The Love of Money

[TrustingmyLord]

I know that Bible translations have been debated about much on these forums, but I have not been involved in any of that, so I am curious to know what others think. I have been noticing lately that my KJV is quite different than the newer, more modern translations, and I have found a few things troubling.

Example, in my Sunday school class we are studying in 1 Tim. We all have different translations, so we often read the verse in a few different ones to get a better idea of the meaning.

1 Timothy 6:10 KJV For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.

NIV For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil.
NAS For the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil,
NLT For the love of money is at the root of all kinds of evil
NKJV For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil,

The message 9-10 But if it's only money these leaders are after, they'll self-destruct in no time. Lust for money brings trouble and nothing but trouble. Going down that path, some lose their footing in the faith completely and live to regret it bitterly ever after.

This really bothers me. Either the love of money is THE root of ALL evil, or it is not. Notice it doesnt say that money is the root of all evil, it is the LOVE of money. This goes along with the passage that says we cannot serve two masters, both God and money.

The newer translations make it out like the love of money CAN lead to problems, but its just one of many things and not that big of a deal.

What do you think of this? I know there are other examples as well, different verses where the meaning is downplayed and the importance is lost. I was just curous to know if I am the only one bothered by this.

[lilymarie]

There are some verses I like the KJV better and some I like the NIV version better. I haven't gotten into too many other versions. I don't want too many versions in my life. I enjoy the NIV because of the Aramaic involved, and I think the King James is cool because of the history involved in it (I love history).

But, with this verse, I like the NIV better because I don't see how the love of money can be the only root of evil -- what about rape, there is no money involved; it's just taking what isn't yours and it's a horrible, horrible evil.

I'm a victim, so I know. The rapist wasn't after "money". They were after something much more sinister; I can't even think of a word for what rapists want from women other than to hurt us.

[ROGER459]

(1Timothy 6:6-TO-11) But godliness with contentment is great gain.
(1Ti 6:7) For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out.
(1Ti 6:8) And having food and raiment let us be therewith content.
(1Ti 6:9) But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition.
(1Ti 6:10) For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.
(1Ti 6:11) But thou, O man of God, flee these things; and follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness.

PLEASE, just look at the CONTRAST of those that Love Money and those [of Christ] that are Content and have fulfilled V11? ? ?

THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX!

REMEMBER, we who live in America and are Poisioned BY THE MEDIA, always have to have the Best, the Biggest, the Most Sought AFTER = ANYTHING!

Thanks, Roger459

[TrustingmyLord]

lilymarie, you make a good point there, and I am so sorry to hear of what you have gone through.

ROGER459, I always read things in context, and we are doing an in depth study on 1 Timothy, so we have gone over all of this. I am not sure what point you were trying to make here.

It seems to me the whole meaning here is that we are to fully put our trust in God, not riches, and "Godliness with contentment is great gain." Even Christians with money are to trust in God, NOT the money, and are called to do good with thier money. The whole point being that money is not important at all.

What I am trying to say is that the newer translations make it sound like the love of money isnt all that bad, and I have seen other verses that make light of things as well.

Some things are less important, some are crucial. Some effect doctrine and beliefs about God.

Matt 5:2 KJV But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

NIV
But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca, is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.

Leaves out "without a cause," leading people to believe we are not allowed to correct a brother or ever get angry, even with a good reason.



Mark 10:24 KJV
24And the disciples were astonished at his words. But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God!

NIV
24The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, "Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God!

NLT
24This amazed them. But Jesus said again, "Dear children, it is very hard to get into the Kingdom of God.

Leaving out "for them that trust in riches" is yet another verse condemning the love of riches, just so convieniently left out. Also, making it seem so very, very difficult for anyone to get into Heaven.



Mark 11:26 But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses.

NIV Verse omitted.
Nas has the verse.
Message- verse omitted.
NLT verse omitted.
ESV verse omitted.

Seems like an important verse to me.



1 Tim 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
5and constant friction between men of corrupt mind, who have been robbed of the truth and who think that godliness is a means to financial gain.
ASV
wranglings of men corrupted in mind and bereft of the truth, supposing that godliness is a way of gain.

This appears to be a command, yet it is omitted.



1 Tim 6:19 KJV 1Laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life.
NIV
In this way they will lay up treasure for themselves as a firm foundation for the coming age, so that they may take hold of the life that is truly life.
NLT
By doing this they will be storing up their treasure as a good foundation for the future so that they may take hold of real life.

I may be wrong here, but this one I find a bit confusing. In the KJV, it seems to me that it is saying we must store up treasures in heaven, put our focus on that which is eternal, where as the other translations seem to be saying you should invest your money wisely so you can have a nice future on earth.

I have found alot of things like this. I am very bothered by it.
Many, many of these things are concerning money and riche, but I have seen some as well that seem to lessen and downplay the diety of Christ!

Any comments?

[lilymarie]

The first one Matt 5, I think should read like the King James -- meaning including the "without a cause". I think the NIV is good, but could still be improved upon. The other's I'll look over later after breakfast!

TrustingMyLord, Jesus has healed me from all the past hurts and violence I've suffered in the past. I don't suffer anymore and have prayed for my enemies to be blessed.

[lilymarie]

Oh, just a little bit of info:

We did a study on the word "Raca"... it means empty-headed idiot. I don't see what difference there is in basically saying idiot or fool? Anyhow, that was an interesting thread we did in Apologetics awhile back about the word "Raca". I don't know why they can't put a word in there we understand in English instead of Raca? :scratch:

[JTLauder]

There are several things that needs addressing here.

First of all, Bible verses should ALWAYS be read in the context of the passage they're in. Otherwise it's too easy get the wrong meaning out if it. For example: Suppose that I was practicing reading the lines of a modern version of Romeo & Juliet, and I said that I was going to make it look like I was going to kill myself. Someone walking by not knowing what I was doing heard me say those lines will think that I was really planning on killing myself. That's what' talking things out of context means.

Same here. 1 Tim 6:10 is only the conclusion of a larger passage, 1 Tim 6:1-10. For brevity, I leave the verses out for you to read.

1 Tim 6:1-2 sets the background of this passage: Slaves/servants are to remain in service and respect their masters, especially fellow Christian masters. To put it in a larger modern application, it could apply to subordinates under any kind of legitimate authority.

Now 1 Tim 6:3-10 gives us the warning. 1 Tim 6:3 tells us who this warning is for: For people who preaches the opposite of 1 Tim 6:1-2. It warns agaist such false teachers who willing go against the words of Jesus Christ. 1 Tim 6:4-5 gives a description of what these false teachers do and why..."supposing that gain is godliness" (6:5, KLV) and " who think that godliness is a means to financial gain." (6:5, NIV).

1 Tim 6:6-8 tells us where real riches come from--not from the pretense of holiness like these false teachers.

Now we get to 1 Tim 6:9-10 and can understand the context of this conclusion. Reading the verses by themselves suggests an overarching statement about everyone and everything. It could apply to more than the context of the passage, but if we want to be absolutely clear, the context tells us this conclusion is in regard to false teachers that the whole passage was talking about. Their love of money is the cause for the evil they do of misleading others by their false teachings.

[TrustingmyLord]

TrustingMyLord, Jesus has healed me from all the past hurts and violence I've suffered in the past. I don't suffer anymore and have prayed for my enemies to be blessed.

That is so awesome to hear. It is a wonderful God we serve, one who can heal our heart and bring about frogiveness for our enemies and a peace from all the pain.

JTLauder, once again I will state, as I stated in a post above.... I hope all other hear me as well, I am studying this book in context, in depth in my sunday school class. I have not just chosen this verse at random. Some of the other verses, yes, but not this one. Lets read it again... focusing on a different section...

1 Timothy 6:10 KJV For the love of money isthe root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.

This is one way we get the false teachers... by lusting after money, it causes people to err from the faith. This is a warning, to all of us, that if we set our sights on riches, we will not have our sights on God, we can err from the faith easier then...

This argument is so beside the point right now, my 1st point was that I am feeling like there is some major problems with new Bible versions, and a secondary problem is that due to some of these changes, it would appear that the new versions are saying that lusting after riches isnt all that bad.

I am content with what God has given me. I do not believe it is sinful to have money, but to lust after it and worry too much about it is sinful. Anyway, I know what the Bible says about riches, its just that for a new believer, reading these things that have been phrased so differently, they may miss the major point here.



Oh, just a little bit of info:

We did a study on the word "Raca"... it means empty-headed idiot. I don't see what difference there is in basically saying idiot or fool? Anyhow, that was an interesting thread we did in Apologetics awhile back about the word "Raca". I don't know why they can't put a word in there we understand in English instead of Raca? :scratch:


I do not know if this is true... totally dont know, so I wont call it fact of anything, but I did hear once that when it says "fool", if you think back to psalms, or proverbs, cant remember which. it says that a "fool" says in his heart there is no God. So someone said that in that one verse when it talks about calling someone a fool, it is talking about judging whther or not that person is saved, or a fool who doesnt believe there is a God.. Saying we shouldnt do it, of course.

I dont know about that. It would be good to study up on, I think I may ask my pastor about this.. I doubt thats what it means though.

[JTLauder]

This post was getting long, so I had to split it.

The second point that needs addressing is that it's ridiculous to be fanatical about a specific translation when it's still nothing but a translation. Reading different versions can give us a quick view of how else to understand what the Bible is saying. But if you want to start nitpicking on specific words and really getting indepth in studying the Bible, then you need to go back to the original Hebrew and Greek text.

I'm not suggesting studying these ancient languages, but for any serious adult Christian studying the Bible, after your Bible, Strong's Concordance should first book you turn to. Really, next to your Bible, this is the next most important book to have -- go invest in one, they are not that expensive. Your Sunday School class should definitely be using one.

This should really be looked at more closely, but here's what comes up for 1 Tim 6:10 from a quick search in Strong's. I pull out only those words that were questioned here.

First "the/a root" (Strong's #4491) . I never thought about the "the" or "a" articles too much, but they don't seem to exist in the ancient Greek (anyone can correct me on this?). The original Greek from which this is translates simply implies a primary base word of the word "root; a root". There is nothing there in the literal text to suggest a definitive "the" as the one and only.

Next, let's look at "of all" " evil" (Strong's # 3956 & 2556). The "all" used in the Greek implies either 1) all of every single inidividual parts/persons of a collective, or 2) a collective all (that is a representative of all different groups).

It's like a looking up a word in the English dictionary and finding a single word can have different meanings. So it's hard to decide which specific definition is used. But a notion in Strong's suggests that the first definition was used seldomly and the second definition was used more often in the Bible. So the assumption is that this "all" is representative of "all kinds or sorts". The words "kinds" or "sorts" does not appear in the original text, but in English they both mean the same thing and the choice of which word was used matters little except to clarify that the "all" is not an individual "all", but a collective "all" ("all different types").

No one questioned the word "evil" here, but it really needs to be looked at. Remember what I said about translations not being too helpful for word studies? The single English word "evil" translated and used in the Bible occurs as different words in the original Greek text.

The evil in 1 Tim 6:10 is (Strong's # 2556) means a bad nature, wrong or wicked character or malignant effect and influence. This describes the false teachers this passage talks about very well.

Compare that with the "evil" (Strong's #4190) in 1 Tim 6:4. Notice the different Strong's #? It's a different word in the Greek. This "evil" the bad or wicked that brings about pain and suffering in the physical sense.

lilymarie--this "evil" that causes physical harm is not the "evil" used to describe what happens from the love of money in 1 Tim 6:10.

So in 1 Tim 6:10, where "money is a root of all kinds of evil" is saying that false teachers (who may also cause physical harm) want to be rich but instead causes a lot of damage because of their bad character.

[TrustingmyLord]

JTLauder, you do realize that calling me "fanatical" and calling my concerns "ridiculous" is very condescending, rude and, well, just not very nice. You do know this, right? If you feel that I am wrong, it is your Christian duty to help point me in the right direction, but there is a much kinder way to do this. If you are right and I am wrong, I can deal with that, if you have truths I do not know, I'd like to hear them. In a nice, orderly fashion without the condescending tone, please.

I have to leave, I'll check back later.

[TrustingmyLord]

OK, I am back and have finished reading your post, JTLauder, and other than my initial defensive respose to your insults, I found it quite informative.

Since you seem to be very well studied on this, I ask you a sincere question, asked for an answer, not a debate. Well, a couple of questions...

What do you know about the 1611 King James version? Isnt it much older and translated more accurately? While I know you say different versions are still just translations, but what about the paraphrased Bibles such as the new Message Bible? What is your opinion of these? Have you never found any specific verses in newer versions to be misleading and inaccurate?

[JTLauder]

JTLauder, you do realize that calling me "fanatical" and calling my concerns "ridiculous" is very condescending, rude and, well, just not very nice..

TrustingmyLord-- :sigh: I am so sorry my words caused you distress. I did not address that comment to you, otherwise I would have first greeted you by name as I have here.

Because forums are open to everyone to read, I always write to a general audience unless I call out a specific name or quote. It was meant it as a general statement because many people say only this translation is valid or that translation is valid to the point they are very unyielding in their preferred translation, and I get very tired of such debates.

Obviously you do not fit into that category as your frist message showed you were willing to look at different translations and are asking questions about it. You are doing the correct thing in questioning everything to get to the heart of what the God is actually trying to tell us in the Bible. May your thirst for God's words never be quenched.

[TrustingmyLord]

No problem at all. All is good.

SInce I started this thread and these opinions and questions were mine, it sure seemed as if the comments were directed at me. I understand you were being general, but when you make these comments, those who feel firmly about their beliefs will be offended.

I have not been involved in such debates, I have not heard all sides. I am curious about it and I do have some concerns. Thats why I am here, asking questions.

I suppose I just want to know that I am reading the full, undiluted word of God. And when I see that different translations seem to push different meanings, well, I'd like to know whats most accurate.

I appriciate your knowledgable post, and if you know more, I'd love to hear more.

[JTLauder]

Truthfully, I don't know the histories behind the different Bible translations. Other than to make sure it wasn't a hack up job of a re-write that totally distorts the underlying messages of the Bible, I'm not too concerned with exactly how it was developed.

Paraphrases like the Message give a new perspective. They are much easier to read from a literary standpoint, such as reading a story in a casual setting. Other than that, I wouldn't use them in expository Bible studies where you need to look up specific words in Strong's Concordance.

Strong's is keyed to the KJV, so it's useful to that version only for that. I look at multiple versions too, to get a different perspective, but I don't get hung up with a single word differences between versions. That's why I look it up in the Concordance instead.

The problem with any kind of language translation, not just Bible translations, is deciding to tranlate literal word for word, or to translate contextually. It's important to get an "accurate" literal translation to not mistranslate the original text. But what if the meaning gets lost in the literal translation? How do you decide which way is better?

For example, I could write "It was raining cats and dogs."
2000 years from now, someone who doesn't know English and in a totally different culture translates that word for word in another language. And they will think that cats and dogs were literally falling from the sky!

If someone who understood 20th/21st Century American idioms knew this was a phrase that meant "it was raining water very heavily." Which translation is better? The word for word literal translation where people will probably misunderstand it, or a "non-accurate" translation people can understand?

That's not an easy question, and that's why looking at multiple Bible translations, even paraphrases, can be helpful. But to eliminate any doubt, look up the original text.

[~InHisHands~]

lilymarie, you make a good point there, and I am so sorry to hear of what you have gone through.

ROGER459, I always read things in context, and we are doing an in depth study on 1 Timothy, so we have gone over all of this. I am not sure what point you were trying to make here.

It seems to me the whole meaning here is that we are to fully put our trust in God, not riches, and "Godliness with contentment is great gain." Even Christians with money are to trust in God, NOT the money, and are called to do good with thier money. The whole point being that money is not important at all.

What I am trying to say is that the newer translations make it sound like the love of money isnt all that bad, and I have seen other verses that make light of things as well.

Some things are less important, some are crucial. Some effect doctrine and beliefs about God.

Matt 5:2 KJV But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

NIV
But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca, is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.

Leaves out "without a cause," leading people to believe we are not allowed to correct a brother or ever get angry, even with a good reason.



Mark 10:24 KJV
24And the disciples were astonished at his words. But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God!

NIV
24The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, "Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God!

NLT
24This amazed them. But Jesus said again, "Dear children, it is very hard to get into the Kingdom of God.

Leaving out "for them that trust in riches" is yet another verse condemning the love of riches, just so convieniently left out. Also, making it seem so very, very difficult for anyone to get into Heaven.



Mark 11:26 But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses.

NIV Verse omitted.
Nas has the verse.
Message- verse omitted.
NLT verse omitted.
ESV verse omitted.

Seems like an important verse to me.



1 Tim 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
5and constant friction between men of corrupt mind, who have been robbed of the truth and who think that godliness is a means to financial gain.
ASV
wranglings of men corrupted in mind and bereft of the truth, supposing that godliness is a way of gain.

This appears to be a command, yet it is omitted.



1 Tim 6:19 KJV 1Laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life.
NIV
In this way they will lay up treasure for themselves as a firm foundation for the coming age, so that they may take hold of the life that is truly life.
NLT
By doing this they will be storing up their treasure as a good foundation for the future so that they may take hold of real life.

I may be wrong here, but this one I find a bit confusing. In the KJV, it seems to me that it is saying we must store up treasures in heaven, put our focus on that which is eternal, where as the other translations seem to be saying you should invest your money wisely so you can have a nice future on earth.

I have found alot of things like this. I am very bothered by it.
Many, many of these things are concerning money and riche, but I have seen some as well that seem to lessen and downplay the diety of Christ!

Any comments?
I realize that I will likely get scolded for this belief but, it is my belief. After viewing other versions of the bible and noting a lot of differences in the wording, I've come to the conclusion that it's just not wise to use these other versions. I'm of the belief that if they're leaving things out that this bad. I don't care what the excuse is. It changes the entire context and meaning of the verses. It's misleading. I can't recall which verse it is now because I no longer have my NIV but, in there, was one verse that, when you read it aloud to yourself it sounded as if the verse was calling Jesus the devil. After seeing that, I went back to my KJV. I think part of why we see Christians bickering on these forums so much, has a lot to do with all these different translations. Also, if satan can attack other areas of our world and our lives, maybe it's possible that he has fixed it so that we have bibles that are inaccurate in order to cause confusion and fill our minds with lies. At the moment, I'm reading the NAB because of the simple fact that the original bibles came with 80 books. Somewhere along the way they were chopped to 66. I want to know what's in those other books. I want to make sure I'm not missing anything important that I may need to know. I will never understand why we have to have all these different bibles and why none of them are the same. I feel it's dangerous to our very souls to be using all these others. But, that's just me. Ok, I'm ready to take my verbal smack down now. ;)

[TrustingmyLord]

Truthfully, I don't know the histories behind the different Bible translations. Other than to make sure it wasn't a hack up job of a re-write that totally distorts the underlying messages of the Bible, I'm not too concerned with exactly how it was developed.


How is it that you make sure its not a "hack up job"?

Paraphrases like the Message give a new perspective. They are much easier to read from a literary standpoint, such as reading a story in a casual setting. Other than that, I wouldn't use them in expository Bible studies where you need to look up specific words in Strong's Concordance.

I agree with these translations being an easier read, this is definitely true, but on occassion I have found that the different perspective you get is wrong. Twisted a bit.

I understand what you are saying about raining cats and dogs, and I think this is a very good reason to study the Bible carefully and prayerfully.

[TrustingmyLord]

I realize that I will likely get scolded for this belief but, it is my belief. After viewing other versions of the bible and noting a lot of differences in the wording, I've come to the conclusion that it's just not wise to use these other versions. I'm of the belief that if they're leaving things out that this bad. I don't care what the excuse is. It changes the entire context and meaning of the verses. It's misleading. I can't recall which verse it is now because I no longer have my NIV but, in there, was one verse that, when you read it aloud to yourself it sounded as if the verse was calling Jesus the devil. After seeing that, I went back to my KJV. I think part of why we see Christians bickering on these forums so much, has a lot to do with all these different translations. Also, if satan can attack other areas of our world and our lives, maybe it's possible that he has fixed it so that we have bibles that are inaccurate in order to cause confusion and fill our minds with lies. At the moment, I'm reading the NAB because of the simple fact that the original bibles came with 80 books. Somewhere along the way they were chopped to 66. I want to know what's in those other books. I want to make sure I'm not missing anything important that I may need to know. I will never understand why we have to have all these different bibles and why none of them are the same. I feel it's dangerous to our very souls to be using all these others. But, that's just me. Ok, I'm ready to take my verbal smack down now. ;)


Its just sad that we have to worry about "verbal smack downs" on a Christian message board. Dont worry, you'll get no smacking from me.:wave:

I'd still treat you kindly, even if I didnt lean towards your opinion here. I am trying to be... humble and open here, simply wanting to know more.

My logic works like this; I have my mothers Bible, a 1611 King James Version. Since 1611, they have had many new versions come out, yet they all, pretty much all of them, I believe, remove things. I feel that since this 1611 is much older, it seems logical to me that it would be more accurate.

Now, with copyright laws and such, it is my understanding that if a person or organization wanted to reword the Bible, with the sole intent to make it more reader friendly, not to change anything, that they do HAVE to change so much stuff as to not violate copyright laws. The 1611 KJV has no copyright. I have looked this up, so this copright excuse works only if you are redoing a different translations then, I'd assume.

I looked some things up on Wikiperdia, and heres a few things I have learned.


In 1881 the Revised Version, new testament, came out. 4 years later came the old testament.
The American Standard Version came out in 1901, this came from the Revised version.
The Living Bible, came in 1971, and this was a paraphrase of the American Standard version.
The NIV came out in 1978, with a modified edition in 1984. It was translated from the "Christian Bible" it says, and I am not sure what that means. I have not learned from what the NIV was translated.

Heres some info on the KJV from Wikipedia.

The New Testament of the King James Version was translated from the Received Text (Textus Receptus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textus_Receptus)), called so because most extant texts of the time were in agreement with it. The Old Testament of the King James Version is translated from the Masoretic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masoretic) Hebrew Text.
Modern English Bibles such as the New American Standard Bible (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_American_Standard_Bible) and the English Standard Version (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Standard_Version) derive their authority from a completely different set of New Testament manuscripts (earlier Egyptian Minority Texts as opposed to the later Byzantine Majority Texts).
Although it is often referred to as the King James Version, the only active part King James (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_I_of_England) took in the translation was lifting the criminal (death) penalty attached to its translation and setting very reasonable guidelines for the translation process (such as prohibiting partisan scholarship and footnotes.)

I want to look up these Byzantine Majority texts, and the Egyptian ones as well...
I need to do some more research, its early here... but I find this not only interesting, but very important as well.. I have seen and read other things on the web that make me wonder about these different versions, but I want to find out for myself.

[~InHisHands~]

My next question is this TrustingMyLord, if the 1611 is the closest to being accurate, what about those of us who don't have access to one? Do you see my point here? We are basically forced to do the best we can with what we have available to us. I just believe the KJV to be the closest to the original as we can get. Is there any difference in your 1611 version and say my Schofield one? If so, is there somewhere we can get one of these 1611 bibles? :)

[TrustingmyLord]

I have no idea how common the 1611 KJV is, like I said, this one was my mothers, she passed away is '95, so I have no clue where she got it. However, if you go to

http://www.e-sword.net/

You can download a Bible for free. Its an awesome program, you download it, then there are tons of add-ons you can download as well, including many, many, many different Bible versions, including the 1611 w/ apocrypha, a 1587 Geneva Bible (not sure what this is), also it has all the newer versions, plus dictionaries, commentaries, maps, etc. And its all free.

I am not sure that the 1611 is the closest you can get to accurate. I really dont know. But this e-sword has many old ones, plus Hebrew and other languages, I need to learn more and see what is older and where these things came from.

I did come across something I found pretty interesting. I was looking up to see the difference between the Egyptian Minority Texts as opposed to the Byzantine Majority Texts and I found this. I do not know if this is accurate, but I will keep researching to see whats what. As you read this remember my post about how the NIV was translated from a completely different set of tests than the KJV, The Egyptian Minority Texts.

There are other extant Greek texts which are referred to as the 'Minority Texts' simply because they represent only about 5% of existing manuscripts. Another 5% are Neutral Texts: sometimes agreeing with the majority and at others with the minority. The 'Minority Texts' are also known as the Alexandrian Texts because they were produced in Alexandria in Egypt. The Minority Texts were rejected by the early Christians and also by all the Protestant Reformers of the 16th and 17th centuries. The Reformers, who were well aware of the existence of the Minority Texts, considered them unfit for translation purposes. These are very important points to bear in mind. Why did the early Christians and the Protestant Reformers reject the Minority Texts?
The answer is:
The Minority Texts were the work of unbelieving Egyptian scribes who did not accept the Bible as the Word of God or JESUS as the SON of GOD!
The Minority Texts abound with alterations, often a single manuscript being amended by several different scribes over a period of many years: something the Aaronic priests and Masorites would never have tolerated when making copies of the Scriptures.
The Minority Texts omit approximately 200 verses from the Scriptures. This is equivalent to 1st and 2nd Peter.
The Minority Texts contradict themselves in hundreds of places.
The Minority Texts are doctrinally weak and often dangerously incorrect.

It seems to me that once I began to look at these things... there is ALOT of stuff to learn and be researched.
As far as the 1611, I have seen major differences in some of the newer versions, but as far as other KJV's, I havent found a huge amount, but then I havent looked into it too much either. I know the NKJV is different, but right now I dont know about the newer KJVs. I will look into that.

[TrustingmyLord]

Quick note:

The 1611 KJV from E-sword is slightly different than the one I have. No wording differences, but the spelling is different. Example....

Joh 3:16 For God so loued ye world, that he gaue his only begotten Sonne: that whosoeuer beleeueth in him, should not perish, but haue euerlasting life.

My 1611 has the spelling normal, but the words are the same.

[~InHisHands~]

I only know of the NKJV. I just don't use the others because of the reasons listed in your post there Trusting. I've glanced through a NKJV and I didn't like the little bit I saw. I think the closer we can be to using something that is closer to an original would be safer. Please keep us posted on what you find out. And my KJV reads the exact same as the E-sword one except with proper english spelling.

I have to go get ready for work. Have a great day and have fun on your search. :)

[JTLauder]

How is it that you make sure its not a "hack up job"?

TrustingmyLord-- You've certainly looked up the history of different Bibles, so you know more about illegitimate Bibles.

But as an extreme and obvious example would be the so-called "Jefferson Bible" where Thomas Jefferson literally cut out verses from his Bible and pasted them together onto blank pages to form his own Bible. Granted, it was probably like someone just picking out their favorite verses for easy reading. But it's a misnomer to then call that a "Bible" and the supposed intent for it was to be a book of morals and ethical philosophy to be read apart from the whole Bible.

It's easy to avoid the Book of Mormon. Even though it's their "bible", at least they distiguish it apart from the actual Bible. (Though, I'm curious as to which version of the Bible they use.)
But something like the New World Translation can mislead people who don't know it was created by the Jehovah's Witnesses.

Perhaps "hack up" was not the right phrase--let's just call them invalid translations.

Many people like the KJV because it's supposedly the most word-for-word accurate. I've never and don't plan on making a word-for-word comparison to prove whether that's true or not. And it doesn't bother me if a newer translation like the NIV may sacrifice literal word-for-word accuracy for a litle more clarity without distorting the content of the message because I don't consider any translation completely accurate. Even if I were to go KJV exclusively, it will still not stop me from going to my Corcordance to look up the original word.

Because I always do that, it actually matters little to me the actual Bible version I use. I consider the Bible too important a text to rely on only one single translation--it's still just a translation and something is always lost in translation, so I always go back to the source.

[Athanasian Creed]

Dr. Marten Woudstra, Sodomite, Homosexual, and Chairman of the NIV Old Testament Committee (Dr. Woudstra, who died in the early 1990s, was a long-time friend of Evangelicals Concerned Inc. This organisation was founded in 1976 by New York psychologist, Dr. Ralph Blair, as a nation-wide task force and fellowship for gay and lesbian 'evangelical Christians' and their friends.):

(see http://64.176.112.65/woudstra.htm
for more)

KJV vs. modern translations -

Most people think that the so-called “modern translations” (RSV, NIV,NAS, etc.) simply put the Bible into the
language of today in place of the outdated English of the 1600s. Unfortunately, that is not the case. Different manuscripts are involved. The KJV comes from a family of manuscripts known as the Byzantine, Traditional or Received Text (Textus Receptus). Since this group contains by far the largest number of manuscripts, it is also known as the Majority Text. Modern translations come from an entirely different and much smaller family, of which Codex
Alexandrinus (A), Vaticanus (B) and Sinaiticus (Aleph) are the main representatives. That the latter are older has been the basis for saying they are better. In fact, the evidence is overwhelming that this family of manuscripts was badly corrupted. Their earlier date has two explanations: 1) Most came from Egypt, where the climate was conducive to their preservation; and 2) it is now generally agreed that when a new copy was made, the worn-out manuscript it replaced was destroyed. Thus it is probable that these older manuscripts had been abandoned or at least were not as
well accepted by the church as a whole — whereas the Majority Text was the one in use. The differences between the KJV and modern translations are many (numbering more than 2,000) and are in many instances serious. Yet, where the differences are not critical I will, at times, quote a modern translation when it better communicates a biblical teaching.
- Dave Hunt, The Berean Call

As to the omissions of the NIV:

If you read a modern Bible, don't let your pride get in the way of really looking at this information. Some people get hostile because I'm sharing these facts. Look up the verses and see that what you call the Bible is not the Bible. Get a real Bible. The King James conformable to the edition of 1611--NOT the New King James or the KJ21, etc. they are not King James Bibles.
WHOLE Bible verses deleted in the NIV
The following WHOLE verses have been removed in the NIV--whether in the text or footnotes...over 40 IN ALL!!!
Matthew 12:47 -- removed in the footnotes
Matthew 17:21 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?
"Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting."
Matthew 18:11 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?
"For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost."
Matthew 21:44 -- removed in the footnotes
Matthew 23:14 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?
"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."
Mark 7:16 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?
"If any man have ears to hear, let him hear."
Mark 9:44 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?
"Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched."
Mark 9:46 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?
"Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched."
Mark 11:26 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?
"But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses."
Mark 15:28 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?
"And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors."
Mark 16:9-20 (all 12 verses) -- There is a line separating the last 12 verses of Mark from the main text. Right under the line it says: [The two most reliable early manuscripts do not have Mark 16:9-20] (NIV, 1978 ed.) The Jehovah's Witness "Bible" also places the last 12 verses of Mark as an appendix of sorts.
Luke 17:36 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?
"Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left."
Luke 22:44 -- removed in the footnotes
Luke 22:43 -- removed in the footnotes
Luke 23:17 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?
"(For of necessity he must release one unto them at the feast.)"
John 5:4 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?
"For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had."
John 7:53-8:11 -- removed in the footnotes
Acts 8:37 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. It's deletion makes one think that people can be baptized and saved without believing on the Lord Jesus Christ. Sounds Catholic. What are you NIV readers missing?
"And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."
Acts 15:34 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?
"Notwithstanding it pleased Silas to abide there still."
Acts 24http://graphics.bigchurch.com/images/common/chat/smilies/smirk.gif -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?
"But the chief captain Lysias came upon us, and with great violence took him away out of our hands,"
Acts 28:29 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?
"And when he had said these words, the Jews departed, and had great reasoning among themselves."
Romans 16:24 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?
"The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen."
I John 5http://graphics.bigchurch.com/images/common/chat/smilies/smirk.gif -- Vitally important phrase COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. In the NIV it says,
"For there are three that testify:"
Compare the NIV reading with the following Jehovah's Witness reading--
"For there are three witness bearers,"
What are you NIV readers missing? What does the real Bible say?
"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."
This is one of the GREATEST verses testifying of the trinity. That is why the Jehovah's Witnesses leave it out. They do not believe in the trinity and they do not believe that Jesus is God. Why does the NIV leave it out...? Whole books have been written on the manuscript evidence that supports inclusion of this verse in the Bible.

And Hort & Westcott could not, by any stretch of the imagination be considered orthodox in their doctrine. They were both liberals and modernists.

In a study of ten versions and how they render eight (8) key passages in the New Testament that have possible reference to the deity of Christ, the New International Version in its translation ascribes deity directly to Christ in 7 out of 8, the Modern Language Bible in 6 of the 8, the King James Version ascribes direct deity to Christ in only 4 of these passages. (cf. chart, The King James Version Debate by Carson, p.64.)"
My. Comment: The pastor does not list the eight passages but I will mention just a few Scripture passages where the NIV, NASV, Today’s New International Version (TNIV), and RSV are weighed in the balances, and are found wanting.
* The deity of the Lord Jesus and fulfillment of prophecy are found wanting in the new versions.
King James Bible reads Matthew 1:25 "And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS."
Revised Standard Version reads Matthew 1: 25 "but knew her not until she had borne a son; and he called his name Jesus." (In question #22 you will note the pastor says the Revised Standard Version was produced "by men who in large part were liberals" so the RSV "would be ruled out" when choosing a good translation. However, NOTE how closely the RSV reads with the NIV which is this pastor’s favourite and the NASV which other "fundamental" pastors are using.)
TNIV Matthew 1:25 "But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus."
The word "firstborn" is eliminated in the NIV, NASV, TNIV, and the Greek Text the translators of these versions followed. Is "firstborn" an important word? It is for a couple of reasons. One, the word shows that Jesus was born of a virgin. Matthew 1:25 is the fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy in 7:14 "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."
Of course the RSV has "young woman" rather than "virgin". RSV Isaiah 7:14 "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."
This prophetic fulfillment in Matthew also proclaims the deity of the Lord Jesus. Secondly, the word "firstborn" implies Mary may have had, which she did, other sons. This of course denies the Roman Catholic doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity.
* The deity of the Lord Jesus is found wanting in the new versions and a shadow has been cast upon His deity through the elimination of the title Lord.
KJB - Matthew 13:51 "Jesus saith unto them, Have ye understood all these things? They say unto him, Yea, Lord."
The NIV, NASV, RSV, and the TNIV eliminate "Lord" not only here in Matthew 13:51 but in Mark 9:24; Luke 9:57; 22:31; 23:42; Romans 6:11; 1 Corinthians 15:47and many other places. This is a title of deity and appears in the Greek Text underlying the King James Bible but not that of the NIV, NASV, TNIV or RSV.
* The New versions are found wanting in that they teach Lordship salvation.
KJB - Romans 10:9 "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."
RSV reads Romans 10:9 as "because, if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved."
TNIV reads Romans 10:9 as "If you declare with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved."
* The new versions are found wanting in the importance and necessity of the Blood of Christ for the forgiveness of sins.
KJB – Colossians 1:14 "In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins."
RSV – "in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins."
TNIV – "in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins."
"Through his blood" is also omitted in the Jehovah Witness New World Translation.
The NIV, NASV, and TNIV follow along with the "liberal" RSV in the elimination of Christ’s blood in this verse. Is the blood of Christ important? 1 Peter 1:19 says it is precious. "But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot." What makes His blood precious? It is the blood of Christ! It is the blood of the virgin born Son of God, God the Son! IT IS SINLESS BLOOD! I can understand this cult omitting "through his blood" but "fundamentalists" defending versions and Greek texts that do the same I do not understand.
KJV – 1 John1:7 "But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin."
RSV – "but if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin." WHERE IS CHRIST?
TNIV "But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin." WHERE IS CHRIST? We have His humanity in Jesus but where is His deity in the term Christ? This was not sinful human blood that was shed there on the cross! This was the sinless blood of the Lord Jesus Christ, God’s Son, shed for sins!
I find at least two things interesting in this. The first is the NIV and the other new versions follow right after the RSV which fundamentalists rejected as liberal. Something has taken place between the 1952 RSV and the 1978 NIV. Has there been a deception? Secondly Jesus Christ did not have the blood of a human father flowing through His veins as He was the virgin born Son of God as prophesied in Isaiah 7:14 and fulfilled in the reading of Matthew 1:25 in the King James Bible as the firstborn son of Mary. The blood of the Lord Jesus Christ was "precious" blood and "divine" blood in that only His blood "cleanseth us from all sin."
From the English Revised Version to all the new versions based on the same corrupt Greek text they all "are weighed in the balances, and are found wanting."
http://bennett.biblefortoday.org/Articles/deceived.htm

There was, a few years ago, a written apology by a translator of the NIV (can't find source at the moment) who called it an abomination and he actually feared for the salvation of his soul and begged God's forgiveness for having anything to do with it's creation.

As for "the love of money being the root of ALL evil" as the KJV translates it -

For the love of money is the root of all evil. That is, of all kinds of evil. This is evidently not to be understood as literally true, for there are evils which cannot be traced to the love of money --the evils growing out of ambition, and intemperance, and debasing lusts, and of the hatred of God and of goodness. The expression here is evidently a popular saying--" all sorts of evils grow out of the love of money." Similar expressions often occur in the classic writers. No small part of the crimes of the world can be traced to the love of gold. But it deserves to be remarked here, that the apostle does not say that "money is the root of all evil," or that it is an evil at all. It is the 'love' of it which is the source of evil. (Barnes)


Ray :wave:

[bithiah2]

I know that Bible translations have been debated about much on these forums, but I have not been involved in any of that, so I am curious to know what others think. I have been noticing lately that my KJV is quite different than the newer, more modern translations, and I have found a few things troubling.

Example, in my Sunday school class we are studying in 1 Tim. We all have different translations, so we often read the verse in a few different ones to get a better idea of the meaning.

1 Timothy 6:10 KJV For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.

NIV For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil.
NAS For the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil,
NLT For the love of money is at the root of all kinds of evil
NKJV For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil,

The message 9-10 But if it's only money these leaders are after, they'll self-destruct in no time. Lust for money brings trouble and nothing but trouble. Going down that path, some lose their footing in the faith completely and live to regret it bitterly ever after.

This really bothers me. Either the love of money is THE root of ALL evil, or it is not. Notice it doesnt say that money is the root of all evil, it is the LOVE of money. This goes along with the passage that says we cannot serve two masters, both God and money.

The newer translations make it out like the love of money CAN lead to problems, but its just one of many things and not that big of a deal.

What do you think of this? I know there are other examples as well, different verses where the meaning is downplayed and the importance is lost. I was just curous to know if I am the only one bothered by this.

the way i was taught was that the King James Bible was translated into the language that was spoken in the 17th century. no one speaks that way today unless they are being formal in church.
i believe that we can think logically when we read the Bible. there are all types of evil things people do, which do not involve money. the first thing that comes to mind is a child molester. i have a big problem with those types of people. what does money have to do with a person who likes to mess with children? :mad: it is perversion and a demonic spirit, they are not thinking about money. i am not talking about exploting kids for money, it is the seed that would keep perpetuating this type of wickedness...i don't believe that the newer translations water the love of money down at all.
i believe that the love of money is the root of all "types" of evil, because all types of evil don't involve money.
blessings
bithiah2

[bithiah2]

TrustingmyLord-- You've certainly looked up the history of different Bibles, so you know more about illegitimate Bibles.

But as an extreme and obvious example would be the so-called "Jefferson Bible" where Thomas Jefferson literally cut out verses from his Bible and pasted them together onto blank pages to form his own Bible. Granted, it was probably like someone just picking out their favorite verses for easy reading. But it's a misnomer to then call that a "Bible" and the supposed intent for it was to be a book of morals and ethical philosophy to be read apart from the whole Bible.

It's easy to avoid the Book of Mormon. Even though it's their "bible", at least they distiguish it apart from the actual Bible. (Though, I'm curious as to which version of the Bible they use.)
But something like the New World Translation can mislead people who don't know it was created by the Jehovah's Witnesses.

Perhaps "hack up" was not the right phrase--let's just call them invalid translations.

Many people like the KJV because it's supposedly the most word-for-word accurate. I've never and don't plan on making a word-for-word comparison to prove whether that's true or not. And it doesn't bother me if a newer translation like the NIV may sacrifice literal word-for-word accuracy for a litle more clarity without distorting the content of the message because I don't consider any translation completely accurate. Even if I were to go KJV exclusively, it will still not stop me from going to my Corcordance to look up the original word.

Because I always do that, it actually matters little to me the actual Bible version I use. I consider the Bible too important a text to rely on only one single translation--it's still just a translation and something is always lost in translation, so I always go back to the source.
thomas jefferson had many good reasons to cut out pieces of the Bible. he was a slaveowner and had many children because of it.

movin' on up to the east side

bithiah2