i read the king james bible. or new king james bible. also have a cd collection of the new testament
Can you read Hebrew and Greek? In that case it matters very much and you should be using those texts always since there are always translation errors in any other text. It is very easy for experts in both languages to find translation errors even in the Septuagint.
Regardless even of translation errors is the matter of knowing how the language was used at the time each of the different books in the Bible was written. Language tends to change considerably over time and geography. This is why there are so many languages in the world, and at least before the days of mass communications, nearly as many dialects within a language. Even worse, no two of us use the same set of definitions for all the word in our individual vocabularies.
If you must use translations it does not matter much which you use. You must always be aware of the fact that there are errors in translation, and even if it were possible to have a perfect translation (a linguistic impossibility) YOU would still interpret the text according to your own education and background experiences, not those of the writer. This will limit your ability to understand what he wrote. This is true regardless of the subject matter, whether scriptural or not, and even if the person you are talking to is close family with whom you share a large amount of experience and education in common.
Let's stop being so certain that we have a full understanding of the things of God when we still have misunderstandings between people we know so well.
A lot of the differences between the KJV version and the others have nothing to do with translation errors. Deliberate alterations and complete omissions cannot be said to be translation errors. Take time out to watch the associated video posted above and then tell me what is your view.
I'm well aware of these intentional translation problems, but the KJV is not without those as well. The KJV was a direct translation from the Greek texts, but where there was doubt about the translation, or worse, I've been told of a few cases where they knew the Greek did not conform to the Latin Vulgate, they opted to maintain the interpretation found in the Vulgate. I have not studied this stuff in detail myself, but I do have friends who have studied the translators notes on some of these passages.
The Vulgate itself is not without such intentional translation errors. Jerome did his best in most of his translation work, but in many of Paul's writings the theology was beyond his understanding so he consulted with the Pope, who did not know Greek or Hebrew, and translated the text as the Pope instructed, regardless of the actual meaning of the Greek text in those passages. Many of Jerome's translation notes are still available, but once again, I have not examined these for myself. I'm relying on the research of others.
In the end, it really does not matter much if the translation errors are intentional or not if they change the meaning significantly. Most do not, but even the KJV has over 20,000 verifiable translation errors. Most do not significantly change the meaning unless you are studying for the most advanced theological concepts. It does not significantly change the meaning for most laypeople when "nephesh" is translated as "life" instead of its proper translation of "soul." But once you start getting into some of the deeper concepts it becomes important to have the proper word used, or to know if the word "spirit" was translated from "ruach" which means spirit, breath, and wind, or from "neshamah" which means spirit, breath and intelligence. In many languages this distinction may not be too important, but in Hebrew you very often must consider all three definitions at the same time.
All that is nice where it is actually factual, but what does any of it matter. The Bible was not written in Latin. It was translated into Latin. Nor was the KJV translated to English from Latin as Wyclif did with his translation. I believe there was at least one other translation to English before the KJV which was also translated from Latin. See above concerning Jerome's translation from Greek to Latin for the Vulgate.
The KJV was not translated from this translation; it was translated from Greek manuscripts and perhaps some Hebrew manuscripts as well for the Old Testament. Greek, at the time of the apostles, had no punctuation, no separation between words and only capital letters. Lower case letters, diacritical marks, spaces between words, lower case letters and punctuation did not come into use until at least 200 AD.
Hebrew similarly had no punctuation, separation between words, or lower case letters. Furthermore, it did not use vowels at all. None of these conventions came into regular use before 1000 AD. Because the Hebrew did not use vowels, the possibility of improper translation is significantly higher. For instance, there may be no spelling difference between Samaria, the capitol of the Northern Kingdom, Israel, and Sumer, the former capitol of Mesopotamia, including the city of Babylon at its founding. Since Sumer was an abandoned tell at the time Omri founded Samaria it is not likely any of the prophecies referencing Samaria actually refer to Sumer, but I have heard that theory put forward.
My point being, your claims regarding the differences in punctuation are all useless speculation. Even if the manuscripts used by the KJV translators did contain punctuation this did not indicate the understanding of the writers, but was the understanding of later translators and editors. By the time these edits were made numerous doctrinal errors were already in place (much of Jesus ministry was devoted to correcting doctrinal error, and most of those errors carried over into the early Christian Church necessitating Paul's letters. Most of the editors and translators did their work justifying their own beliefs, not seeking the understanding of the apostles and prophets who wrote the book.
Calling the text of the KJV "proper" English is also a questionable statement, even if you are limiting it to the Elizabethan period and shortly after. Between 1450 and 1500 there was a major shift in the English language, making Modern English almost an entirely different than Middle English. Before 1400 every letter was pronounced, using what today would be considered "continental" diction rules. It sounded very much like German. Many, but not all spellings are the same now as in Middle English, but now many of those letters are silent or sound like other letters, such as in the words "though" or "rough". In Middle English both vowels would be sounded and the "gh" would sound much like the German "ch" but is voiced.
Now look at samples of each. First is Shakespear. Because it is a poetic style to make memorization easier, it is not exactly "proper" Elizabethan English, but will give a reasonably good idea of the vocabulary and syntax in use at the time.
Meantime we shall express our darker purpose.
Give me the map there. Know that we have divided
In three our kingdom: and 'tis our fast intent
To shake all cares and business from our age;
Conferring them on younger strengths, while we
Unburthen'd crawl toward death. Our son of Cornwall,
And you, our no less loving son of Albany,
We have this hour a constant will to publish
Our daughters' several dowers, that future strife
May be prevented now. The princes, France and Burgundy,
Great rivals in our youngest daughter's love,
Long in our court have made their amorous sojourn,
And here are to be answer'd. Tell me, my daughters,--
Since now we will divest us both of rule,
Interest of territory, cares of state,--
Which of you shall we say doth love us most?
That we our largest bounty may extend
Where nature doth with merit challenge. Goneril,
Our eldest-born, speak first.
Sir, I love you more than words can wield the matter;
Dearer than eye-sight, space, and liberty;
Beyond what can be valued, rich or rare;
No less than life, with grace, health, beauty, honour;
As much as child e'er loved, or father found;
A love that makes breath poor, and speech unable;
Beyond all manner of so much I love you.
[Aside] What shall Cordelia do?
Love, and be silent.
Of all these bounds, even from this line to this,
With shadowy forests and with champains rich'd,
With plenteous rivers and wide-skirted meads,
We make thee lady: to thine and Albany's issue
Be this perpetual. What says our second daughter,
Our dearest Regan, wife to Cornwall? Speak.
Sir, I am made
Of the self-same metal that my sister is,
And prize me at her worth. In my true heart
I find she names my very deed of love;
Only she comes too short: that I profess
Myself an enemy to all other joys,
Which the most precious square of sense possesses;
And find I am alone felicitate
In your dear highness' love.
The next sample is Chaucer, from Canterbury Tales, written C. 1250:
Note the conspicuous lack of the overly "formal" use of thee, thou, thy and ye as well as the common suffixes in the KJV. It can be argued that the KJV was written in the formal language of the court, but many linguists even dispute this. Many say that this was a special formal language created and reserved specifically for the KJV Bible. I have not studied court documents from British courts of the period, so I cannot do more than report what others claim. But it is obvious that the KJV was not common Elizabethan English, and while it comes closer in style to Middle English, which was completely out of use 100 years before the 1602 KJV was released, it cannot be considered to be proper Middle English either
Hi Niel, nice post but still we have been used to our KJV here. All my bible studies have done in that version. So far I trust it .
what do you think about the origin of the bible which has been kept somewhere in the Vatican. And all the translated version what do u think? From the original to different languages we have been able to survive so far.
KJV all the way!
Psa 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Psa 12:7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
The others are the wine of Babylon.
Pro 30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.
It is man's wisdom to tamper with His word, to add or remove things.
Difference between the NIV, and the KJV.
Rom 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. (KJV)
Rom 8:1 Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, (NIV)
Lord have mercy, there are hundreds of verses missing, and many more have been altered. No wonder God's house is in confusion, and this is the version promoted by our leadership.
How the leadership promote this?
Some forum discussion is nice and explosive. We like to learn but when we acknowleldge it . it becomes confusion and even doubtful. How will I deal with all these now,because since I have learn te bible it has always been KJV. Now what am I suppose to do and with what bible I am supposed to give bible studies. Please advise accordingly.
I know in the few time we won't be able to enjoy reading our bible also. Besides SDA has never published any bibles and how are we going to maintain our bible knowledge growing when we depend entirely on the publication of catholics foundation to do that for us..?
My friend, you cannot understand the Bible by your own merits, the Bible translates itself, it is it's own expositor.
Joh 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
Joh 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
When God's word has been changed by human hands, we become blinded to the truth.
Not that it matters, but Walther Veith is an ordained SDA Pastor, so as for your suppositions about him being ONLY a zoologist are unfounded.
Working on that premise, without a pastor we ourselves cannot understand God's word?