King james and james

[Elreformado]

there is a good chance this might have been talked about b4, but i am new and was really wondering..THIS IS IN NO WAY A JAMES ISSUE

I use the greek new test. horts edition and the king james and NIV..I was wondering to all who hold to higher/lower canon of any kind, or just a denial of james,what version you prefer..is there one out there with out james..i am really just wondering..I am sure most know i am a protestant 66er..but really love my Bibles..for example since james is not a prob for me let's say all king james had the apocratha included it just wouldnt FEEL right when i held it..so what do ya'll do with the james included Bible..again no debate wanted..just wondering

[Brandan Kraft]

there is a good chance this might have been talked about b4, but i am new and was really wondering..THIS IS IN NO WAY A JAMES ISSUE

I use the greek new test. horts edition and the king james and NIV..I was wondering to all who hold to higher/lower canon of any kind, or just a denial of james,what version you prefer..is there one out there with out james..i am really just wondering..I am sure most know i am a protestant 66er..but really love my Bibles..for example since james is not a prob for me let's say all king james had the apocratha included it just wouldnt FEEL right when i held it..so what do ya'll do with the james included Bible..again no debate wanted..just wondering

James is in all my bibles. It doesn't threaten me.

As for bible versions, I study from a variety of versions - I usually use the software written for this website: http://www.predestinarian.net/bible.php

[Calvinator]

Having the epistle of James in my Bible does not bother me. My most favorite versions are KJV & NKJV. I will use several different versions in my studies.

[wildboar]

The KJV also originally had the apocrypha too. Lately in my family devotions I've been using the Orthodox New Testament for the NT readings and the New English Translation of the Septuagint for the Old Testament readings. I do like the NKJV quite a bit as well.

[wildboar]

The 1904 Antoniades edition is my favorite Greek New Testament, it is available from Holy Cross Seminary for $10

[wildboar]

I've also done quite a bit of my own translation work. In 2005 I published a translation of the book of Revelation based on Maurice Robinson's Greek collation of the Byzantine text-form: http://www.lulu.com/content/139332

I have not published them but I have also translated the prison epistles, 1 Peter, and a couple other books. My translation work has come to a halt due to other responsibilities, however if I issue a revised edition I plan to base it on the Antoniades edition.

[Robert R. Higby]

I have no trouble with a Bible containing ANY low or non-canonical writings of historical significance. I even have no trouble quoting from any of these writings if I believe the quote is relevant to an important issue.

In confessing a certain body of scripture to be high-canon, I feel no need to produce a Bible containing only those books/passages. Those who study with the illumination of the Holy Spirit will have discernment as to what the Old and New Testaments of scripture, which we confess to be infallible in their teaching, consist of.

Even with the high-canon scriptures, the best translation is not 100% conforming to the intended teaching of the original manuscripts--we don't even have the originals anyway!

[Elreformado]

James is in all my bibles. It doesn't threaten me.

As for bible versions, I study from a variety of versions - I usually use the software written for this website: http://www.predestinarian.net/bible.php

maybe it is just me but if I held to less then the 66 or more (I do not) then it would just plain bother me (not threaten)

you know that certain bible that you have always had. The one you love, and have had since you were a child..in my case it is my Giant Print King James.

if I ever came to revelation that James was not divine (I won't) it would just really bug me being in there..I would probably seek out another that was closer to my view of Divine..i hope this is not the former romish mindset holding to holy relics..oh no


you know some other thoughts i had today on this (again I respect everyone view) is that James is what? 2 chapters maybe. Well the NIV ,which i love dismisses alot of mark and i don't expect people to call me heretical for having an niv (but some actually do)

so if people feel the need to not include James then i guess i have to just deal with it, I don't like it but people have differing canons..nobody has gotten rid of the gospels..now that would be AN ISSUE..

I am also living proof that NOBODY is being banned from pnet for loving and keeping James (I always will) as long as they are not ragging someone who feels differently..and actually discussing it peacefully RIGHT?

I am a strong supporter of Harald camping, and he has some FAR OUT THERE teachings, that do shock some..and i agree with him 90% of the time. so I know how it feels for people to all out attack a differing view..Now let it be known I believe JAMES IS STRAIGHT FROM THE MOUTH OF GOD but i have seen nothing from anybody on pnet that believes differently to make me think they are not God's elect and seekers of truth...

[Brandan Kraft]

I am also living proof that NOBODY is being banned from pnet for loving and keeping James (I always will) as long as they are not ragging someone who feels differently..and actually discussing it peacefully RIGHT?

Right. It is our policy (and a very important one I might add) that all those who disagree with us are allowed to contribute as long as it is done peacefully and respectfully. We are all learning the truth as we continue down the road, and God brings people (even avowed atheists, roman catholics, agnostics, etc..) into this forum for our sharpening.

We also want the truth to prevail - even if we are improperly holding to it. That is another reason why we do not shut dialog down.

Finally, people learn the truth through antithesis. It is sometimes easier to see the truth when it's stands up to error.

Thanks for posting Joel. We're glad to have you here.

Brandan

[Elreformado]

maybe it is just me but if I held to less then the 66 or more (I do not) then it would just plain bother me (not threaten)

you know that certain bible that you have always had. The one you love, and have had since you were a child..in my case it is my Giant Print King James.

if I ever came to revelation that James was not divine (I won't) it would just really bug me being in there..I would probably seek out another that was closer to my view of Divine..i hope this is not the former romish mindset holding to holy relics..oh no


you know some other thoughts i had today on this (again I respect everyone view) is that James is what? 2 chapters maybe. Well the NIV ,which i love dismisses alot of mark and i don't expect people to call me heretical for having an niv (but some actually do)

so if people feel the need to not include James then i guess i have to just deal with it, I don't like it but people have differing canons..nobody has gotten rid of the gospels..now that would be AN ISSUE..

I am also living proof that NOBODY is being banned from pnet for loving and keeping James (I always will) as long as they are not ragging someone who feels differently..and actually discussing it peacefully RIGHT?

I am a strong supporter of Harald camping, and he has some FAR OUT THERE teachings, that do shock some..and i agree with him 90% of the time. so I know how it feels for people to all out attack a differing view..Now let it be known I believe JAMES IS STRAIGHT FROM THE MOUTH OF GOD but i have seen nothing from anybody on pnet that believes differently to make me think they are not God's elect and seekers of truth...

no hey de que (don't mention it, in the english) lol

brandon you are the man...praise God..it's good to be home

[Calvinator]

Thanks for posting Joel. We're glad to have you here.

Joel, I concur.

[Elreformado]

Joel, I concur.

you be da man too homie..anyone with a name like yours i gotta luv...

[MCoving]

haha I love that Joel! Brandan you are the man! lol be careful tho Chris from test all thngs reads that he may ban you for being friends with Brandan! lol And of course Brandan and anyone here that believes that Ch 2 of James is preaching a works=faith gospel are heretics and not your brethren according to Chris and others. That irritates me.. course I am now too.. just 'cause of the blog i posted which honestly makes sense to me.

This is my family here.. and I am so glad to be a part of this community for the many reasons that youve said.. they dont turn people away for their beliefs.. just play nice.. and this family is very forgiving too, I have found that out in my own life. Though sometimes as humans we have our differences.. its grand to see how the body of Christ works together through them.. Im glad to be here too. Its my home as well. Im glad to have you here too Joel. I pray the Lord continues to teach you and grow you into all wisdom and understanding.

By the way I use a NASB, and it has the book of James in it. Im okay with that the Lord has it there for a reason. There are even some verses I used out if it that our Truth.. I just believe that CHapter 2 doesn't contain Truth that James was influenced more by works and thus said that faith is by works... whereas Paul said faith is without works. Faith is not dead if their be no works.. true saving faith from God is always alive, you dont need works to be assured of your salvation in the Lord, thats what Faith does.. your mere believing in Christ assures you of being His child.. for the blind will never see and believe.

[wildboar]

There is no perfect translation as becomes abundantly clear to anyone who spends any time studying the original languages. If you walk away from all your Greek classes as a KJV-onlyist then there is probably something wrong with you and you should be shipped off to Pensacola. That's not to say that someone couldn't prefer the KJV--there are many good things to be said about it.

There are two basic issues when evaluating Bible translation--the translation method and the text being used.

I'm kind of paleo(old)-school when it comes to my view of Scripture so I don't find the absence of the original autographs troubling in the least. I'm most interested in the canonical text that lived within the life of the church--so for me the 1904 Antoniades is pretty much the standard Greek text (although I am still doing some research on how they arrived at the text they did for the Apocolypse since it is based on the lectionary readings and there are no passages from the Apocolypse in the lectionary).

There simply aren't that many translations of the New Testament based on the text above. There's the Orthodox New Testament, the Eastern Orthodox Bible, and another one that is still in the works.

The KJV and NKJV are both based on texts which are very similar to the one above but not quite the same. The LITV is also based on a text similar to that above but I always seem to find typos when I open the thing and the translator seems to do alot of the same things he condemns other translations for doing and also suffers from the insanity of thinking that he has the only real Bible translation.

Method of translation is a sticky subject. The Orthodox New Testament veers to the hyper-literal end which can be good for serious study but can be awkward for reading especially to young children. The Eastern Orthodox Bible is based on the World English Bible which is a bit freer but still a fairly literal translation and I think it works about pretty good although I haven't had the chance to check out all the nooks and crannies of either of these Bibles. The KJV and NKJV are both fairly literal--I tend to use the NKJV more but appreciate the KJV. Both have places where they are more accurate than the others.

The Old Testament is another issue and one I don't feel qualified to answer since I don't know Hebrew and am still looking at the pros and cons of the Masoretic text vs. the LXX. I think it's a shame that most modern translations of each have deviated from the canonical text. Hopefully the Old Testament for the EOB will at least give us a translation of the LXX based on the canonical text when complete. There are English translations based more strictly on the Masoretic text but they tend to be done by Jews who try to obscure passages that point to Christ.

[wildboar]

I would like to point out that I don't think Bible translation should be a major criteria in who we fellowship with. My church, shortly after I joined switched from the NKJV to the ESV (hey at least it's better than the NIV). I didn't say anything. I didn't think it was my place as a newcomer to start ranting about their translation and all the doctrines of Scripture are still contained within it. The new Lutheran Service Book used the ESV as its base text which I think prompted the switch.

[Forester07]

I would like to point out that I don't think Bible translation should be a major criteria in who we fellowship with. My church, shortly after I joined switched from the NKJV to the ESV (hey at least it's better than the NIV). I didn't say anything. I didn't think it was my place as a newcomer to start ranting about their translation and all the doctrines of Scripture are still contained within it. The new Lutheran Service Book used the ESV as its base text which I think prompted the switch.

Hey Chuck. I'm interested in why you don't like the ESV? Many of the reformed people I know have switched to it and claim its the best. I've got a copy and like it better than NKJV. What don't you like about it? Just Curious

Forester07

[Elreformado]

There is no perfect translation as becomes abundantly clear to anyone who spends any time studying the original languages. If you walk away from all your Greek classes as a KJV-onlyist then there is probably something wrong with you and you should be shipped off to Pensacola. That's not to say that someone couldn't prefer the KJV--there are many good things to be said about it.

There are two basic issues when evaluating Bible translation--the translation method and the text being used.

I'm kind of paleo(old)-school when it comes to my view of Scripture so I don't find the absence of the original autographs troubling in the least. I'm most interested in the canonical text that lived within the life of the church--so for me the 1904 Antoniades is pretty much the standard Greek text (although I am still doing some research on how they arrived at the text they did for the Apocolypse since it is based on the lectionary readings and there are no passages from the Apocolypse in the lectionary).

There simply aren't that many translations of the New Testament based on the text above. There's the Orthodox New Testament, the Eastern Orthodox Bible, and another one that is still in the works.

The KJV and NKJV are both based on texts which are very similar to the one above but not quite the same. The LITV is also based on a text similar to that above but I always seem to find typos when I open the thing and the translator seems to do alot of the same things he condemns other translations for doing and also suffers from the insanity of thinking that he has the only real Bible translation.

Method of translation is a sticky subject. The Orthodox New Testament veers to the hyper-literal end which can be good for serious study but can be awkward for reading especially to young children. The Eastern Orthodox Bible is based on the World English Bible which is a bit freer but still a fairly literal translation and I think it works about pretty good although I haven't had the chance to check out all the nooks and crannies of either of these Bibles. The KJV and NKJV are both fairly literal--I tend to use the NKJV more but appreciate the KJV. Both have places where they are more accurate than the others.

The Old Testament is another issue and one I don't feel qualified to answer since I don't know Hebrew and am still looking at the pros and cons of the Masoretic text vs. the LXX. I think it's a shame that most modern translations of each have deviated from the canonical text. Hopefully the Old Testament for the EOB will at least give us a translation of the LXX based on the canonical text when complete. There are English translations based more strictly on the Masoretic text but they tend to be done by Jews who try to obscure passages that point to Christ.

I am a hardcore estudiante de griego (student of greek in the english) and i totaly agree these english versions do become less an issue

[wildboar]

Hey Chuck. I'm interested in why you don't like the ESV? Many of the reformed people I know have switched to it and claim its the best. I've got a copy and like it better than NKJV. What don't you like about it? Just Curious

The ESV like most modern versions is based on the Greek text of the academy rather than the text of the church. I do like some of the translations offered by the ESV in the Johannine epistles, however I abhor the translation of Phillippians 2 where Christ makes himself nothing. The NKJV and KJV paraphrase this as well but at least it makes more sense than "nothing." In this particular case and in many cases I actually think the RSV (of which the ESV was a revision of) does a better job.

[marcuslid]

Hey Chuck. I'm interested in why you don't like the ESV? Many of the reformed people I know have switched to it and claim its the best. I've got a copy and like it better than NKJV. What don't you like about it? Just Curious

Forester07

If you compare it to the KJV or even NKJV; you'll see that if has removed some verses and words. Here is an example.
1 John 4:3(ESV)
and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already.
1 John 4:3(KJV)
And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
1 John 4:3(NKJV)
and every spirit that does not confess that[a] Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world.

now in the NKJV it does have footnotes
NU-Text omits that and Christ has come in the flesh.

[MCoving]

I for one like the NASB I have tried to read KJV but it doesn't work for me, I cant understand what is being said like I can with NASB. I dont know which version is closest to the real manuscripts so much talk goes on about that all. But I think the Spirit can use whatever version and teach you about Christ.. because we have Christ.. THE WORD OF GOD... in us, that He'll teach us from written words exactly what we need to know. Though I have heard that the NASB is closest to the real manuscripts because it takes into account that which was found at the cave the Dead Sea Scrolls and such like wiki explains: The Dead Sea scrolls consist of roughly 1000 documents, including texts from the Hebrew Bible, discovered between 1947 and 1979 in eleven caves in and around the Wadi Qumran (near the ruins of the ancient settlement of Khirbet Qumran, on the northwest shore of the Dead Sea) in Israel. So that is why I use NASB because they use the text of the Hebrew Bible which was discoverd somewhere bettwen 1947 and 1979.. the other bibles from what I know dont use this information.