What version should I use? Part - 3

Finally, I want to go over some of the beliefs that the KJVO people hold.

Colossians 3:14 "Beyond all these things put on love, which is the perfect bond of unity."

According to the KJVO people, if you enter a "true church" (as in, a church that believes in the KJVO) and do NOT use a KJV Bible, you should be kicked out. If you believe in the KJVO and enter a church that does NOT use the KJV you should break fellowship with that church.

Am I the only person that sees how divisive this belief system is? As a church we are supposed to be completely unified! Please don't misunderstand me, I do NOT believe that churches should tolerate sinfulness, but when churches are split over what version of the Bible they use, I find it just plain silliness. I have shown that the other versions of the Bible are just as -- or even more -- accurate as the KJV. So, why should there be disharmony, dis-fellowship and dis-unity in the church because of what version of the Bible you decide to use?

Now, how do you decided which version would be best for you? To quote the head director of the NIV:

"If you believe that the Textus Receptus is the correct Greek text to use, opt for the KJV or the NKJV.

"If you believe the Majority text is the correct text for the New Testament, opt for the NKJV, definitely," [the KJV was partially based on the Majority text, however the NKJV follows it much more closely.]

"If you want a very literal, well rounded text [using all the ancient Greek manuscripts] opt for the NASB.

"However, if you want an mediating, balanced, middle of the road version, opt for the NIV."

I would like to add, from my own experiences, my thoughts on the different versions.

KJV: if you like the archaic and lofty style of writing (reminiscent of J. R. R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings). I would not suggest this version to a "baby" Christian because of the "highly educated" standard of reading.

NJKV: if you like the lofty style of writing without the archaic language, this would be much more your style, but once again, I would not suggest this version to a "baby" Christian because of the "highly educated" standard of reading.

NASB: if you like a very literal, scrutinizingly accurate, straight from the Greek translation. This version is easier to understand than either the KJV or the NKJV, but it still can get a little difficult due to it's word-word style of translating. (This is the version I personally like because of the Greek and word-word style.)

NIV: if you like to know the real perspective of the words from another culture. The language is very easy to understand (it's like how we speak today) and can be read by anyone no matter the age or education. It's down to earth style and simplicity make it perfect for any "age" Christian.

Part - 1, Part - 2, Part - 3

What version should I use? Part - 2

Okay, last we talked we discussed the Greek and Hebrew texts. Since these were the original languages the Bible was written in, it would make seance to use these for our translations -- Correct? Since the Greek and Hebrew texts are older, they are the more reliable (Remember that as a rule of thumb! Older = More Reliable!)

When the KJV was being translated, the writers relied heavily on another text: the Latin Vulgate Bible. The Latin Bible was new, but extremely eloquent in it's speech (it was not the kind of language you would use everyday in the street.) This is another example of there being new and better ways of translating. Keeping this in mind, let's do some translation comparisons...

KJV, Isaiah 14:12 "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! [how] art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!"

NKJV, Isaiah 14:12 "How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer,* son of the morning! How you are cut down to the ground, You who weakened the nations!
Footnote:
* Literally Day Star"

NIV, Isaiah 14:12 "How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!"

NASB, Isaiah 14:12 "How you have fallen from heaven, O star of the morning, son of the dawn! You have been cut down to the earth, You who have weakened the nations!"

What do we see? KJV uses the word "Lucifer," NKJV also uses "Lucifer, but adds a footnote -- "Day Star" -- NIV and NASB both use "morning star"/"star of the morning". The KJVO people condemn the NIV, NASB and even the NKJV (because of the footnote) for changing the word "Lucifer" to "morning star".

When you hear the word "Lucifer" what pops into your head? Satan, right? That's what we've been taught, but have you ever stopped and wondered where the word "Lucifer" came from? Originally that's all it was, a word; "Lucifer" was never intended to be a name. Let me explain. In the ancient Hebrew texts the word translated "Lucifer" is הֵילֵל (heylel) which literally means "morning star". So why was it translated "Lucifer"? The Latin word (as in Latin Vulgate Bible) for "morning star" is "Lucifer". "Lucifer" is not a name! It is the Latin word for "morning star"! When the translators for the NIV, NASB, and NKJV came to that word, they looked at the ancient text and decided that they should not keep a Latin word in English -- they were translating for English, NOT LATIN. Thus they decided to go with the literal, original meaning of the word "heylel" and wrote down "morning star". Seems much more reasonable to me too, right?

Another thing that translators have to keep in mind is "idea-idea" and "word-word" translating. You see, when you are translating another culture, another language, and another way of speaking into English, sometimes the actual meaning gets lost within all the word shuffling. When you are translating word for word into English, you can come up with stuff that doesn't necessarily make the most sense. However, if you translate idea by idea, you take the foreign phrase and use the English way of speaking to say it (this is called "dynamic equivalence").

Example: KJV (word-word) Luke 9:44 "Let these sayings sink down into your ears: for the Son of man shall be delivered into the hands of men."

That sounds a little awkward.

NIV (idea-idea) Luke 9:44 "Listen carefully to what I am about to tell you: The Son of Man is going to be betrayed into the hands of men."

Sounds a lot better, doesn't it?

Because of the word-word translation of the KJV, it tends to be more difficult to understand than the NIV. I'm not saying that the KJV is impossible to understand, and if you prefer it -- by all means! -- use it, but if you find it easier to read and learn from another version, don't limit yourself.

I've got one more of these coming so Stay tuned..

Part - 1, Part - 2, Part - 3

What version should I use? Part - 1

So there are a lot of different Bibles out there, but which one should you use? There are four REALLY good translations: KJV, NKJV, NIV, and NASB, but even then which of those is the "best"?

There is a movement out there called the King James Version Only Movement. The JKVO people believe that the KJV is the only Bible people should use. They say it is the only version without errors. They even say that it was God-inspired. Let investigate some of these claims...

Without Errors:
The KJV was written in A.D. 1611. You do realize that the Dead Sea Scrolls were only discovered in 1947? I'm not saying that the KJV is full of corruption, but over the centuries many, older, more accurate texts have been found to base our translations off of. KJVO advocates also stated that if any man truely wants to understand God, he must use the KJV -- as in, if you are a Russian, you HAVE to speak English so that you can read the REAL KJV. According to their theology: if you do not have the JKV you do not have the Bible. (Follow my logic now...) Therefore, before the JKV was written no one had the Word of God. If you do not understand English, you do not have the Word of God. KJVO advocates also believe that the KJV is superior to the Greek and Hebrew texts that it was based off of... You do realize that the Bible was originally written IN Greek and Hebrew...

Let's get technical... The KJV was based on what's called the "Textus Receptus". The Textus Receptus was part of a group of manuscripts called the "Byzantine Family" (another group of texts was called the "Alexandrian Family" but we'll get into that later.) What do I mean by group?

When Paul and the disciples sent their letters out to the new church they always added "and share these with everyone." Anyone and everyone would hand copy the letters any way they could and distribute them. Some of the copiests were actual scribes and copied well, while others were just shy of illiterate. Years later we have THOUSANDS of copies of the Bible with little bits and pieces that have been changed due to mistakes during copying (these are called "textual variances"). These were divided into the Byzantine and Alexandrian Families.

*Example Time !!!"
A Professor decided to teach his class a lesson at a college. The task was to give 30 students a copy of a 12 page essay and to hand copy it themselves. After this the original text was put away and the students had to reproduce the original text through the hand-written copies. None of the hand-written copies came out the same; however, after much comparing, the students handed in their final copy. Although none of their copies of the text had come out the same, the students had reproduced the original text with 100% accuracy with the exception of one word... "too" and "also". The professor has tried this exercise many times on his students and the results are always the same.

What does this tell us? SINCE we have thousands of copies of the Bible, by comparing the documents to each other we can discern what the original text said (with the exception of words such as "too" and "also"). We have NO DOUBT that we have the real Bible, because none of the textual variances affect the message the Bible is trying to convey: Christ's Deity and Humanity, God's Sovereignty, salvation by grace, the reality of Heaven and Hell... All Bible versions (when I say "versions" I'm talking about KJV, NKJV, NASB, and NIV) and translations are 98% identical. IDENTICAL!!!! There is only a 2% variance at all!!!!!!!

To Be Continued...

Part - 1, Part - 2, Part - 3