Jump to content


Photo

Bible Translations


  • Please log in to reply
14 replies to this topic

#1 Gordy

Gordy

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • I am a Layperson

  • I attend an Alliance church
  • Ensley Alliance Church, Pensacola FL

Posted 25 November 2011 - 10:24 AM

Is the Alliance KJV-only? I am not, although I prefer it over the NIV-2011.

#2 Josh Gaudreau

Josh Gaudreau

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 21 posts
  • Location:Winnipeg, MB
  • Interests:My wife Kaye
    Church history
    Theology
    Good Books
    Board games
    Coffee with friends
    Learning to be like Jesus
  • Gender:Male
  • I am a Pastor

  • I attend an Alliance church
  • Winnipeg Chinese Alliance Church

Posted 27 November 2011 - 12:21 AM

I'm not sure if any of the Alliance churches here in Manitoba preach exclusively from the KJV. Most would use the NIV (probably 1984) or NASB or ESV, while I myself waver between the ESV and NASB when I preach. Although I grew up with Ol' King Jimmy and can appreciate it, I want to use a Bible that is more quickly understandable. When I preach or read scripture from the platform I want people to understand it easily (especially the younger folk). In fact, my guidelines for the scripture readers forbids them from using the KJV for that very reason (but they're mostly free to use their version of preference).
Stumbling like a zombie towards the Light...

#3 Mark Wood

Mark Wood

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 85 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • I am a Missionary

  • I attend an Alliance church
  • Nikdovnihan

Posted 27 November 2011 - 05:53 AM

No, the C&MA is not KJV only. It does not take a stand on one particular Bible translation over another. I am curious what leads you to ask the question.

#4 Gordy

Gordy

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • I am a Layperson

  • I attend an Alliance church
  • Ensley Alliance Church, Pensacola FL

Posted 27 November 2011 - 07:27 AM

The reason that I ask this is that I was a member of a KJV-only Baptist Church that all but crammed it down my throat (and no it was not at "Rev. Dr. Peter Ruckman's" Church). I use the KJV but not exclusively.

#5 Mark Wood

Mark Wood

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 85 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • I am a Missionary

  • I attend an Alliance church
  • Nikdovnihan

Posted 28 November 2011 - 01:20 AM

Welcome Gordy. I don't have any idea who that guy is. I you have found a place that you can continue to grow in maturity in Christ.

#6 Joan Phillips

Joan Phillips

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 62 posts
  • Location:C&MA Nat'l Office
  • Gender:Female
  • I am a Layperson

  • I attend an Alliance church
  • Harvest Downtown

Posted 29 November 2011 - 10:30 AM

As a standard, The Alliance Communications team has used NIV 1984 until recently, when NIV 2011 version became available. At the direction of our Church Ministries interim vice president, Dan Wetzel, we are now using the 2011 version in Communications resources and stories. This is strictly a National Office Communications directive, not meant as a requirement for U.S. Alliance churches or personal preference.
  • revjamesspain likes this

#7 Gordy

Gordy

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • I am a Layperson

  • I attend an Alliance church
  • Ensley Alliance Church, Pensacola FL

Posted 25 April 2014 - 02:22 PM

Thank you all for the help.



#8 Cog

Cog

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 4 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • I am a Layperson

  • I attend an Alliance church

Posted 25 April 2014 - 07:36 PM

It's definitely not KJV-only, I don't know about the denomination as a whole but my church has always preferred the NIV.



#9 revjamesspain

revjamesspain

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts
  • Location:Walton, NY
  • Gender:Male
  • I am a Pastor

  • I attend an Alliance church
  • Riverside Alliance Church

Posted 20 May 2014 - 11:50 AM

Thank you for that information Joan. I attend an alliance church and the SR pastor and I debated this.


Pastor James C. Spain


#10 CamFultz

CamFultz

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 8 posts
  • Location:Washington State
  • Interests:Knowing Christ and Him crucified as the ongoing reality of my soul so that His resurrection Life finds present animation in my every motivation and thought.
  • Gender:Male
  • I am a Layperson

  • I attend an Alliance church
  • Mercer Creek Church

Posted 03 December 2014 - 08:38 AM

No English translation is going to be perfect. I always recommend believers to not limit themselves to one translation. Personally, the ESV is the best currently. The HCSB and NIV are also generally good for basic reading - and I do mean basic. For that reason, the second Bible I recommend is the Amplified Bible. The Amplified brings out more of the actual meaning of certain Greek words that a simple ESV / NIV Bible sacrifices to be "readable".

 

For study:

I recommend going to www.e-sword.net and starting with their free program which has a useful version of King James called KJV+. The + stands for Strong's numbers. As you read the text, there is a green number next to each. Those link to the meaning of the original language word.

ABP+ is the same way.  Many translations can be added for free.



#11 Alan G Phillips Jr

Alan G Phillips Jr

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 55 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • I am a Layperson

  • I attend a non-Alliance church

Posted 04 January 2015 - 08:23 PM

?

#12 _Walt

_Walt

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts

Posted 10 October 2015 - 07:43 PM

Years ago, in an Alliance church, I was ridiculed about using a KJB by other members. I also was told by an elder I should use a modern update. So feeling humbled, I sought the truth.  I prayed for God to give me a faithful translation, modern or otherwise.

 

After many years of study and diligent research, learning Greek and Latin, including verb tenses, moods, and voice, dealing with "formal gender", grasping free-form emphatic word ordering, etc, and doing research on the traditional Received Text line of scripture versus the Hort and Westcott Greek texts (from which virtually all modern translations come from), I was able to conclude that:

(1) the Hort & Westcott Greek New Testament (HWGNT) is infused with Catholic, arian and gnostic doctrinal accommodation in almost 3300 verses (modern verse numbering), that is 41%

(2) over 2400 verses have Latin grammatical vestiges, proving that the HWGNT is, at least in part, back-translated from Latin texts, that is 31% (implying a church at Rome origin, not some predecessor Greek texts out of Antioch, for example)

(3) the "handlers" of HWGNT are dubious at best and apostate at worse, based on their own words, resulting in critical doubts about the credibility of HWGNT

(4) There is even Medieval Greek where there should be Koine Greek in hundreds of places in the HWGNT

(5) Translations of the HWGNT have only been in active use since 1970s, yet the traditional Received Text has been in active use in collated form for at least 1600 years, and in other forms for the 300 years before that, which begs the question, which distribution is God behind? (I chose 1900 years over 45 years.)

 

The teaching by some that the differences are only minor, when there are 1100 out of 8000 verses (in the Greek) that impact doctrine, seems wholly untrue to me.  13% is not minor differences.

 

I concluded then, that the translations for me must be derived from the traditional Received Text, which seem to be the AKJV, the 21st Century KJV (without Apocrypha), and the Jubilee 2000. I have not found any others, and rejected the NKJV because of at least some scant infusions from HWGNT.

 

As for the 2nd person, singular and plural pronouns found in the above bibles, the whole world still uses them; they were only dropped in modern English (thee, ye, thou, thy, thine, etc).  And without them, there is the potential for up to over 15,000 ambiguities, though the reality is more like about 10% of that number.  (Ambiguity, to me, is not "easier to read").  Yes, there are some older words too, but the 21st Century KJV has dealt with that with about 100 updated words.

 

I posted my study results, al least in part, at http://www.millpark...._GODS_WORD.html.

 

BTW, despite what one elder told me, and the insults of some, I am still loyal to the Alliance church organization.



#13 tim yakich

tim yakich

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts

Posted 11 October 2016 - 12:37 PM

Let's go deeper into this subject and do some hard research.  Actually, the research is done simply by asking a few questions and going to the word of God for the answers.  So, first question: How many versions of the U.S. Constitution are there?  Answer: One.  How many versions of the U.S. Bill of Rights are there?  Answer: One.  Now, these documents, though rather important I will agree, can't hold a candle to God's Holy Scriptures, I would hope that we would all agree with that.  Second question: If there were different versions of the U.S. Constitution, with lawyers and judges brining to the table each their own version, how poorly would the country be governed?  (It's bad now, but I can't imagine what it would be like with 20 versions of the Bill of Rights!); Question 3: So why would God allow more than one version of His Holy Scriptures?  God is NOT the author of confusion (1 Cor. 14:33...For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.)  Answer: He wouldn't, especially since Jesus promised this in Matt. 24:35..."Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall NOT pass away."  If I can't say definitively that the book that I hold in my hand is the precious, infallible, inerrant, true word of God, then what good is it?  So, now it's time for one example of just how corrupt the New Order Versions of the bible are when compared to God's true word:  Read Isaiah 14:12 in the KJV..."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!"  Now read both 2nd Peter 1:19 (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:), AND Revelation 22:16...("I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and MORNING STAR.)//////////NOW, read those same 3 passages from any other version - except the NKJV - to see how these corrupted bibles use the same name for both Satan and Jesus!!  Telling us that JESUS fell from heaven and wants to be like God, and / or that it's SATAN who IS God in 2nd Peter and Revelation 22!!  Now that's JUST ONE example of the heresies found in the likes of the NIV, ESV, NASB, NLT, CEV, etc, etc. - you'd think that with so-called followers of Jesus that that one example would be enough evidence, but since I have had heated conversations with the pastors/elders/fellow congregants at my C&MA church, believe it or not only a handful have seen the light of the KJV and the darkness of the New Order Versions. 



#14 ADVRider

ADVRider

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 226 posts
  • Location:Heaven and Earth
  • Interests:Outdoors; exploring; friends.
  • Gender:Male
  • I am a Layperson

  • I attend a non-Alliance church
  • Boulder Street

Posted 14 October 2016 - 03:06 PM

So Tim, I am a little confused. Are you promoting the KJV-only view? I can't hold a candle to Walt above; my brain would be toast by now, but only the original manuscripts are inspired. Translations are just that. Not saying there are not bad ones and good ones; I think there are probably are and would generally agree on that. Many scholars however say even the King Jimmie was influenced by, well, King James. Some feel the Geneva Bible is much more accurate than the original KJV. But I shall trail off here...for now. Maybe. 



#15 _Walt

_Walt

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts

Posted 14 October 2016 - 06:47 PM

My study of the Greek revealed that there are no perfect translations in any language, modern or otherwise, because the Greek is not fully translated, though it could be.  For example, the adverb "permanently", in English, should be in front of any verb in Greek that is in the perfect-tense, ot the adverb "continuously" should be in front of any verb that is a present-participle in the Greek.  (note: sometimes it will need to be "repeatedly") There are many more such examples. 

 

Likewise, Greek word order should be repeated in English, or if not in standard subject-verb-object order, single and double underlines to show the emphasis found in the Greek, when the word order is different. Also, formal gender could use adjectives to more clearly show meaning, such as in formal grammar, feminine is corporate, as in "church" and masculine is singular, as in "member of the church."  Even the 7 ways the article "the" is used can be brought out in English or any language., again with adjectives. And all of this is the tip of the iceberg.

 

The reason most do not fully translate the Greek is that to do so properly would require pretty much at least doubling the size of the translated text.

 

Let me argue this.  The fact that the Greek is not translated with such clarity points to one reason why there are 40,000 Christian denominations in the world. (Note: I did not say church buildings.)