Which Bible, You Be The Judge

From Pastor Mike Hoggard, a 3-part series about the Bible.

Part 1: http://watchmanvideobroadcast.com/video/wvb120812_which-bible-you-be-the-judge_01.html
Part 2: http://watchmanvideobroadcast.com/video/wvb120819_which-bible-you-be-the-judge_02.html
Part 3: http://watchmanvideobroadcast.com/video/wvb120826_which-bible-you-be-the-judge-03.html

What is your personal opinion?

Watch the series first before you read my opinion below

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.



To be honest, what he presented answered a lot of my questions, both related to the Bible and not related to it.  For example, in Part 2, he presented a Bible "lineage" or Church history that we do not hear from churches and seminaries - that the Bible has been complete years before the Roman Emperor Constantine launched his "Let's create a Bible" project.

Every time, we always hear how the Lord used the Roman Emperor Constantine and the Roman Catholic church to keep Christianity unbroken and alive.  But here, Paster Mike Hoggard presented a totally different lineage or history - totally separate and unrelated to the Roman Empire and the Roman Catholic church.

Which makes more sense.  Personally I have been struggling on a lot of questions why Christianity sort-of "merged" with Constantine, the Roman Empire, and later the Roman Catholic church.  I haven't known the true and real God to follow human tradition of "the end justify the means".  There is always a reason behind everything, and it wasn't because "results is all that matters".  And I haven't known Him to letting things "flow with the river" rather the reverse.

God wants perfection.  Perfection comes by practice, obedience, and trials.  The traditional Church history that Christianity passed through the Romans is the reverse of that.  While what Pastor Mike presented perfectly fits who God is.  There is no question and no way that God would let His Word become what traditional Church beliefs has taught us as "lost in translation" or "we do not have the originals already" or "it is not perfect or exact because {put reasons here}" it just can not be when the Word of God said that it is perfect and there are no contradictions in it.

I don't know about you.  But when the Word of God says that His Word, the Bible, is perfect and that there are no contradictions in it, I believe it with all my being.  As such, reasons explained and given by the church majority can not be true that it is impossible in our time to have an exact copy and an exact perfect translation of the originals "because it was lost in time".

 
EDIT:
I was not 100% sold to the KJV-only belief until this, for the sole reason that I am not an English-only speaking person and was not born in a culture that is primarily English language.

As such, we have a need to use other translations in other tongues - our own.  So if KJV-only is correct, then that would mean all other language translations are wrong.

But it turns out, the label "KJV-only" is in itself misleading.  A more appropriate label is "Faithful KJV-based Translation only".

Basically, Pastor Mike was talking more about Textus Receptus, not KJV per se.

What do you think?

I have watched Pastor Mike for a long time and I appreciate his stance on the Bible, but I also come from a non english speaking back ground and I doubt if the Bible in that language was translated from the K.J. I agree sometimes we need a different translation to get a better understanding as  it can be said in a different kind of way....and sometimes a word cannot be translated back into english in "another word" sometimes it takes 3 or 4 words to translate one word from a different language...just how I see it! :=)

Before I became a stay-at-home mom, I worked for 10 years as a translator and know (as you both stated) that one language doesn't always translate exactly into another.  For example, in Hebrew, in Genesis, when God created it is a word specifically related to God's action of making something out of nothing.  When man "creates" we actually "build" or "make something from something that already exists."  I agree with Pastor Hoggard that there is something special about the KJV translation, and the further away we get from it with additional translations the less of the original intent is present as the translators try to make the new translation fit our current trends in culture and language use.

Additionally, the KJV is translated in a word-for-word methodology, where the Mess-age version is translated idea-for-idea.  The result is a very different translation obviously in verbage, and also in detail, in pattern, in precision.

My hope is that there is a solid translation in each of your languages that meets similar criteria for a "good" translation, while others might be set aside.  Often in smaller language groups, there are only a few translators working on a particular project, and unless the Holy Spirit were to lead the translator, personal error would abound.

*

I am KJV only .

Thanks for the posts !
Rita.

Agreed.  That's what I am trying to find out right now, a Tagalog translation that is faithful to KJV or at least Textus Receptus.  So far, I only found one, and online only.  I am still searching for a physical Bible or an e-sword and mySword versions.  In addition to that, if what I found from another source is correct, that translation wasn't even "released quality".  What was released was a draft of sorts that hasn't passed yet to check for grammatical and typographical errors, and translation exactness. 

The popular "Ang (Dating) Biblia" (TAB) and "Ang Bagong Ang Biblia" (ABAB), that were supposedly KJV-based, upon closer inspection wasn't actually KJV-based!  Imagine that.  It was CT and MT, and they used NKJV.

After tracing a bit of who did those translations, it became clear.  The group prefers NIV and the NIV style.  In fact, they "phased out" TAB and ABAB in favor of their NIV-based "Magandang Balita Biblia" (MBB/TPV [Tagalog Popular Version]) and "Bagong Magandang Balita Biblia" (RTPV [Revised Tagalog Popular Version]).  The RTPV has been and currently is the "standard" Tagalog translation even used by KJV-only churches that I know.

If there's going to be any serious study, we need at least one of each major texts - TR, MT, and CT, since most of us can not read Greek.  TR = KJV.  CT = NASB.  MT = ???

I read and love the KJV. I like the underlying manuscripts. The English is excellent. And if I forget what habergon (sp) means, I can look it up.

I don’t worry about Easter in Acts, maybe its a goof. My faith in God and His Perfect Word does not rest in “Easter” or "Passover"

Unlike Gail Riplinger, I do look at the underlying Hebrew and Greek. There is great richness in the Hebrew and Greek that does not always come through in the English.

I don’t like translations that skip or leave out verses etc. I want to know exactly what God says, not some paraphrase.

That being said, there are lots of people who do not read King James and they are well-formed Christians because The Holy Spirit is working in and thru them.

So I let the Lord lead others as to what version they should read. The Word is firmly in my heart and my lips.

Mike Hoggard is an excellent researcher, believer and Pastor.

Edit: Actually I was wrong to suggest "Easter" may be a goof. The feast of the Passover had already occurred in the passage of Acts:

http://www.chick.com/reading/books/158/158_02.asp

*... check out this interesting chick tract about the subject matter (you might want to play some music while you read, as the audio is silent on this one)...

Any thoughts on KJV vs. 1560 Geneva?

I go back and forth between the two from time to time to compare subtle differences. Personally indifferent but was always hammered by family to read the Geneva version.

*

I view as many as I can when studying a verse. Here's what I use plus Bibles I have on hand that's not listed. 

Many Bible Choices Here

jem: thanks for the link. I never had an issue with the KJV (& for sure not saying I do now) until I received a very old 'willed' one from a family member that was decorated with a tremendous amount of subtle masonic symbols. Probably just a printer putting his personal 'touch' on it I thought but I found quite a bit of information online that insists there was masonic influence.

done: I use the same website myself! I have a KJV in pdf that makes it cakewalk to 'find' certain words or phrases if you use pdf much. I can send it over if you're interested.





                                                    HOLY BIBLE






                         TRANSLATED OUT OF THE ORIGINAL TONGUES:















                                       Authorized King James Version











Un-copyrighted FREE WORD OF GOD

THE GUARDIANS OF THE PURE CAMBRIDGE EDITION

quietobserver, KJV in pdf sounds great to me I love every tool and word I can get to help me learn of him. Thanks my friend.

*

Thanks. FYI Done I did email it over. The link I have no longer works.

jem wrote:

Copyright-free alone does it for me.

Here is a link to a Cambridge edition. Lots of choices including PDF and Kindle.
http://archive.org/details/Bible-PureCambridgeEditionOf1611preWestcottAndHortAlterations