sinaiticus) by the fourth century. There is no reason to believe that there are any late inclusions or major edits in the canonical works. Commentaries and other extant external references clearly preclude that being the case.

a reply to: chr0naut

It doesn't matter what manuscripts you use or how old they are. The point is no matter how similar a translation may seem doesn't make it accurate or reliable.

I will stick with the AKJV alone until God leads me otherwise.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: chr0naut

It doesn't matter what manuscripts you use or how old they are. The point is no matter how similar a translation may seem doesn't make it accurate or reliable.

I will stick with the AKJV alone until God leads me otherwise.

Fair enough.

There is nothing majorly wrong with the AKJV.

It still carries God's the truth of God's Word.

a reply to: chr0naut

"It still carry's God's truth." One of many Bible that carry Gods truth, thereby you standby that there is no Inerrant Bible, no Preserved Bible, no Bible that is pure, no Bible that is true, no Bible that is Inspired (except some unseen by you and me pieces of paper many say are originals, which are not originals as there is no way to compare them to an whole original to verify that claim). Therefore we have a multitude of Bibles which do not agree, have varying numbers of verses, sections, phrases and chapters and that teach that Jesus and Lucifer are the morning star.

While I Hold in my hand, a Bible that has all the verses, sections, phrases and chapters, that is said to be pure, true, inerrant and preserved.

Which side would you like to be on? One that has errors in every Bible and incomplete and filled with lies and distortions or one that is pure, true and preserved?

I choose the latter.

Anyone who would choose any other version has a bible ha cannot trust and gives him no assurance.