I have come to realize and belive that the original King James version of the Bible is the pure unadulterated?

Question

translation of the original texts. My husband however, came to know Christ by reading the NIV Bible and loves it very much. He knows the NIV is not good and it leaves many original verses out and agrees that its not ok, but he still has the NIV as his primary Bible. I want to get rid of it because it is a bad Bible. Those who agree with me know what i mean. I want to know from those of you who agree with me that the King James is the best, what should I do about this situation where I don't want our future children reading the NIV and want to get rid of it. Now I know that they might be reading it somewhere else, but having their father read it gives them a reason to say, well if daddy reads it its not so bad which will create problems in our family...

From what I know, the American people are the only ones that have different types of translations - if you look at some European countries one from where I am, we have only ONE translation in that language, not 20 or w/e

a reference source: http://www.scionofzion.com/sodomyniv.htm

Answer 1

The canon of the Old Testament that Catholics use is based on the text used by Alexandrian Jews, a version known as the "Septuagint" and which came into being around 280 B.C. as a translation of then existing texts from Hebrew into Greek by 72 Jewish scribes (the Torah was translated first, around 300 B.C., and the rest of Tanach was translated afterward).

The Septuagint is the Old Testament referred to in the Didache or "Doctrine of the Apostles" (first century Christian writings) and by Origen, Irenaeus of Lyons, Hippolytus, Tertullian, Cyprian of Carthage, Justin Martyr, St. Augustine and the vast majority of early Christians who referenced Scripture in their writings. The Epistle of Pope Clement, written in the first century, refers to the Books Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom, analyzed the book of Judith, and quotes sections of the book of Esther that were removed from Protestant Bibles.


In the 16th c., Luther, reacting to serious abuses and clerical corruption in the Latin Church, to his own heretical theological vision (see articles on sola scriptura and sola fide), and, frankly, to his own inner demons, removed those books from the canon that lent support to orthodox doctrine, relegating them to an appendix. Removed in this way were books that supported such things as prayers for the dead (Tobit 12:12; 2 Maccabees 12:39-45), Purgatory (Wisdom 3:1-7), intercession of dead saints (2 Maccabees 15:14), and intercession of angels as intermediaries (Tobit 12:12-15). Ultimately, the "Reformers" decided to ignore the canon determined by the Christian Councils of Hippo and Carthage.

The Latin Church in no way ignored the post-Temple rabbincal texts. Some Old Testament translations of the canon used by the Latin Church were also based in part on rabbinical translations, for example St. Jerome's 5th c. Latin translation of the Bible called the Vulgate.

The "Masoretic texts" refers to translations of the Old Testament made by rabbis between the 6th and 10th centuries; the phrase doesn't refer to ancient texts in the Hebrew language. Some people think that the Masoretic texts are the "original texts" and that, simply because they are in Hebrew, they are superior.

Some Protestants claim that the "Apocrypha" are not quoted in the New Testament so, therefore, they are not canonical.
Going by that standard of proof, we'd have to throw out Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 2 Kings, 1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Lamentations, Obadiah, Nahum, and Zephaniah because none of these Old Testament Books are quoted in the New Testament.


But there is a bigger lesson in all this confusion over not only the canon but proper translation of the canon , especially considering that even within the Catholic Church there have been differing opinions by individual theologians about the proper place of the deuterocanonicals (not that an individual theologian's opinions count for Magisterial teaching!).
The lesson, though, is this: relying on the "Bible alone" is a bad idea; we are not to rely solely on Sacred Scripture to understand Christ's message. While Scripture is "given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:16-17), it is not sufficient for reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness.
It is the Church that is the "pillar and ground of Truth" (1 Timothy 3:15)!
Jesus did not come to write a book; He came to redeem us, and He founded a Sacramental Church through His apostles to show us the way.
It is to them, to the Church Fathers, to the Sacred Deposit of Faith, to the living Church that is guided by the Holy Spirit, and to Scripture that we must prayerfully look.

Answer 2

"The King James Version was originally written from 1607 to 1610, with a group of 54 Biblical scholars from only Great Britain. These were dived into six groups with three working on a rendering of the Old Testament and the other three working on the New Testament. One of the rules in translating the KJV was the committees were to follow an older translation known as the Bishops' Bible (written in 1568) "and as little altered as the Truth of the Original will permit." Even most of that translation was based on the Geneva Bible and the Great Bible which were revisions of the Tyndale Bible which was published in 1533. All in all, the KJV has only 39% of its language which is unique to itself, and over 90% of the New Testament can be found word for word in the Tyndale NT which was published in 1525. This means that much of the 1611 version was nearly a hundred years old when it was first published!

What makes all of this significant is that England didn't have any ancient Greek manuscripts until 1628. Therefore, the translators were at a definite disadvantage when trying to decide which passages were in the texts originally, and which were added later by someone who was copying or translating another copy or translation. Contrarily, the NIV committee consisted of over a hundred scholars from five countries who had much older versions (so they were more true to the originals) and a much better grasp on ancient Hebrew.

Because we have better information now, the newer translations are just trying to correct some mistakes in the older translations. Remember, only the original copy is considered the Inspired Word of God. This does not mean that we have to worry, though. With all the new evidence, it is estimated that we know over 99% of our Bible is true to the original text, and those that are in grey areas do not affect any major Biblical doctrine." www.comereason.org

Answer 3

I agree with you. The King James Version is the best version, and the only one I use. I used to use the NIV til I started going to Independent Fundamental Baptist churchs.
IFBCs have books and sermons on why KJV is the best and only bible. One of your posters said that the NIV is not full of errors and the claim that verses are left out is not true. Well it is true.
Start with the verses you know John 3:16, Eph 2:8, Psalm 23. compare the two. Verses are not the same, only one of them can be accurate, we are talking about everlasting life is forever wherever you end up. Not to be taken lightly.
You can ask your husband if he knows that the NIV is not the best possible bible, then 1. why is he still reading it. 2. his reading it will influence the children, as he is the head of the family. he needs to take his role more seriously. I did to, so I know what I'm taking about.
Possibly switch to a IFB church, look up IFB 1000 on the internet, and others to find the nearest church to you, remember the closest may not be the best, check it out. Maybe say you are not satisfied with the church you are now. They don't use the KJV
What I like about IFB churches is that they mean what they preach and they preach out of the bible. The pastor, if he is a good one will encourage you to inform him if he is wrong in doctrine according to the bible. this means you are studying your bible. IFB is the only church that I have found that does everything they say they would do. If the bible says to tithe, then tithe. if the bible says you should fellowship with other christians then fellowship, if the bible says you ought to go win souls, then go soul winning.

Answer 4

I study with both the NIV and the King James Version. The NIV does not alter the meaning of scripture, nor does it leave verses out. What, exactly, would be the point in this?

Any copy of The Bible you buy is still just a translation, and not pure and unadulterated. If you want pure and unadulterated, learn to read Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic.

The NIV translation is used by several international groups. It is used in several parts of the world.

Alot of those verses that were referenced didn't even relate to the term "sodomy". It mostly involved changing the word "know" to the phrase "have sex with". Simply making it easier to understand.

Answer 5

The KJV has its mistakes too. For example, the italicized text is all added stuff placed there by the translators. Those things were not in the originals for sure. It is not a perfect book but, through the Holy Ghost's inspiration, it can give us perfect understanding...

I do see the KJV as the best translation to read, however. The poetic nature challanges the mind and gives more meaning. It opens the mind, as it were, to the Holy Ghost. The NIV is, technically, more acurate but it doesn't work as well with the Holy Ghost, as it were. Check out John 14:26...

As long as a person has the Holy Ghost with them they will understand truth. It doesn't matter which translation a person reads in that regard.

Answer 6

The King James Version does allow you to use a concordance to look up each word in it's original language as well as the meaning of each word in the verse used. The same word can have several meanings. A very helpful tool for bible scholars and people who enjoy a more in depth study

Answer 7

I agree that the NIV is a bad translation. I prefer the KJV, but I would hardly consider it "pure" or "unadulterated." As for your husband, if he knows the problems with the NIV but still prefers it, then you aren't likely to convince him otherwise.

Answer 8

First, some facts about The King James Version (KJV)

1) The KJV was not the 1st English bible, the 1st English translation from the original texts, the 1st authorized bible, or the most recently authorized bible
2) Very important that you read this, the translators' foreword of the KJV. http://www.tks.org/kjvpreface.htm It *should* be in *your* KJV. If you don't have the patience, here are the pertinent points:
a) The translators felt that reading *any* version of the bible was beneficial
b) The translators realized that their translation was *not* perfect, and indeed considered it *necessary* to put alternate translations for *many* (hundreds of) uncertain verses in the margins
c) The translators *primary* goal was to produce a bible in modern English so that it would be accessible to the most people - a function that it *definitely* no longer serves

Thus, the KJV no longer serves the purpose for which it was originally translated. This is not to say that the KJV is a poor bible. By no means, it is one of the greatest bible translations ever printed. But it is no longer the best bible for English-speaking people.

In the last 400 years
1) we have improved the scholarship of ancient language translation significantly
2) we have discovered hundreds of original language manuscripts older (and less modified) than those used by the KJV translators, and
3) our language has changed *significantly* over this period of time.

Therefore, the translations that are being produced today are, in general (there are exceptions) superior to the KJV. I know that you do not *want* to agree with this, but it is simple the truth, from the perspective of biblical ancient language scholarship. In other words, most modern translations are closer to the true scriptures than the KJV.

That being said, there *are* KJV editions that are superior to others. The most common edition (a very poor abridged edition, indeed) is the Oxford Revision. *If* you insist on using the KJV, here are 3 editions (in order of quality of contents) that are superior to every other edition I know:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?ie=UTF8&location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FKJV-Cambridge-Paragraph-Bible-Apocrypha%2Fdp%2F0521843863%3Fie%3DUTF8%26s%3Dbooks%26qid%3D1189044700%26sr%3D1-1&tag=wwwjimpettico-20&linkCode=ur2&camp=1789&creative=9325
This includes a scholarly attempt to duplicate the original *translation* (not any specific printing), and includes the marginal notes. I plan to buy this bible next (after reading through the 4 that are waiting for me here).

http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?ie=UTF8&location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FBible-Authorized-James-Version-Apocrypha%2Fdp%2F0192835254%3Fie%3DUTF8%26qid%3D1190233697%26sr%3D11-1&tag=wwwjimpettico-20&linkCode=ur2&camp=1789&creative=9325
This is also a scholarly reproduction of the original translation, but does not include the marginal notes. It's also quite a bit cheaper (and flimsier), though well put together for a paperback.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?ie=UTF8&location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FHoly-Bible-King-James-Version%2Fdp%2F1565631609%3Fie%3DUTF8%26s%3Dbooks%26qid%3D1189044819%26sr%3D1-1&tag=wwwjimpettico-20&linkCode=ur2&camp=1789&creative=9325
This is a facsimile of the 1611 printing, and includes both marginal notes and page headings. Each word on the page is in the *same* location as the equivalent word in the original printing. Note that the original spelling is used throughout, making it difficult to read (only at first). Note also that the original lettering is *not* used (thank God!), making this a quite useful edition once you have overcome the spelling idiosyncrasies.

I know that there are several versions in French, Spanish and English. It is natural that most versions would appear in English because, frankly, English-speaking countries are in general the wealthiest Christian countries in the world. It is not difficult, from a publishing point of view, to go ahead with a new English translation because it is not likely to lose money. However, as mentioned, other languages which sport higher-income populations also have several versions available. In addition, many of those available in America are of British origin (such as the KJV).

I hope this helps. Judging by your comments, I suspect that you cannot be swayed from using the archaic KJV, but if by some chance you are open to the idea, look at my "what bible should I pick" answer here: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AqyYD3DH3gq2OUGLnYTtfJrsy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20070917132118AAV1pCn&show=7#profile-info-e914b766baa907d43e2b84ea530f39d4aa

Jim, http://www.jimpettis.com/wheel/

Answer 9

It has hundreds of errors, and it was not the first Bible printed in English, it just happen to have King James backing. People in the English-speaking world use and accept the King James or Authorized Version more than any other single Bible translation. In fact, so highly esteemed is this translation that many persons venerate it as the only true Bible. This raises some questions. Do these countless persons who use the King James Version know why, despite objections from churchmen, modern translations keep rolling off the presses? Do they know why the King James Version itself was once opposed by the people? Do they know why, despite vigorous protest and opposition, the King James Version entered into the very blood and marrow of English thought and speech? Do they know what illuminating document is probably missing from their own copies? In short, do they really know the King James Version? The purpose of Bible translation, then, is to take these thoughts of God, originally written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, and put them into the common languages of today. Bible translation makes God’s Book a living Book. So true Christians read the Bible, not to be entertained by clever turns of expression, unusual words, excellency of style, striking rhetorical devices or felicities of rhythm, but to learn the will of God. It was for this reason that the King James Version came into existence. That was in 1611. From almost every quarter the King James Bible met opposition. Criticism was often severe. Broughton, a Hebrew scholar of the day, wrote to King James that he “should rather be torn asunder by wild horses than allow such a version to be imposed on the church.” The translators, not unaware that people preferred to keep what had grown familiar, knew that their work had unleashed a storm. They tried to calm the people down. They wrote a “Preface of the Translators” to explain why the King James Version was made. This preface is called by the Encyclopedia Americana “a most illuminating preface describing the aims of the translators which unhappily is omitted from the usual printings of the Bible.” Thus most Authorized Versions today, though they contain a lengthy dedication to King James, omit the preface. Its presence would clear up many misunderstandings about the purpose of the revision. The reader would learn that strong opposition was expected. The reader would learn that the King James Version was a revision of earlier works made with a modest hope of improvement and no thought of finality, In time the clamor died down, and the King James Version prevailed over the Geneva Bible. For more than two and a half centuries no other so-called authorized translation of the Bible into English was made. Little wonder that many people began to feel that the King James Bible was the only true Bible. Like many people who once objected to any change in the Geneva Bible, many persons today object to any change in the King James Bible. They oppose modern translations perhaps as vigorously as the King James Version itself was once opposed. King James Bible has been changed; today no one reads the King James Version in its original form. Explaining why this is so the book The Bible in Its Ancient and English Versions says: “Almost every edition, from the very beginning, introduced corrections and unauthorized changes and additions, often adding new errors in the process. The edition of 1613 shows over three hundred differences from 1611, It was in the eighteenth century, however, that the main changes were made, The marginal references were checked and verified, over 30,000 new marginal references were added, the chapter summaries and running headnotes were thoroughly revised, the punctuation was altered and made uniform in accordance with modern practice, textual errors were removed, the use of capitals was considerably modified and reduced, and a thorough revision made in the form of certain kinds of words.” So many changes have been made, many of them in the readings of passages, that the Committee on Versions (1851-56) of the American Bible Society found 24,000 variations in six different editions of the King James Version! What, then, of the objections raised by persons who say they do not want the King James Bible changed? Since the King James Version has already been changed, they lie on a crumbled foundation. If these persons do not want it changed, then why do they use, instead of a copy of an edition of 1611, an edition that has been changed? They appreciate, perhaps unknowingly, the improvements the later editions have made. They do not like the odd spelling and punctuation of the 1611 edition; they do not want to read “fet” for “fetched,” “sith” for “since” or “moe” for “more,” as the edition of 1611 had it. Thus improvement, when needed, is appreciated, even by those who say they object to any changing of the King James translation. One of the major reasons the Authorized Version is so widely accepted is its kingly authority. There seems little doubt that, had not a king authorized this version, it would not today be venerated as though it had come direct from God

Answer 10

Pick a bible you both like, or when you reference, reference others as well. Women should not criticize men's practices. If he is doing something wrong, then he should hear it from another man, not a woman. I don't know why this is, but get a clue that you have to live with this man for the rest of your natural life, and it is up to you to make that life a peaceful one, or one of contention.

If you are comfortable with the KJV, you don't have to give it up, but you have to realize that your future children are his children too, and you have serious trust issues if you are already picking a fight over this.