"Real" scriptures

[probinson]

In the thread about the Amplified Bible on the main forum, there was a post that called out the Message Bible. I've heard people use this statement of "real" scriptures before when trying to compare versions of scripture. 9 times out of 10, when someone talks about the "real" scriptures, they are talking about the KJV.

So my question to you is, what makes scripture "real"? Is it the fact that King James commisioned it?

I have some thoughts of my own that I'll post later, but I'd like to get your views.

[JimfromOhio]

Let me start with this: All translations (i.e. KJV, RSV, NIV and etc) themselves are not inspired. Only the originals are inspired. We are to trust the Holy Spirit more than we trust the translations simply because the Holy Spirit have been with the translators while they were translating. With that statement, KJV is NOT "the REAL Scriptures".

God's Word should be in the "language of the people" which means the everyday language, and not the English of 500 A.D. or 1000 A.D. or 1611 A.D. or 1800 A.D. or 1900 A.D. We are living in the 2007 A.D language. People to say that we should stay with an Old English Bible or KJV or whatever, when we need to focus on the "language of the people," in today's time. By putting pressure on people to focus on KJV or whatever would do a disservice to the TRUE message of the Bible. We need to communicate God's Word in the clearest possible manner.

We are to remember the Holy Spirit who is within us. 2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

In order to "revere" the Word of God (Bible), you submit to the Holy Spirit who is the Author of the Bible.

[dkbwarrior]

I tend to favour the KJV, as well as the ASB, and the RSV, anything prior to the early 20th century.

As Jimfromohio stated, the translations are not inspired, only the oriiginal autographs are. But of course, we don't have any of the original autographs left. The closest we can get is ancient manuscripts, portions of which date back to the first century, but none of which (for the New Testament) have complete manuscripts that old, other than some portions of the Old Testament found in the caves of Qumran.

I took a beginners class on this once, but it was awhile ago. I can only relate what I remember, and it may not be complete.

You would think that it would be simply an easy task of taking the oldest manuscripts as the most correct. This is called the eclectic approach to biblical translation. This is what most if not all newer translations have done. The problem with this is that the oldest manuscripts were found in the mid-20th century outside of Alexandria Egypt, which scholars believe to have been the epicenter of gnostic presence in the first century church. These manuscripts have approximately 6,000 variant readings from the Received Text used to translated the KJV, and the Majority Text or Byzantine Text used for the translation of the ASB, and RSV.

For this reason, the Majority Text and is the only manuscript collection that I fully trust. It is exactly what the name implies, it primarily takes the majority reading of all of the ancient extant manuscripts that we have access to, rather than placing special emphasis on the oldest, which would tend to favour the Alexandrian manuscripts.

Therefore, while I am not KJV only, I tend to favour that version. Yet I would be very pleased if a new modern translation would be made from the Majority Text itself.

Peace...

[Hortysir]

The KJV is all I have ever read. Any newer ones seem over-simplified.
And I'm sure the KJV is an over-simplified version of the original scrolls, but it's the closest (time-wise) that I can read.
The reading and meditation of the Word I can do. But, as Joe first mentioned and DKB echoed, the Holy Spirit will guide my heart as to the TRUTH!!

LYMI

[MrSnow]

Even though there are more manuscripts with the "Majority Text", I don't think that makes it more trustworthy. The Byzantine church, headed in Constantinople, was the center of Greek christianity. Naturally, the Byzantine world would produce a lot of manuscripts. And also, naturally, the "Majority Text" would be based on whatever manuscript(s) got there when it started to get big. So as far as I'm concerned, the "Majority Text" holds as much weight as any other set of texts. It just so happens that the center of things Greek produced the most manuscripts, as would be expected. So numbers don't really mean that much to me. The biggest dog happened to get itself the most territory.

[MrSnow]

Yet I would be very pleased if a new modern translation would be made from the Majority Text itself.

The NKJV is based on the Majority Text.

[dkbwarrior]

The NKJV is based on the Majority Text.

Ahhh....

Thank you.

I didn't actually know that, but I did just assume it to be so, as why else would they call it the New KJV?

Peace...

[Elijah2]

In the thread about the Amplified Bible on the main forum, there was a post that called out the Message Bible. I've heard people use this statement of "real" scriptures before when trying to compare versions of scripture. 9 times out of 10, when someone talks about the "real" scriptures, they are talking about the KJV.

So my question to you is, what makes scripture "real"? Is it the fact that King James commisioned it?

I have some thoughts of my own that I'll post later, but I'd like to get your views.

You mean the "fair dinkum" Scriptures of the KJV?:cool:

Be blessed in Jesus' Name.

[CryoftheNation]

You mean the "fair dinkum" Scriptures of the KJV?:cool:

Be blessed in Jesus' Name.


Bonza!!!

[Alpine]

I don't read the KJV because I don't speak 17th century King's English. :-Þ

[LeadWorship]

I typically use the ESV and NASB, however I always use an interlinear when trying to understand contextual meanings.

[pinetree]

In the thread about the Amplified Bible on the main forum, there was a post that called out the Message Bible. I've heard people use this statement of "real" scriptures before when trying to compare versions of scripture. 9 times out of 10, when someone talks about the "real" scriptures, they are talking about the KJV.

So my question to you is, what makes scripture "real"? Is it the fact that King James commisioned it?

I have some thoughts of my own that I'll post later, but I'd like to get your views.
Just on a different note to the other posts here.
What makes scripture real to me,is when I receive revelation,or an insight,or a living quickened word from the scriptures.:)
No matter what translation. Just a thought.

[enoch son]

Lets just forget the fact a translater told king jammie I can't translate that ver. that why. And king jammie had his head cut off and had some one else do it. Thats just wrong.

[Alpine]

Lets just forget the fact a translater told king jammie I can't translate that ver. that why. And king jammie had his head cut off and had some one else do it. Thats just wrong.


What's wrong?

[Svt4Him]

Ok, forgotten.

I like whatever I am reading at the time, although I started listening to the Bible on CD, which was really amazing.

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

...9 times out of 10, when someone talks about the "real" scriptures, they are talking about the KJV.

So my question to you is, what makes scripture "real"? \

2 Timothy 3:16(a) (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=62&chapter=3&verse=16&version=9&context=verse)
All scripture is given by inspiration of God...

Scripture bes the voice of the Holy Spirit heard in conversation and recorded in written language so that the information and instruction from heaven would not be forgotten. All true scripture causes an echo of this precious Voice inside us and thus serves the purpose of not only aiding us to hear the Voice of God for ourselves but also provides a measure by which to ascertain the veracity of any voice we hear.

Through the gift of tongues as recorded in Acts chapter 2, the Holy Spirit gave such utterance to the first apostles as to cause them to speak in a divine language which every man gathered heard in his own native tongue. Clearly, therefore, the Holy Spirit possesses a firm grasp and command of language in every aspect! Now, there bes good translations of scripture and poor translations, and what a modern paraphrase-style translation teaches us if nothing else would be that translation bes not a matter of precise equations and schematics but of fluid, malleable stuff like meaning and context.

Moreover, the very best and most accurate and perfect translation of scripture avails nothing without the Spirit that inspired it being present to unpack it properly in the mind:

2 Peter 1:20-21:
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Personal preferences? Givesy Moriah that Greek NT any day. :thumbsup: But never without the Holy Spirit at its side to impart understanding!

[Elijah2]

I don't read the KJV because I don't speak 17th century King's English. :-Þ

We colonial boys can, ain't we fortunate.:cool:

Be blessed in Jesus' Name.

[Elijah2]

Bonza!!!

Stone the crows, Mate, where did ya get that from---Baaza MacKenzie?:P

Be blessed in Jesus' Name.

[Elijah2]

I don't read the KJV because I don't speak 17th century King's English. :-Þ
Hey A, try the 15th Century Geneva Bible--good stuff mate---and confirms much in the 1611 KJV.:thumbsup:

Be blessed in Jesus' Name.

[CryoftheNation]

Stone the crows, Mate, where did ya get that from---Baaza MacKenzie?:P

Be blessed in Jesus' Name.

strewth mate! Been watchin too much neighbours! This pom may make it as a ausie yet! :D:D

sings.... tie me kangaroo down sport!

Huh you guys have a lot to answer for - Rolph Harris. Rod Hull and Emu! Dame Edna. Thanks a lot! :P:P:P

God Bless my friend

Simon

[CryoftheNation]

Going back to the ot,

Personally I like the NIV or NLT. But then again I work with youth so it may explain a few things. I also use the message, the original greek (Interlinea - my greeks not that good yet!) and a few others including the KJV. Although I prefer the NIV as I can actually get my teeth around the words! Thees and Thous don't do it for me! (Not that I don't sometimes use the NKJV too!) I have E-sword so have access to a number of different ones. Very useful!

God bless

Simon

[ARBITER01]

I can't begin to count the many times that GOD revealed aspects about HIS word to me through various debates and research.

I stick by the received text that makes up the various bibles before the kjv and the nkjv. I especially find the nkjv to be quite up-to-date with language and corrections. It singles out areas that differ with the Neutral text and the Majority text so that the reader can compare and allow The Holy Spirit to reveal the good and bad.

In that light, the translation is also very accurate with the greek text that forms it, and seeks to be a very literal "word for word" translation aside from what anyone or anything says, which is a major aspect of what I call "real" scriptures.

[Elijah2]

Actually, I do like using the Geneva Bible with the KJV and the NKJV, and the Book of Sirach.

Be blessed in Jesus' Name.

[Optimax]

In the thread about the Amplified Bible on the main forum, there was a post that called out the Message Bible. I've heard people use this statement of "real" scriptures before when trying to compare versions of scripture. 9 times out of 10, when someone talks about the "real" scriptures, they are talking about the KJV.

So my question to you is, what makes scripture "real"? Is it the fact that King James commisioned it?

I have some thoughts of my own that I'll post later, but I'd like to get your views.


EVERYONE, I mean EVERYONE, knows that the KJV is the "ANOINTED" version.;)

[Elijah2]

EVERYONE, I mean EVERYONE, knows that the KJV is the "ANOINTED" version.;)

Nah, HIS INSPIRED WORD!:)

Be blessed in Jesus' Name.