|
Which Bible should I use? My friend was faced with this question and did some study on the subject. He came up with some suprising answers to questions many people are asking. You need to read this page to "know" that God's Word is available to you. Many of you will be suprised to learn that you may not have the original Word of God!
Click the start button .
WHICH BIBLE SHOULD I USE?
Which Bible should I use? Many people today say, that it does not matter. We are told that the King James Bible, which most of
us have used since our youth, is not a totally reliable translation, and therefore, we must use all of the different translations and compare, one with another, that we may come, as close as possible, to the true meaning of God's Word. But, how can we know which scripture reading, or which Bible, is closest to the original writings of the Apostles? Also, how could it be, that the Christian church has depended upon only one Bible (The King James Version) for hundreds of years? These questions have caused me to wonder, just where did my Bible come from?
I JESUS HAVE SENT MINE ANGEL TO TESTIFY
UNTO YOU THESE THINGS IN THE CHURCHES,
I AM THE ROOT AND THE OFFSPRING OF DAVID,
AND THE BRIGHT AND MORNING STAR.
REV. 22:16, 18-19
Jesus Christ established the church, on that fact we can all agree. I do not believe it is possible, that He would have left His church without an accurate translation of His Word for hundreds of years. This, however, is what the translators of the New Bibles would have us believe. All of the Bibles in circulation today have come down to us in one, of two, distinct paths. First, lets look at the King James Version.
THE KING JAMES VERSION
The KJV can trace it's lineage back through history, (and the Church history) closer to the actual writings of the Apostles than any manuscript line.
(1) This historically traceable path, has produced more true copies, of Bible manuscripts, than any other. These copies were made and passed down, to each successive Church generation, with the oldest remaining copies being the Textus Receptus, or Received Texts. All of these manuscripts are in almost total agreement with each other, in their translations, about 90% to 95% of the time.
(2) The 5% to 10% of differences that exist, had to do with their conversion into other languages, which sometimes necessitated an addition, here or there, for clarity of sentence. None of these small number of differences, however, has cast the slightest doubt upon the fundamental points of Faith and Doctrine.
(3) This is not so with the new Bible translations. Furthermore, the history of the manuscript line, which has produced the King James Version, reveals that it was meticulously reproduced ffor us by men of character, integrity, and stedfast belief in God. In fact, it is said, that there has never been a greater group of scholars, assembled at one time, than the translators of the King James Version.
(4) On the other hand, all of the "New" versions have been predominatly based on a small minority of old manuscripts (about four) which were not known, or used, by the church throughout it's history, (this would lead us to a discussion of whether or not God could preserve His Word and keep His promises.)
.....AND PRAISE THY NAME FOR THY LOVING-
KINDNESS AND FOR THY TRUTH: FOR THOU HAST
MAGINFIED THY WORD ABOVE ALL THY NAME.
PSALMS 138:2
OTHER TRANSLATIONS
The three or four manuscripts, which the new Bibles are so
predominately based upon, disagree with the majority of
traditional Bible Texts, (and each other,) so much,
that Bible historians consider them to be unreliable copies. Yet,
men who hold the title of "Scholar", claim that these manuscripts
are better translations, than the volume of manuscripts behind the
King James, based exclusively on the fact, that they are older than
the Textus Receptus.
(5) But the simple fact that they are older,
does not mean that they are better. In this case, as matter of fact,
it tends to show that they are not reliable copies at all. While we
cannot deny the "Most Ancient" status of these manuscripts, they
quite simply have to ignore the historical significance, or
insignificance, of the texts to claim that they are superior in any
way.
(6) I would say that it is the very age of these three or
four manuscripts that is proof of their unreliable translations.
Why? Because they are texts that were produced in a period, when
historians tell us, that most of the corrupt copies of the Word of
God were made.
(7) Secondly, they were simply stashed away and
unused by faithful men, because they were so bad. So the
argument, that these four manuscripts are older, therefore better,
does not hold water, because, the manuscripts which were handed down
through the Church,(that led to the Textus Receptus), were just
as old, but these manuscripts became worn out through constant
use, and were copied and recopied for each generation by faithful
men, who believed in God and His Word. This also explains why the
Textus Receptus is the oldest remaining copy of the Received Text.
An example of some of the problems, in the manuscripts that the
New Bibles are based upon, is the Vaticanus B, one of the
four texts in question, which is in the Vatican Museum, in Rome. All
of Revelation is missing, 46 chapters of Genesis, 30 Psalms, (The O. T. writings have never been in question), and all of
the Pastoral Epistles, also Hebrews 9 thru 13.
(8) Another one of
these manuscripts, The Codex Sinaiticus, was found, in an
area where trash was thrown, by the Monks of a Monastery on Mt.
Sinai.
(9) Even the Monks considered it unreliable, and it also
varies greatly, (thousands of verses) from the Vaticanus mentioned
above, and the Recieved Text, and especially from the KJV.
(10)
Yet, the Revised Standard Version was based on Greek Texts taken
from these two manuscripts.
We also know, for a fact, that the men, who have been most
responsible for the New Translation, -(for example Drs. Wescott and
Hort, who wrote the Greek Texts from whence came the Revised Standard Version and most all of the latter translations)- have, by their own recorded statements, denied well established bible doctrines. Such as the inspiration of the Scripture.
(11)I have often heard it said, "Well, since we do not have a copy of the actual writings of the Apostles, we must take all the varing texts we have, and try to come to a conclusion as to what the true reading is."! That sounds great but, it is not what the writers of the new Bibles have done. If they really followed that rule, then the only conclusion would be: Since the King James manuscript line is in agreement with more that 95% of all the texts in existence, (i.e. The "Received" line, or the Texts in use by the church for hundreds of years)
(12)- (Which ammounts to over 5000 Greek Manuscripts,)
(13), that the King James Version, would therefore be the most accurate translation.
We have been told that all the differences, between the King James Bible and the New Translations, amount only to an updated English, and that there are no important doctrinal differences of omissions. Why don't we look at just one verse, (although there are hundreds,) and see if you think there is a difference:
-------------------------------------
___________________ ________________________
COLOSSIANS 1:14 COLLOSSIANS 1:14
KJV NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION
In whom we have redemption In whom we have redemption,
through His blood, even the forgiveness of sins.
the forgiveness of sins.
----------------------------------
I believe, that any time the blood of Christ is omitted from a verse, it is a very serious matter, for we cannot be redeemed, nor have our sins forgiven, without the death and shed blood of Jesus Christ!
I do not wish to offend anyone, that has made use of the new Bibles. Quite the contrary, because I can understand the wish to have a bible with wording that is somewhat easier to read. I really don't mind if you would like to get rid of, "thee and thou," of the King James English. I cannot, however, accept a modern English Bible if it is not a reliable translation of God's Word, and if, by additions or deletions, it calls into question the doctrines taught therein. We have been mislead by the so called "Scholars" - (Scribes and Pharisees)- of our day. There are hundreds of other examples, like the verse above, that I don't have space to cover, but it is quite clear, that we have the MOST ACCURATE TRANSLATION of God's intended Word in the King James Version, a Bible received of our forefathers in the faith. His Word has been preserved as He promised. This belief is also based upon the preponderance of evidence in its favor, and maybe more important I believe the following:
Matthew 24:25 Heaven and Earth shall
pass away, but My Words
shall not pass away.
1 Peter 1:23,25 Being born again.......
of incorruptible seed,
by the Word of God, which
liveth and abideth forever
....but the Word of the
Lord endureth for ever.
And this is the Word which
by the Gospel is preached
unto you.
Go to the History of The King James Bible?
Go to the History of The New Bibles?
IN CONCLUSION
In the book "The Identity of The New Testament Text", by Wilbur N. Pickering it states that "The fundamental difference between the abundance of English Translations of The New Testament in the last hundred years and the King James Version of 1611 is the Greek Text used in the translating. Virtually every one of the newer translations was made from a Greek Text based on principles developed by B. F. Wescott and F. J. A. Hort. The King James Version, however, was translated from the Textus Receptus, which is the traditional text.
The distressing realization is forced upon us that the "progress" of the past hundred years has been precisely in the wrong direction ---our Modern Versions and critical texts are several times farther removed from the original than are the Authorized Version and Textus Receptus.
When all the evidence is in, I believe the Textus Receptus will be found to differ from the original in something over a thousand places, most of them being very minor differences, whereas the Critical Texts will be found to differ from the original in some five thousand places, many of them being serious differences.
Dr. John William Burgon, Oxford University 1841-1848, a scholar who tried to fight the flow of Modernism in the Church of England, had this to say about the bible-(KJV).
"AND SO I VENTURE TO HOLD, NOW THAT THE QUESTION
HAS BEEN RAISED, BOTH THE LEARNED AND THE WELL-INFORMED
WILL COME GRADUALLY TO SEE, THAT NO OTHER COURSE
RESPECTING THE WORDS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT IS SO STRONGLY
JUSTIFIED BY THE EVIDENCE, NONE SO SOUND AND LARGE MINDED,
NONE SO REASONABLE IN EVERY WAY, NONE SO CONSONATE WITH
INTELLIGENT FAITH, NONE SO PRODUCTIVE OF GUIDANCE AND
COMFORT AND HOPE, AS TO MAINTAIN AGAINST ALL THE ASSULTS
OF CORRUPTION AS THE TRADITIONAL TEXTS."
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
REFERENCES
CLARKE, DONALD T. BIBLE VERSION MANUAL SHUBURY, PENNA: BIBLE
TRUTH INSTITUTE, 1975
CUMMONS, BRUCE D. THE FOUNDATION AND AUTHORITY OF THE WORD OF GOD
MASSILLON, OHIO:
FULLER, DAVID OTIS TRUE OR FALSE
GRAND RApIDS, MICHIGAN:GRAND RAPIDS INTERNATIONAL PUBLICATIONS 1973
FULLER, D.O. A POSITION PAPER ON THE VERSIONS OF THE BIBLE
HILLS, EDWARD F. THE KING JAMES VERSION DEFENDED
DES MOINES, IOWA: THE CHRISTIAN RESEARCH PRESS 1956
LACKEY, BRUCE WHY I BELIEVE THE OLD KING JAMES BIBLE
CHATTANOOGA, TN: 1987
MORRIS, HENERY M. MANY INFALLIBLE PROOFS
SAN DIEGO, CAL.: C.L.P. PUBLISHERS 1974
PICKERING, WILBUR N. THE IDENTY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT TEXT
NASHVILLE, TN: THOMAS NELSON INC., PUBLISHERS 1977
------- THOMPSONS CHAIN REFERENCE BIBLE
INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA: B. B. KIRKBRIDE BIBLE CO. 1964
DARRELL'S THOUGHTS
I find it very diffcult to type this artical exactly
as it was written.... not because I disagree with it but
because I find myself wanting to emphsize some of the great
points that my friend made! For example we know that God
promised to keep His word for all generations.....
how can it be God's word if it was lost for several hundred
years? It is noteworthy to remember that untill about 100
to 150 years ago the only Bibles we had were translated
from the same manuscripts as the King James Version. I am
persuaded that this is the Bible for me!
Thanks My Friend!!
My Friend and I would encourage you to do you're own study and ask the Lord to lead you as you reach you're own conclusions about this important subject!!
In an email message to my friend, Gary Crisp, about this page
page I made this comment:
"I would hate to think that I served a God who couldn't even
preserve his own teachings!"
Click here!to see Gary's reply! You really don't want to miss this one!!!!
Email me. Please let me know you what you think!
|
