Making Changes to the Bible

Forums » Faith & Culture

Back To Topics

Making Changes to the Bible

Paula Schemerhorn
- 92 posts
January 5, 2010 5:55:09 PM EST

I am thankful I was directed to this site as well. Thanks everyone for sharing.
Diana Shifley
- 1047 posts
January 5, 2010 5:56:47 PM EST

and some people think that God is not at work in our lives today - they are truly BLIND or as the Bible says - spiritually DEAD.
Diana Shifley
- 1047 posts
January 5, 2010 5:57:15 PM EST

P.S. Dana, peeps are yummy. lol
Gerald Butts
- 336 posts
January 5, 2010 6:06:34 PM EST

Good grief was I lost! Happy to be on the right track and sharing it with amazing peeps like you! Luv ya!

Amen Sister! He moves among us.
Dana Levenson
- 88 posts
January 5, 2010 6:09:06 PM EST

and some people think that God is not at work in our lives today - they are truly BLIND or as the Bible says - spiritually DEAD.

I like to refer to them as in a "spiritual slumber." Our job is to awaken them through love and patience! :o)
Gail Bowsher
- 355 posts
January 5, 2010 6:09:26 PM EST

And the love from God who is always there shall set you free. I now know what Martin Luther King ment when he said free at last praise God free at last.
Dana Levenson
- 88 posts
January 5, 2010 6:50:21 PM EST

And the love from God who is always there shall set you free. I now know what Martin Luther King ment when he said free at last praise God free at last.
Diana Shifley
- 1047 posts
January 5, 2010 6:54:46 PM EST

Gail, I'm so glad! Care to share more?
Scott Seevers
- 302 posts
January 5, 2010 7:18:20 PM EST

I have been away for a while and I am trying to catch up....This just happened to be what caught my eye.

I am sorry but I have this discussion with some friends of mine who read the NIV or other "simple" versions. They say it is confusing with all the "shalls" and "thous".

I find it truly disturbing that in the 21st century we as grown up, English speaking people have a hard time with shall and thou. Seriously, if the fact that the KJV is confusing pick up a concordance.

The Bible isn't a book that is meant to be read through like a romance novel. It is the Word of God and is meant to be studied. That means if there is something you don't understand.....figure it out. Research is wonderful. Ask a friend or pastor. There are many avenues to take when you would like to know something.

David......

(Im not gonna throw a fit if they do that but even though the "average person" may not understand the bible as it is I dont think it should be changed from the original. Im just nervous that this is a way for someone to get in there and change something they shouldn't. I know God said that He wouldn't let that happen (Revelation 22:18-19).

I dunno... It was written a certain way and I think God wanted it to stay the way it is. I could be wrong lol )

You are not wrong at all. Plain and simple...I don't care what anyone says. Let the people who change these things deal with the consequences later.

I am sorry but if the verse..." No man comes to the Father but by me".......if that is not plain enough then I don't know what is. MANKIND.....thats what it means....So are we to start saying "peoplekind" so noone gets bothered by it or confused???

These are just my personal opinions but I have a real problem with anyone wanting to change the Bible just to suit "modern english". There is not ONE word in the Bible that I cannot read or find the meaning to with a little effort. People are just lazy and want an easy salvation.

I guarantee this....

Jesus didn't take the "easy" way out for US when He could have...why should we take the easy way out for Him?

I hope everyone had a great Christmas and a safe New Year to all. Thankfully the reason I have been out of touch is work!!!
Diana Shifley
- 1047 posts
January 5, 2010 7:26:14 PM EST

Welcome back.
Paula Schemerhorn
- 92 posts
January 5, 2010 7:30:15 PM EST

I am from the OLD school...KJV for me all the way. The new versions are ok to cross reference with, and they can be helpful for sure. But when verses are quoted from the new versions, I don't recognize some of them. Im too old to change now! LOL I'll stick with the old one.
Diana Shifley
- 1047 posts
January 5, 2010 7:35:46 PM EST

I'm young enough to change (lol), but I refuse. I have verses memorized from the KJV and I don't see the new versions as having the same quality and ease of memorization or the same authority as the KJV.
Olli M
- 372 posts
January 5, 2010 7:37:43 PM EST

Scott but what is the "original" version? To you it's KJV, but it's not "original" any more than any other version; KJV wasn't the first version at all. You talk of KJV as "original" - on what basis? Does God prefer KJV? How do you know that?

The original manuscripts are available today just like they were before, and in greater numbers. Why can't a new translation be made of them? Or did only the KJV translators have some kind of divine permission to translate?

You say it was written "certain way." Are you talking about the original Hebrew and Greek, or KJV? I agree with you on the original languages, but not KJV. It's a translation, and outdated; much older manuscripts have since surfaced that weren't available to the KJV translators.

Secondly, you might find it disturbing that we don't use "thou." But it's the fact. We don't.

To modernize the text and compromising its content are completely separate issues. Just because the text is more readable doesn't necessarily deduct from its content.

You understand that the KJV language was once "modern" and contemporary?

Don't get me wrong. I actually like the KJV myself. I agree its translation was done very carefully, from what I have gathered. But so what? There is no reason it can't be done again.

And to compare this all to Jesus? We shouldn't have modern language Bibles because of Jesus took the hard road? Goodness.
Diana Shifley
- 1047 posts
January 5, 2010 7:44:05 PM EST

Olli, I didn't see the word "original" anywhere in Scott's post. Am I blind or is it not there? Thanks in advance.
Diana Shifley
- 1047 posts
January 5, 2010 7:47:06 PM EST

I'm blind. With further observation I found it. The KJV was the original version translated into English for the common people, so that they could check out to see if what they were being told in church was Biblical. In that sense, it was the original.
Olli M
- 372 posts
January 5, 2010 7:48:09 PM EST

Diana 5th paragraph, 3rd line. And the whole post is written as if KJV is the only version that people should read. Is that the only thing that bothers you? The word "original?" Come on now.
Olli M
- 372 posts
January 5, 2010 7:51:15 PM EST

Diana but it doesn't mean it's the best, or the only good one. That's the point here. Karl Benz manufactured the first original car but I wouldn't drive it.

That's the problem here. To talk about KJV like it's the only one that should be used. I can't see any logical basis for that.
Jonathan Cousar
- Internet Czar
- 2581 posts
January 5, 2010 8:00:45 PM EST

Actually, the KJV has a lot of translation mistakes. There are many newer versions that are actually more accurate than the KJV. But hey, you have to give them credit. They did a fine job for their time. But anyone who thinks it's the perfect translation is really being misled by someone.

I have a lot of memorized KJV verses in my head too. And when I hear them in a new version they don't sound right. But they are in fact correctly translated. Maybe you don't like to hear them that way, but that's just a personal preference, that you are certainly entitled to!

I loved the KJV until one day many years ago I was reading in a more modern version a story about Jesus. Suddenly I saw Jesus was very angry in this story. I wondered why I had never picked up on his anger in the KJV. So I went back to the KJV and read the story there. Suddenly I realized, the reason I didn't pick up on the anger is that it was expressed in such an old English that it wasn't immediately apparent to a modern speaker that anger was implied there!

It was apparent once you were clued into it. But you guys really have to understand that when you're reading 400-year-old English you're not going to understand it with nearly the same fluency with which you understand modern-day English.

I personally think it's essential that we use modern translations. ACCURATE modern translations. Because we miss so much of the nuance when we don't. We just miss it. It's couched in words and phrases that don't resonate with us.

Do you really find that when you read Shakespeare that it comes across easily? You really instantly understand exactly what he's saying? I don't! I need help! Even Shakespeare could stand to be translated into modern English.

The farther away we get from 1611 the more and more different the two Englishes become. Some day 1611 English won't even be recognizable to a future English speaker. They'll need a translation! I'd say we're about half way there now!
Diana Shifley
- 1047 posts
January 5, 2010 8:05:56 PM EST

I was just trying to explain what I understood him to mean. I was raised with the KJV and to me, I hear God best when I read that version. BUT I use other versions in my study and I enjoy seeing the similarities and differences in wording. We Americans make such a big deal about which version. Some languages only have one version and some don't have any version at all. God is not limited by which version a person uses. He speaks as He will to whomever He will.

A new translation from the original languages is something, if done concienciously, could be very good. If not, it could be very bad.

A rewrite of the NIV with a new copyright date, as if someone can own the words, is not something I would look forward to or use.
Mark Moorman
- 1029 posts
January 5, 2010 8:17:53 PM EST

I've been ministering to people on the street using NKJV, NIV, for years. I don't mean street preaching, as that's not my gift....I'm speaking of one on one. Most people respond very well to NIV, and most theologians that I've respected through the years have no problem with it's use....they have studied it fervently, and found only a couple instances where the wording was not to their liking, and then they offered a solution...and Alternate NIV, with those words put back. That is the one that I use, and when someone has given this argument(no way I'm going to argue here....just a discussion about something that, to me, is NO deal breaker), I ask them, "give me a verse that you like, but feel is not represented well in NIV....then, without telling me, write what that verse means to you. I'll do the same, then we'll compare". I've almost never had an instance where we, as mature brothers and sisters, have been any different in our base understanding of the verse, as given by either version. Some versions, I agree, they take out things that the translators have feared would "scare people away", because Jesus was no wuss, nor did he bend on the Law! However, I just don't find that with NIV.

This, of course, is forgetting to mention that there are THOUSANDS of languages, throughout the Planet, ....many of which have NO COMPARABLE word within their language, for those within MOST versions of the English Speaking bibles. And, speaking of KJV, I've attended many studies where the speakers actually felt that in the time it was first translated, by King James' People.....MANY things were 'tweaked' a bit to favor their governance......Which I'm NOT saying I agree with, fully....just pointing out that one thing keeps coming to mind....If people are coming to Christ, ....Asking Him into their hearts, ...proclaiming that He is The King, that we cannot come to God but by Him, ....that He died for the sins of ALL mankind, then rose on the third day, ....then, repenting of their sins and going forward to follow Christ....Isn't that of paramount importance to us, as a body? I mean, do I really want to begin in my helping them with their journey, discussing the semantics of 'KJV is much more accurate'...(even though I can't say that it's any more accurate than the NIV, or others, from it's original translation...MANY scholars with PHd next to their name, disagree with that). Shouldn't I encourage them to head to Family Christian Book Store, sit down, read through a few of them(within reason, of course...leaving out the versions that are representative of Sects of Christianity that I know sway from the truth), then decide for themselves which one it is that might be much more easily absorbed by them, as babes in Christ?