I agree, FA. We break fellowship so easily in the Church! One of my favorite pastors in the Word of Faith movement (Keith Moore) is King James only, and that is fine. Pick a subject and most Christians disagree on it. I mean, even Jesus, the harshest critic of the Pharisees, was himself theologically a Pharisee in most areas (I feel the stones coming out!). You should look at how fiercely Rabbis argued in Israel throughout history.
As long as we don't tread on the "non-negotiables" we can disagree and still be in fellowship. Here are my non-negotiables (a modifed form of 1 Cor 15:3-4), btw:
1. That Christ is the pre-existent Son of God. 2. That Christ came to the earth in the form of a human. 3. That Christ was fully God and fully man in that human form. 4. That Christ died on the cross for the sins of humanity. 5. That Christ rose again on the third day and ascended into heaven. 6. That Christ will come again someday to judge the living and the dead.
Of course, I hold to the Nicene Creed as well.
"I believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible.
I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages. God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father; through him all things were made. For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven, and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate, he suffered death and was buried, and rose again on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead and his kingdom will have no end.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets.
I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen."
That is a great question, Jappel! It would be necessary to define what you mean by "believe." You would also have to define which gospels you mean. Do you mean books like the Gospel of Thomas, or do you mean the Q, M, L, (etc.) sources?
Do I believe there may have been some lost gospel accounts destroyed by the ravages of time? Sure. 99% of all historical documents from that time frame are lost or destroyed. Most are lost forever, such as the Gospel of the Hebrews, which I would love to see! Others, such as the Gospel of Thomas, are Gnostic gospels that never made it into the Canon. When you read these gospels you find out why.
Those books are useful for archaeological, historical, or textual purposes for sure. Indeed, our understanding of Greek and Hebrew language mechanics have increased greatly from books outside of the Bible! Are they useful for determining how to live one's life? I don't believe so. To be sure, there may be some value in the Apocryphal books. At least most of them do not appear to be Gnostic. Catholics seem to like them, and that's fine. I would not put them or any other book outside the standard sixty-six books above what's in the Bible already.
The canon was set long ago. If we assume that God is the Caretaker of his Word, we must also assume that the finalized sixty-six book Canon is sufficient to accomplish his works. And if that is the case, the rest of the books are extras at best.
I apologize if I have come across as liberal. I am neither theologically liberal or conservative. I believe that the truth of most situations lies closer to the middle than on the fringes.
You should also add 2 Tim 2:23: "Have nothing to do with foolish, ignorant controversies; you know that they breed quarrels." Of course, I would not consider our recent discussions to fall under this category. More like, "Who would win in a fight: Batman or Yoda?" (The answer is Yoda, btw =D).
I debated on whether to respond further on this topic. It was my hope that it would just die down and we could all get back to memorizing whatever version of the Bible we so choose to use. Sadly, that did not happen and I am now compelled to respond. Saintman (and others), I hope you will not take what I am about to say as a personal attack. I do not mean it as such. I have great respect for you, Saintman. Your accomplishments on here are unparalleled. I stand taller in the memorization world because I have your shoulders to stand on. You have a passion for the Word and clearly are doing your best to do the work of the Kingdom, and for that you should be honored.
Saintman, I say this with great respect: you hold the minority position on the KJV being the only valid translation. Nearly every established scholar for the last two hundred years has held that the documents you essentially call trash are both authentic and extremely useful for both salvation and how to live a godly life. Indeed, at this very moment there are millions of people in heaven who have gotten there through the hard work of scholars like Westcott and Hort. We owe them a debt of gratitude and today they have received their heavenly crowns for their hard work. You state that "I am not suggesting that modern translators have deliberately created a corrupt translation" but in effect that is exactly what you are saying by the rest of your threads, and that is a shame.
I respect that you've been to a Bible college and received a Masters in Theology. I also respect that you've spent time studying this and other aspects of Bible translation outside of college. You have a wealth of knowledge and it comes out every time you speak. You do not, however, appear to have training that focused exclusively on textual studies of ancient documents. Here are three examples:
1. You state multiple times that the Alexandrian text is trash because it was found in a trash bin. The Alexandrian text, by the way, is not a document but a set of documents containing papyri fragments, uncials, minuscules, and a large selection of Codices (mostly complete copies of the Scripture). The Codex you are referring to is Codex Sinaiticus, which some speculate that it was found in the trash. As a side note, it was not found in the trash. Tischendorf, found parts of the manuscript about to be burned on his first visit in 1844. The reason why those slated to be burned was because they were "mouldered by time", or were in rough shape. The monks, sadly, did not know what they had in their library. It was Tischendorf's excitement that led them to reconsider burning any part of the Codex. They did not trust him on the first visit, so they would not show him the Codex itself. They did, however, preserve it from that point. Tisch returned to Sinai again in 1853 to find the actual Codex rather than just fragments, but he could not locate it. Finally, he returned a third time in 1859 and found the document wrapped in cloth in the steward's room. He asked to borrow it to copy it from cover-to-cover in Cairo, but the steward declined. Tisch went over his head and appealed to the prior a few days later, who consented. Tischendorf documented this extensively in his writings which are available for viewing. As one can see, this document was obviously not trash. Some pages were aged, perhaps, but there is no indication that the entire Codex was to be burned. Regardless, once the monks found out what a treasure they had, they preserved it. God used Tisch to keep the monks from burning it, and we are all blessed because of it.
2. You make assertions that the texts modern scholars use have been edited and thus should not be used. I hate to break this to you, but almost every ancient document has been edited or written over. If we throw out every ancient document that was edited or written over, we would have few documents left at all! Textual scholars do not shy away from these revisions. Rather, they explore why those changes have occurred and translate accordingly. Indeed, we are blessed in the modern age to have technology to explore those changes at an even deeper level. In my school, we saw technology that could scan the ancient manuscripts to reveal every change that has ever been made to a document. I can't wait to see the new translations that come out that have access to all the cool modern technology!
3. Bible translations are not made on one document or one set of documents. They are built on a large collection of documents. To be sure, they may lean heavily on certain documents (or classes of documents), but they are not used exclusively in most modern translations. Additionally, every translation decision is documented, and most of those decisions are viewable. Have you looked at the translators notes online or for purchase? Future versions will have even more tools at their disposal. In Accordance right now I can look at any verse in the Bible and see which of the thousands of fragments contain all or part of a verse. I can also view the actual Alexandrinus, Sinaiticus, Tischendorf, Vaticanus, and many many (many!) other manuscripts and papyri fragments right now as we speak. The rest are available online right now as well.
I am saddened by the necessity of this conversation. I am saddened that I must spend three hours defending the hard work that all these textual scholars have given over the years to enrich my life instead of just spending time memorizing the Word on here as I intended today. I am saddened that you and other KJV-only proponents are so adamant that there is only one valid translation, ignoring the fact that there are literally millions of people in heaven who got there through those same modern translations you seem so willing to throw on the trash heap.
The KJV is a beautiful translation worthy of the accolades it has received, but it should not be lifted up as some idol worthy of worship. God uses many ways to get his Word across to the world, and the KJV is but one of them. Those who use other translations (even the Message) should not be made to feel as if their choice of Bible somehow diminishes them.
That is an unnecessary overreaction, joosep. You created the group and have the right to make such requests. This group is a useful ministry to the users of this website. It would be a shame for you to step out of it now. We need your voice here, joosep!
I, too, prefer to focus on those things as well. Indeed, I've spent two hours on this discussion that probably would have better been spent on further memorizing. But it is not an "either/or" proposition. Sometimes these discussions are necessary, as long as they produce light instead of heat. Once the heat comes on, I step out. Unity in Spirit is more important than winning any argument. After all, we are all on the same side.
FA, you are correct that the best translations are the original languages copies. For that reason, when I study I use the original writings AND the different modern translations. There is such a richness in study of the Word the deeper you go!
It is not that simple, however, because some scholars (such as Burgon mentioned in Saintman's link below) view certain original texts as corrupt. That in essence is the heart of the "KJV vs. the world" dispute: the KJV uses the "uncorrupted" versions of the Greek manuscripts while the rest use "corrupted" versions.
A lot of ink has been spilled on this topic, and most of the discussions end up producing more heat than light. Feel free to explore further if you desire. In my opinion, doing so is to follow a rabbit hole that only leads to atheism or agnosticism because it sows a distrust in the Word of God.
At some level we have to have enough faith in God that he has already worked through all these issues to give us the texts we need to reach him. This seems like a small thing for a "Being" that can produce the universe from four words.
Ah, the classic Alexandrian vs. Antioch arguments pop up yet again! This is one of the reasons I hesitated to even answer Jappel's question. I feel like any response I have will either dishonor you, Saintman, or dishonor the KJV, neither of which I am interested in doing. I will answer your last question, however.
1. We, as believers, always start from a position of "seeing through a glass darkly" until we meet Jesus face to face (1 Cor 13:12). 2. Because of this, we must always be humble as we work out our understanding of God with fear and trembling (Phil 2:12). 3. God has watched over his Word as it has been handed down over the generations, so the versions we have now are the ones he wants us to have (Jer 1:12). 4. He has given us every tool we need to receive the teaching we need to reach him (2 Pet 1:3). 5. If our understanding of the Word is completely corrupted, which I deny, the Holy Spirit will still correct us to keep us on the path of righteousness (John 16:13). 6. The most important thing for us is to live in the light of the Scripture that we know and to be open to the promptings of the Holy Spirit going forward (John 9:41).
If we do these things, it will all work out for us in the end.
Thanks for making me aware of this group. Sadly, there is no such thing as a "right group" for having a conversation on this website as all posts are public. Also, I was not planning on getting into a protracted discussion about the KJV, but I guess I'm committed now. (And yes, joosep, I am longwinded most of the time =D)
Let me begin by saying my goal is not to stop you or anyone else from using the KJV. If you like it, use it. It is a good translation and beautifully written. I believe I can answer your question, however. This discussion may get a bit technical, and I apologize for that.
I can see that it concerns you that verse 37 is missing from Acts. I can understand why seeing a verse missing (especially one confessing Jesus Christ) could cause consternation. After all, are we not instructed to not add or take away from the words of God? I can see how it can be perceived as some rogue translator (in this case, almost every translator) trying to weaken the Word of God. That is not the case here, however.
[As a side note, whenever you see anything indicating the "Word of God" in the NT, you need to understand that the author means the Old Testament. While some of Paul's letters were circulating shortly after the death of Jesus, none of the other books were written within the first 30 years of the death of Jesus. Indeed, the disciples thought Jesus was coming back "immediately" after he ascended. It was not until they were getting close to dying off that they realized they were wrong and started writing things down to preserve the faith. The NT as we know it was not even finalized until five centuries later. Regardless, you shouldn't add to the NT either. That was just a point of clarification.]
The reason why that verse is missing in nearly every modern translation is because while a few ancient copies have that verse (the highly respected Alexandrian text , for example), the vast majority of the earliest and most respected documents do not. This is one of those situations were translators have to make a judgment call, which is never fun. The authors of the KJV did not have to make the judgment call, however, because they did not have access to the older documents. They just translated what they saw in the Greek, which is what all translators do. Someday, we may find an original of Acts hidden somewhere in a cave in Iraq. If that happens, the newer translations will have to address any discrepancies they find. Wouldn't that be a mess!
So why is verse 37 missing? Most translators suspect that Erasmus added this verse to his Greek NT translation sometime around the 2nd Century because he felt that the passage needed clarification. In other words, he felt that it was inadequate for Philip to offer baptism to the eunuch without extracting a confession first, so he added it here for clarification. Perhaps he believed it belonged there and that a scribe carelessly left it out. If Erasmus had access to the texts we have now, perhaps he would have left it out as well. This is all speculation of course. We can't go back and talk with Erasmus and we have no originals to confirm whether it exists or not.
So what is lost if we exclude verse 37 for the modern believer? Look at the narrative in question. Philip and the eunuch are riding in the chariot (v. 36). The eunuch sees water and says, "hey, why not baptize me here now?" So they stop the chariot and Philip baptizes him (38). That narrative flows. Is the forced confession "with one's whole heart" required here? Will the whole understanding of the necessity of confession of Jesus Christ with one's heart fall apart in Acts if we exclude it? No. Confession and acceptance of Jesus Christ in one's heart is all over Luke and Acts.
[Luke and Acts used to be one book, btw. It was separated because having both books in a scroll you roll up was too difficult to read from. You should look up the Luke-Acts scrolls. They were huge!]
So what is the takeaway from this discussion? If the omission of verse 37 is concerning to you, don't use the modern translations. Like I said before, the KJV will help get you into heaven just as well as other translations will. There is no "right" translation of the Bible. It was all written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Just use the one that makes you feel comfortable.
But know this, Bible translation is hard work (there's an understatement if there ever was one!) with little to no pay. Indeed, no one gets rich off of translating Greek and Hebrew. It is a slow, painful slog if there ever was one. For those who do it, it is a ministry of service to God and the people who will hopefully believe in him as a result of their hard work. The authors of the ESV, NASB, etc., like the writers of the KJV, have a tremendous respect for the words of God and do their very best to stay true to what the authors intended from the documents they have access to. These translators should be honored because someday, they will hear "Well done, good and faithful servant." May God use us all in such a way!
I know one's translation of choice is a touchy subject for some Christians, and I certainly don't mean to offend. I grew up with the KJV. Indeed, many of the verses I'm learning get messed up because I still have the KJV versions of the verses rattling around in my head (like John 3:16's "only begotten son"!). The KJV was monumental to opening up the Word of God to the masses, and it will always have a special place in my heart. The world is such a different place because of the KJV translation!
Let's get a bit technical for a moment. What is the purpose of Bible translation? It is twofold. First, you must take the words from another language and put them into words understandable in the language of the day. The KJV did that masterfully in the 1600s. Revival started because of the KJV's existence! Since the KJV was translated, however, we've learned a lot about how the mechanics of Greek and Hebrew work that was unknown at that time. For example, did you know that the word "Jehovah" does not exist in Hebrew? It is actually a form of the word "Yahweh." Writers at the time would not say or write "Yahweh," but would instead say "YHWH" or "Adonai." But they would, however, put the vowel symbols from "Yahweh" on the word "Adonai" as a sign of reverence, which would then make it turn into "Jehovah." Hebrew speakers knew this and would translate it "Adonai" without thinking. KJV translators did not know this, however, and thus "Jehovah" was born! (I still say Jehovah sometimes, btw, God knows what you mean!)
The second part is making sure your translation comes from the original documents. Sadly, there are no original documents for any book in the Bible, only copies. (This is not a problem; few secular documents have survived the ravages of time). Since there are no originals, the main rule is "oldest copy of the Bible document wins." The main challenge with the KJV version of the Bible is that is was formulated from Greek and Hebrew documents that existed in the 1600s. The translators were meticulous in their translation at that time, which is why the translation has stood the test of time. But in the intervening 400+ years, we have found over 23,000 new manuscripts (Codices and fragments) that shed new light on the original language of the Word. Indeed, some of these are centuries older that the documents the KJV translators had access to!
The good news is that these documents have reinforced that the Bible translations we have today are 98% accurate to what the original authors meant. The bad news is that we have also found that modifications have been made over time to the originals. The vast majority of these changes are spelling errors or minor clarifications, but there are some blatant additions. The most famous example is the "woman caught in adultery" story found in John 8. When the KJV version was translated, they included this story because the oldest copies of their manuscripts available at that time had those verses. Since then, however, we have found even older manuscripts that do not have that story. Why is that? Good question! Translators guess at some point that story was added to John by one of his followers. Perhaps it is a story that actually happened that John did not recall but another who witnessed it did. After all, it does match the overall narrative of crazy grace found in the rest of the Bible. Regardless, it was not what John intended, but the KJV translators did not know that. Were the KJV translated today, maybe they would not have added it. (As a side note, that is why you see the ESV, NIV, etc., put that section in brackets or italics as an homage to the KJV).
So should believers not use the KJV? By no means! It is still the Word of God accurate enough to save your soul and to show you how to live a Godly life. If you prefer that translation, and the Holy Spirit speaks to you through it to you, go for it! But if you are looking for the most accurate translation, however, sadly the KJV is not it. Those interested in accuracy should instead look to the ESV, NASB, or NRSV. Those interested in a version you can understand better, however, should explore the NIV, Living, or Message translations.
We are so blessed to have so many great Bible translations available to us, and we don't even know it!
It is interesting how translations change over time. For example, the NET version of Jeremiah 4:3 on here says:
For thus says the LORD to the men of Judah and Jerusalem: "Break up your fallow ground, and sow not among thorns."
Biblegateway's version, on the other hand, says:
Yes, this is what the Lord has said to the people of Judah and Jerusalem: “Break up your unplowed ground, do not cast seeds among thorns.
Both are drastically different from your version, yet I see that version as well on Biblehub and Studylight. I wonder what version of NET has that translation? I can't seem to find out online.
Sorry, forgive the ramblings of a language nerd. I like the translation you used better than the two above because it has more dramatic imagery. That is my translation style as well.
Jappel, I started out originally typing the whole word as well. Like you, I did it to help improve my typing speeds as a bonus. What I found, however, after six months of doing so is that my typing speed did not really improve much. (Admittedly, I type pretty fast already so that may have affected my perceptions.) Instead, as I started to get over 100 reviews in a day my fingers would start to go numb from the constant typing. I also found that it increased the amount of time I spent doing my memorization. I knew if I kept up at that pace I would eventually burn out from the time the reviews took, so I switched. It took a while to get used to but now I like it. I do, however, miss how much better typing the full word was on making mistakes. Single letter is very unforgiving for the reasons mentioned above. I say go with whatever works. Neither method seemed to improve my overall memorization either.
Yeah, that's why I hate short verses. So easy to lose huge amounts of progress. I've lost so many points / progress because of this. I've thought of several ways to resolve it:
1. Implement a setting where if you fail a keystroke within a second of failing another it ignores it. 2. Implement a system to click on a word you got right but typed it wrong to correct it. 3. Add a confirmation notice asking if you are sure that you want to drop your percentage or ignore it. 4. Eliminate losing progress altogether and instead lower the time to the next review.
I've had 4-5 verses that were short verses that I failed on the last couple of words that dropped from 97 to 74. That's basically 8 months of progress lost. When that happens I usually have to step away from the keyboard for a bit (usually for the day).
One month, HomeSchoolMama! That's so awesome! You are building a habit that will stay with you for the rest of your life if you'll let it. So proud of you!
I'm very proud of you, Symota! You've pushed through busy times, vacations, sick days, and burnout to achieve something really great in the kingdom of God, even if you may not see it now. I, too, will be there to cheer you on as you push toward three years!