The Bible says not to add or take away from the Word of God, should christians use them. we should preach.?

Question

I use the King James Version, there is an earlier English speaking version, but it is not popular and i cannot find it.
Language translations i can understand, but even i would not try to justify, the Lord works in mysterious ways, he always provides, he has certainly provided for me, I have read a couple of versions after KJV, people,we need to graduate, seek out a good KJVersion. Let us grow in Christ not remain babes in cnrist but become children in christ.

Answer 1

I use the KJV and Touch Point"niv".If I can't understand what the Kjv is saying I look it up in my Touch Point Bible and get a better understanding!God Bless and good luck finding exactly what you need!

Answer 2

Having a different translation other than the King James Version is fine. It isn't adding to or taking away from the word of God.

Please think...was there a bible before the KJV? Of course there was. Our current translation is very accurate..in fact, they have found older manuscripts and there are things in the KJV that shouldn't be there!

I have people in my church that believe the KJV is the only "real" bible...but the problem is they can't understand it. The language is outdated and they have no idea what the Bible is saying.

Get a Bible you can understand...that is the really important thing. You must be able to read, understand and obey the Bible.

Answer 3

There's a difference between translation and alteration. For instance, Mormons have "added to" through the book of mormon. There's a scripture which says that even if an angel was to come from heaven and teach things in addition to what was found in the Bible, let him be accursed.

An example of controversial translation is the required addition of "a" in John 1:1 (a popular Trinitarian text). "In the beginning, the Word was with God, and the Word was a god." That word "a" (grammar people could correct me on this, but I believe it's called an indefinite participle) doesn't exist in the Hebrew language. It needs to be inserted in English to complete the proper sense of the original Hebrew writings, not just in this case, but any time "a" is used. I know some would disagree w/ me on this because it threatens their belief in the trinity, but it's true.

An accurate, modern translation is a good thing to properly understand God's thoughts and feelings on matters. For example, the King James version uses the word "shambles" at 1 Corinthians 10:25. Our modern definition of shambles is "A scene or condition of complete disorder or ruin" - Websters. Back when the KJV was written, it meant a meat market or butcher shop.

An accurate, easy to understand translation of the Bible is possible without adding to or taking away in the sense of the scripture you're referring to.

Answer 4

King James Translated the words Not to Take away from the Words of this writing, It was not in the Greek.
I read any version I can find till I find they are no better than KJV, and so far most, with the exception of Stephens or Textus Receptus that is in Greek, all the others just re-translate King James instead of re-translating the original Script. The Diaglott & the Elzivir have the earlier English translation also.
The Diaglott is good the watch tower track sociaty puts it out , but the Jehovah Witnesses cant seem to read it . it is the same as The Elzivir, and Jehovah does not apear in either,

Answer 5

I have no idea what you're asking or saying? Jesus taught His disciples (who were the original Christians - or followers of Christ) to share the Word of God with others. The Bible is the Word of God and is therefore the truth. Christians should be "evangelists" and share that thruth with others. It doesn't matter what version of the Bible you're using, as long as you understand the true meaning. I have a new century version of the Bible (an everyday study Bible). I read the KJV of the Bible before and didn't understand most of what was written. I now am able to read and understand the Bible easily. Nothing was added to the Word of God - it was simply explained better.

Answer 6

What of the Spanish speakers, should they seek a King James? And how about the Russians? Or the Czechs? Or the Chinese? Japanese? I'm thinking the the language you personally know would be a good one to read the Bible in. Whether that be antiquated middle English, modern English or whatever language fits best for you. It is clear that the scriptures are inspired by God and interpretted to us by the holy Spirit, so we need not be concernedabout yet another rule-of-men to follow.

Isaiah 28

9 "Who is it he is trying to teach?
To whom is he explaining his message?
To children weaned from their milk,
to those just taken from the breast?

10 For it is:
Do and do, do and do,
rule on rule, rule on rule [a] ;
a little here, a little there."

11 Very well then, with foreign lips and strange tongues
God will speak to this people,

12 to whom he said,
"This is the resting place, let the weary rest";
and, "This is the place of repose"—
but they would not listen.

13 So then, the word of the LORD to them will become:
Do and do, do and do,
rule on rule, rule on rule;
a little here, a little there—
so that they will go and fall backward,
be injured and snared and captured.

Answer 7

Why are you so concerned with the King James Version. It was written before the finding of the Qumran scrolls(Dead Sea Scrolls) and lacked the abundance of scholarship necessary to make a scrupulously accurate translation. I would seek out a translation that has better scholarship if I were you . I think you are operating from a sentimental paradigm.

Preach Yes but preach in season and with wisdom.

"In the 17th century, King James translators worked from the Erasmus Greek text of the New Testament. Erasmus had six Greek manuscripts from which to work. NIV translators work from more than 5,000 complete or partial manuscripts and papyri."(copied from the IBS web page on the NIV)

Answer 8

The issue is the KJV is a translation. Something is always lost in translation. if you want the word of God as intended, you need to read the original Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic.

All three languages contain words which appear in the original texts which have no modern English equivalent.

The same issues apply to any translation of the Bible and any other holy text for that matter

Answer 9

I don't think there is anything wrong in trying to make the bible more easy to understand by changing the vernacular of the words. I have 3 translations and I usually look at them all when I'm looking up a particular passage. I don't like the KJV because people don't talk that way anymore, with thees and thous, etc. The meaning remains solid.

Answer 10

The Kings James Bible was translated into english in the year 1611, and the Thee's and thou's and wilt not's and eshewest are not Hebrew or greek they are how the English people back in 1611 spoke back then, the various translations who see today are translated into todays language using today's grammer, Some translations are meaning for meaning translations and not word for word translations like The NIV Bible, if you look at the NIV it will have many verses missing, I dont personnaly like the NIV because in it's attempt to translate the meaning of the Scriptures they lose meaning in the attempt. but that is just my opinion.