(PRAY THAT GOD'S WORD WOULD BE MADE KNOWN)
Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path. (Psalm 119:105)
The King James Version is a translation named after King James I of England who commissioned the new English Bible translation in 1604 A.D. King James 'authorized' the new translation to be read in churches in England and beyond after it was first published in 1611 A.D. Later known as the 'Authorized Version' in 1814, the King James Version became a standard among English-speaking Christians. The King James Version is considered one of the most accurate English translations in existence. A skilled committee of 54 translators performed a painstakingly meticulous, precise and accurate job in the translation- a project that took 7 years to complete.
The translation is most noted for its poetic feel - prose that seems to flow with a certain rhythmic quality. The book is cited as the most published book in world history with a significant influence on literature and culture. It is estimated that more than 1 billion copies of the King James Version have been published. The King James Bible is said to be the most sold, read, bought, published, given away, believed, translated, quoted, and accurate book the world has ever experienced. After its production, the King James bible remain the English bible for over 200 years before a new bible came into print which was the Revised Version. However, to this day no other bible has rivaled it in accuracy.
Now, that being said, we should not put down nor get judgmental on fellow Christian's who are reading something other than a King James Bible. For it is true that God can use a bad translation to speak to a growing Christians heart. However, we should at the same time be willing to point them to a better translation as well, if we can do it in a way that would not cause them to lose doubt in God's Word. So, let's do all things through the leading of the Holy Spirit, building each other up in the ways of the Lord. Amen
GETTING DOWN TO THE SCRIPTURES
And Isaac spake unto Abraham his father, and said, My father: and he said, Here am I, my son. And he said, Behold the fire and the wood: but where is the lamb for a burnt offering? And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together.
This passage in Genesis prophesies that Jesus, the Word which was God and would become flesh, was given by the Father to be a sacrifice for our sins upon the cross. He is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world as proclaimed in John 1:29. Here, the KJV rightly prophesy this truth proclaiming that Jesus would offer Himself as a sacrificial lamb for our sins. The other versions quoted below only say that God would be providing the sacrifice (which is true), but not in anyway indicating Himself as that sacrifice. Other versions supporting “God will provide himself” or "Him" as the Geneva says are the Geneva, ASV, HNV, RSV, UKJV, MKJV, and the Webster bible.
The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water.
These verses in Proverbs declare that the LORD possessed (or to own) Wisdom from eternity past and by Wisdom He created the earth and the heavens (see Proverbs 3:19). Here, the KJV, NKJV, ESV, and NASB rightly proclaims that truth and declares that Wisdom was never created, made, birthed or formed but “brought forth” (or to dance) during God's creating act. Reading the other versions quoted below however, can cause you to come to the conclusion that there was a time that wisdom did not exist. Other versions that support the reading that “Wisdom always existed and was not created” are the Geneva, NASB, NKJV, ESV, ASV, HNV, MKJV, UKJV, Darby and the Webster bible.
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!
In this passage of Isaiah, we have a description of Satan who is here referred to as “Lucifer” (light bearer) in the King James Bible as well as by some other versions of the bible. However, there are those versions that make it confusing by calling him "morning star," a word used for Jesus Christ in the New Testament, or even "Day Star," a word that's also used in the New Testament and says: "We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: (2 Peter 1:19 KJV). Some other versions that read as the King James Bible are the Geneva, NKJV, Webster, DBY, as well as the Septuagint. The HNV uses the Hebrew word itself (heylel) and the YLT says “shining one.
I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name. (Psalms 138:2)
But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.
Here we have a prophesy of Jesus Christ who was the Word which was with God and who was God Himself. He was the Word which was manifested in the flesh and dwelt among us. Jesus said in John 14:9 “he that hath seen me hath seen the Father.” Now in this verse in Micah, we are told that He was from “everlasting” which means He never had a beginning but always existed. This word “everlasting” in the Hebrew means a “vanishing point” or “eternity.” But if you would read some of these other translations quoted below, you could passably come to a different conclusion, even perhaps that Jesus had a beginning. Those versions that hold to the eternal existence of Jesus are the Geneva, ASV, DBY, HNV, Webster, NKJV, HCSB and the NASB bible.
And one shall say unto him, What are these wounds in thine hands? Then he shall answer, Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends.
Here in Zechariah 13:6-7 we have a prophecy concerning our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. In verse 7 we have the prophecy of what would take place on the night of His betrayal concerning Him and His disciples (see Matthew 26:31). Also, before this in verse six, we read of One that would receive wounds upon him and by whom He would acquire them. In the literal Hebrew, it says that He would receive these wounds in His “hands” at the house of his friends (see Psalms 22:16 and Luke 24:39). I as well as (1)others, believe this is talking about our Lord Jesus who was crucified for our sins, having his hands nailed to the cross. However, from what we can see from the majority of the more popular versions quoted below, this Hebrew word for hands is being change into words such as arms, back or chest. So my question is, isn’t there in the Hebrew language literal words for these (2)other choices used? Of course there is. So wouldn’t it make sense if God wanted any of these other words to be used, He would have had Zechariah use their literal words themselves? God is not the author of confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33). It is also worth noting, that the NASV has in its footnotes that the Hebrew is literally “hands.” So why didn’t they use it? Some other versions that also use the literal translation “hands” are the Septuagint, Geneva, the original NKJV (1982 edition), Webster, Darby, Young's, MKJV, and the UKJV.
For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven. (Psalms 119:89)
And there came a leper to him, beseeching him, and kneeling down to him, and saying unto him, If thou wilt, thou canst make me clean. And Jesus, moved with compassion, put forth his hand, and touched him, and saith unto him, I will; be thou clean.
Here we have our Savior Jesus showing love and compassion to the Leper. The Geneva and all the modern versions I checked use the word “compassion” or “pity” for the feeling that Jesus had for the leper except for the NIV that says that Jesus was “indignant” which is to show anger. What is interesting however, is that the NIV uses this same word everywhere else as having compassion or pity. This is poor scripture translating at work.
No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
Here we have a clear declaration that only Jesus himself has seen the Father and no other. However we have other versions that make this passage confusing by using the word "God" instead of the word "Son" here. Yes it is true that Jesus is God, but it makes much more sense to use the word Son in reference to our Saviors relationship with the Father. Other versions that support this are the Geneva, NKJV, NIV, CSB, RSV, ASV, YLT, DBY, WEB, HNV.
And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.
The bible says concerning Jesus in Matthew's Gospel that they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. We also know from scripture that God is Omnipresent (Psalms 138). Jesus Himself said to Nathanael: Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee (John 1:48). So all this being said, I have no problem believing that the scripture quoted above is true. However, there are those versions that have a shorter reading of the above passage in that they have left out “which is in heaven.” Again, I believe that the KJV as well as the Geneva, NKJV, ASV, HNV, MKJV, UKJV, Darby, Young's, and the Webster bible have the correct wording.
I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea: That ye receive her in the Lord, as becometh saints, and that ye assist her in whatsoever business she hath need of you: for she hath been a succourer of many, and of myself also.
It is interesting that the bible passages listed below would actually use the words deacon, deaconess (Greek word diakonos) or minister (which appears as if Phebe, a sister in Christ is a leader in the church) instead of a more understandable word such as (1)servant which is used in some other passages of the bible. It is clear from scripture that a deacon is not a pastor or teacher in the church nor are they an Elder or Overseer, but instead are simply one who is chosen to serve in the church in one capacity or another. A good example of this would be the disciple Stephen who was chosen to be a helper in the church at Jerusalem as declared in the book of Acts (2)chapter six. He was appointed as a (3)diakonéō to serve tables in the church fellowship with seven others as well. We can see this truth in Peters own statement in this same chapter. For he, being an Elder said that it would not be proper that he should leave the teaching of God’s word and serve tables. So again, we see that the position of a deacon does not indicate one who is a church leader. Other versions that support the CLNT are: KJV, the Geneva, NKJV, ESV, HCSB, NASB as well as a few others. Therefore, these verses listed below should not be used as some sort of proof texts to show that a woman can have a leadership possession in the church.
1 Timothy 3:16
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
Here in this passage we have an affirmation of the truth of the Gospel that the Word (Jesus) which was God became flesh and dwelt among us (see John 1:14). The other translations quoted below fall short to point out this truth by using the word “He” instead of “God.” Yes it is true that one can come to the conclusion that these other versions are referring to Jesus Himself by what fallows, but they fail to hit home the fact that He is God in the flesh. Other bible versions that do include “God” are theGeneva, NKJV, YLT, DBY, WEB and the HNV.
But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.
Now we came to those words that are wrongfully toned down in the Bible. For we can see translators of the newer bibles changing the meaning of God's word to maybe make it less "offensive" to the readers. But wait a minute. Are not these words inspired by God in the first place, and did not the original copies had them in there? So if God inspired them to be there, who are we to change their meaning. For let's remember, "Father knows best." Amen. So that being said, if we look at the original meaning of the words "filthy rags" we can see that it means just that. For these words in the Hebrew mean a "menstruated cloth" which shows that even our best works are unclean before God. What is also interesting is that the CSB bible has in there notes that the literal meaning is "menstrual." Then why not us it as does the NET bible which says this: We are all like one who is unclean, all our so-called righteous acts are like a menstrual rag in your sight. We all wither like a leaf; our sins carry us away like the wind. Right on NET bible; now only if you were accurate everywhere else. Others that make it more clear by using "filthy rags" are: NKJV, DBY, WEB, NLT, NIV and of course the clearest of them all, the NET.
1 Kings 14:10
Therefore, behold, I will bring evil upon the house of Jeroboam, and will cut off from Jeroboam him that pisseth against the wall, and him that is shut up and left in Israel, and will take away the remnant of the house of Jeroboam, as a man taketh away dung, till it be all gone.
Here we can see another example of Translators that are toning down God’s word. Instead of using the inspired words “pisseth against the wall” (modern English, urinate) or the word “dung” (fecal matter), publishers felt that they needed to change this and obscure (maybe not intentionally) the message that God is trying to get across to us readers. Why, do they think it’s offensive or inappropriate to use a word that Got Himself inspired? We are not called to sterilize the Bible but to present it in all its truth. Even though most translations do include the word “dung” in them, they still leave out the reference to “urinate (or pisseth as the KJV has it). However, they do make it clear that it’s the males that the scripture is talking about as well as their use of the word dung, thus I did not include them below. Those versions that use the word “dung” and the word "males" are: YLT, NIV, ESV, CSB, NASB, NET, RSV, ASV DBY, WEB and HNV. Those that totally obscure this passage are listed below. Refuse or trash as the NKJV and the NLT has it does not convey much disgust as the scripture intended too. Nor does “those sitting on the wall” has anything to do with the male gender as the YLT has it.
In God will I praise his word: in the LORD will I praise his word. (Psalms 56:10)
Glorifying God through Prayer and Worship
Living a Life that Pleases Our God