Yes, it does make the comparison clearer. Thanks.

I have been a fan of fasting for many years. I believe that it is very useful, even necessary in some cases. However, my belief regarding fasting is not a valid factor to use in determining whether or not the NIV is trustworthy. Furthermore, my belief that the KJV is better than the NIV is not a valid factor in determining whether or not the NIV is trustworthy. In the end, my adherence to any particular belief is irrelevant to the discussion.

What matters is this: Does a particular translation give me the correct understanding of what God was/is trying to communicate to me?

The follow-up is this: How do I determine whether or not a particular translation does that?

I have a feeling that this will eventually end up in epistemology.

I don't know anything about any purposeful and malicious modifications in the manuscripts. I have read a very little about Westcott and Hort being "off the strait and narrow," but I don't think they changed the manuscripts.

In any case, I prefer the Majority Text, which is very, very close to the Textus Receptus. And that's because I don't trust Vaticanus. For me, it's a manuscript issue as opposed to a translation issue.

They couldnt just change it as the outcry would have been tremendous, but exerted enought influence on the committee to get the changes from the Alexandrian codices to be included and all the new versions picked it up. As long as you are aware and understand the changes, then you can make a choice, but more Christians have no idea....

Here is another article on the subject, with some good areas I didnt address..

http://www.thebibleistheotherside.org/currentarticlep31p7.htm

And that's another example of what I'm speaking against. One should not believe truth just because it fits with their belief system (or their favorite verses).

Asygo addressed this well:

If we want to go straight to the epistemology, fine: as part of my epistemology, I hold the following to be true:

1) The Bible represents God's message to us as recorded in human language;
2) The various authors of the Bible were all inspired by the same Spirit;
3) "If they speak not according to this Word, it is because there is no light in them;"
4) Not one jot or one tittle is to pass from God's law, nor should any word be added to or subtracted therefrom.

I find the modern versions to be based upon EDITIONS of the manuscripts in which various persons have altered the text of the original, thinking to better it (and make it more favorable toward their doctrines). Such editions can no longer rightfully represent the Word of God. Those who use them may not recognize their danger, but the message has changed.

Is different worse? Certainly. If it "speaks not according to THIS Word it is because there is no light" in it.

So my faith is built upon the Bible. The Bible tells me how the Bible itself should be treated--that every word of God is important, and that no words should be inserted or removed from it. Based on that, I find the modern translations from Codex Alexandrinus, Codex Vaticanus, and Codex Sinaiticus to be "guilty as charged."

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I hold the same to be true, with some major caveats:

1. The Bible does not cover every aspect of existence. There are truths upon which the Bible is silent, such as the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, which can be discovered independent of divine revelation. Of course, none of these extra-biblical truths should contradict the Bible.

2. What is the "Bible" that we accept? Are we talking about specific English translations? Are we talking about the various manuscripts? Or are we talking about the autographs - the documents that the Bible writers physically wrote.

3. Did the Holy Spirit dictate the words to be written? Or did He give men the ideas and allowed the men to compose their own words? How can we be sure that the transmission of divine information into human documents was 100% accurate?

It was the intention of my #1 to cover question such as your #3 presents. No, I do not believe the words were dictated, but that the thoughts were inspired and the Bible writers then chose their own words with which to express those thoughts.

The "Bible" that I would accept includes all of the 66 books we presently find in most any Bible today, and is best represented by the "Majority Text" or "Textus Receptus." Translations which follow this preserved line of manuscript as word-for-word accurately as possible should be acceptable in any language.

As for the autographs, we all know that they do not exist anymore. If one were only to accept such, he has no Bible, for it is extinct.

I see by your #1 that I should have clarified a little to include that any God-inspired writings should not be added to nor subtracted from--but this does not preclude additional inspired writ. Mrs. White's writings, for example, follow in the scriptural tradition as set forth in the Bible itself, and they do give us additional truths.

Regarding your last sentence, I do not espouse the view that the conversion from divine thought to human words was always 100% accurate, but that any errors which occurred are on a par with "typos" that do not affect the overall message, nor should they hinder our understanding of salvation.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Agreed, and if the reader is not aware it can affect his beliefs..

And so if we find that the KJV has any text altered by persons thinking it better or being helpful, we can also conclude that the KJV is not the "Word of God".

My faith is built upon the Bible, too. But which one should we use is the question. The KJV is different and does not speak "according THIS Word" so therefore it is "worse". The (insert other version) tells me how the Bible itself should be treated and no words should be inserted or removed. Since the KJV does have words inserted and removed, I know it is not the correct version.

I am not sure what your point is as that has not happened, but if they were to make a thousand changes and alterations to the KJV with a purpose to change it to different gospel that is known to be heresy from a sect with 2 to 3 manuscripts then we could say it is corrupt, but as the thousands of manuscripts bear witness, the King James has stayed true with relatively few and/or minor changes...