Why KJV preference? Gen 7:1

My husband and I routinely use several different translations during Bible study, as well as a couple of concordances! There are many ways in which the King James stays more faithful to the original meaning of the text -- and many ways in which it does not. Often we have found that the oft maligned New International Version presents a more accurate, or clear, understanding of the meaning, especially in the poetic sections. For me, personally, a key phrase is in the Ten Commandments. Does it say "murder" or "kill"? If "kill" is used, then the meaning of the commandment is lost, for the following sections in the Law make a very clear distinction between murder and kill, as does the implication contained in God's direction to Noah about capital punishment in Genesis 9.

And yet, scientifically, there are several times when the KJV is more faithful to the meaning than the newer versions. We were invited to a conference of interpreters at the Broadmoor Hotel in Colorado Springs a few years ago and my husband pointed out to the interpreters of the NIV where they had missed the boat on the real meanings of the words in terms of what science has found (which is in line with the actual original meanings of the Hebrew words and not what was thought to be in the meantime). They were amazed and asked him many questions. I don't know if any of the newer versions contain any of the corrections or not.

However I would mention that if the individual words are that important to you, that you get a concordance or two and study them carefully when you get to passages that are 'key' to you. Often you will find some amazing surprises that may bother you at first but will help you understand what God is actually saying in the long run.

 

2BHisown,

The NKJV reads, "Come into the ark, you and all your household..." so it is not all the modern versions who change the words to "enter". That being said there really is not a dimes worth of difference between "come into" or "enter". In the NT we are told to "enter the gate", the gate clearly speaks of Jesus. I believe you are making a distinction where one does not exist. Enter means the same thing as come into.

Bro Tony

 

This thread should be in the bible versions forum, but here goes anyway.

Hello, I'm pretty much KJO myself but you might want to be careful about hanging everything on one verse or passage. Having said that, there is one passage I think reveals a lot about a bible version - Galatians 3:16.

16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

Then go to the Genesis passage which Paul refers to and look for the word “seed”. If it’s not there - and it’s not in most modern versions - you have a problem. “Seed” is the only English word (and the Greek word must be similar) that conveys that simultaneous singular and plural meaning. “Descendants” won’t work, “posterity” won’t work – only “seed”.

One commentator I read, in order to avoid the obvious language-based problem, simply stated that Paul should not have used that method of reasoning to prove the singularity of the seed being Christ.

This is not to say that KJV is superior in all cases, but this is one that the KJV clearly wins IMO.

 

KJV Preference

2BHizown,

Your question is pertinent to all of us. I like the KJV because I am so familiar
with it. On certain chapters, especially Rev.21 & 22, I find the KJV reflects
the Purpose for the Millennium better than any version or translation.

The KJV makes clear that "only the saved nations (sheep nations of Matt.25:32) will enter the eternal Kingdom on the new earth". Rev.21:24. Only the KJV
reveals the reason why the "goat nations" will be cast into outer darkness when
Jesus "separates the sheep nations from the goats". They will fail to "keep the
commandments of God relating to how they treat the least of His brothers". Matt.25:34-46; Rev.22:14.

Only the sheep nations will continue to have the "right to be healed by the
leaves of the Tree of Life" by coming from their earthly kingdom after the Millennium and entering the New Jerusalem and continue to be "healed". Rev.22:2; Ezek.47:12.

But as with most all versions, except the New Jerusalem Bible, the translators
of the KJV adopted the Gnostic teaching of Plato that God cannot be made
subject to the "perturbations of the human emotion of anger". So they failed to
reveal the difference between anger (thumos) and wrath (orgay). The KJV
never once translated thumos as "anger"; not even when both words occur
in the same verse!! Rev.14:10 is the critical verse on these two words!!!

This mis-translation is at the heart of understanding that God's wrath does
NOT take place until the armies of the Evil Trio "gather to Armageddon" nor until Christ is crowned "King of kings" in the 7th Trumpet. Only then, on the Day Christ comes FOR and WITH all the saints, does heaven announce that "God's wrath has come"!!! Rev.11:18.raise:

Mel Miller www.lastday.net

 

JD,

The NKJV uses the same word "seed" as does the KJV. This modern version seems to be acceptable to you.

Mel,

You stated in your post that only the KJV translated certain words certain ways, thus the modern versions (except the Jerusalem Bible) are incorrect. I look at each reference you made on the words such as "wrath" and what happens to the goat nations. Again, the NKJV states it the same way as the KJV including using the word wrath and not anger, and clearly teaches the same as the KJV in dealing with the sheep and the goats. Please dont say only when it is not true. It is not only the KJV that teaches biblical doctrine, but in these cases the NKJV does just like the KJV and in all doctrinal cases all legitamate translations teach the same thing.

Bro Tony

 

Hello Bro Toney, yes, the NKJV uses seed, although somewhat inconsistantly in Genesis, but nevertheless they use it in the critical passages. There are some places in the NKJV that I don't particularly care for, which is the same way I feel about the old KJV, but less so.

 

Brother Tony, you're quite correct. I also find Helen's comments above of great value. People try to make issue's of NON-ISSUES and that makes the waters murky causing many to avoid the truth concerning ALL VERSIONS. It sad, but, so true.

 

This thread is more suited for the Bible versions/translations forum. It will be moved there.

 

KJV Preference

Thanks,
Mel Miller www.lastday.net

 

We must ever beware of reading something into Scripture that isn't there.

When God told Noah & family to enter the ark, He was speaking to people who may have known there would be a Messiah, or may not have known. Since He wasn't coming in Noah's time, it wasn't all that important for him to have known.

We see Him first mentioned to Abraham. Jacob definitely knew. Although we don't often recognize Jacob as a prophet, he definitely was one.

I believe we could be stretching Scripture a bit to compare the ark to JESUS. After all, a MAN, Noah, built the ark out of earthly materials, while JESUS came supernaturally, by Divine power, laying aside His power and glory to be conceived as a human wholly by Divine power. Also, the ark kept people safe from something SENT BY GOD, while JESUS protects us against things SENT BY THE DEVIL.

While I believe the ark thingie's a stretch, indeed, an EXCUSE to use the KJV, there's nothing wrong with using the KJV alone by PERSONAL PREFERENCE.

 

Jesus was sent to protect us from the devil? That's an interesting understanding of the Gospel.

 

Can you overcome the devil yourself? Or do you depend upon Jesus?

And I did NOT say that was the Gospel...however, it IS among the things Jesus does...right or wrong?

 

Roby-

I guess you missed the point. God will never flood the world again, but there is a different kind of destuction on the way. If we are in Christ we will escape the coming destruction. That is one of the main reasons why people look at Noah's ark as a picture of the Saviour. It's perfectly fitting to do so.

 

To each his own.

I take Scripture as literally as possible, and my overall doctrine about matters of worship is Sola Scriptura. Therefore I generally reject something that appears to have been inserted into the meanings of any given Scripture. If you wanna use imagery relating just about every OT event with NT events or words of Christ...and if it helps you to SPREAD THE GOSPEL & steer an unbeliever to Christ, fine. But please understand I and others don't view things in the same light or color of light.

 

Luke 17:26-30 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all. Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.

It's okay to point out simularities between events in scripture. Even Jesus does this.

 

I beleive that the KJB has it down packed in that verse! Now I say we start building on the Ark as we speak and that Ark is Christ!:Fish:

 

That "Ark" was "built", long before we were, or the KJV was.