Favourite Bible Translations

[KJV1611]

The original writings have long disappeared from the face of the earth. There are accurate copies of those originals and there are inaccurate copies. There is no original to compare those copies to. Old DOES NOT mean more accurate, the number of copies has nothing to do with their accuracy.

There is ONLY ONE method of authenticity left in the world today and that method is to determine if the translation reflects the Author (God) 100% accurately. Is the translation spotless, without blemish, without error, just like the Author.

 

[John146]

The original writings have long disappeared from the face of the earth. There are accurate copies of those originals and there are inaccurate copies. There is no original to compare those copies to. Old DOES NOT mean more accurate, the number of copies has nothing to do with their accuracy.

There is ONLY ONE method of authenticity left in the world today and that method is to determine if the translation reflects the Author (God) 100% accurately. Is the translation spotless, without blemish, without error, just like the Author.

And because of this, one must trust that God is the one in charge of preserving His words for us today. If we do not have God's holy words to live by today, why would we be held responsible for anything that was in His word?

 

[Kavik]

Typically, if I'm researching something, I'll end up using several versions (depending on what I'm looking at/for), some not in English (Luther's German Bible, Coptic, Syriac, Old Church Slavonic, etc.), but ultimately, if it's the NT, I usually end up seeing how these translations compare to the Greek.

Just as a translation in general, I always thought "Da Jesus Book" (Hawa'iian Pidgen) was a pretty cool version.

 

[calibob]

Rom 10:17 (KJV) So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
Rom 10:18 (KJV) But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.

The word faith in verse 17 isn't the faith of believing something, the faith in that verse is our religion. For example, the Christian FAITH, the Muslim FAITH, the Catholic FAITH.

So then OUR RELIGION, comes by hearing. The hearing in that verse isn't sound vibrations hitting the inner ear, it's the recognition of God's voice in scripture.

Understanding HOW GOD SPEAKS produces the components of our Christian Faith.

HEARING comes BY the word of God. The word of God in that verse is the word of God. It's not a lexicon, it's not a concordance, it's not a perverted impostor of the word of God, it's not a culmination of multiple impostors of the word of God, it is the PURE, INERRANT word of God.

So then, OUR RELIGION come by HEARING GOD's VOICE in scripture, and hearing God's voice in scripture comes by reading the PURE, INERRANT word of God.... The Spirit of Christ.

Now you shot yourself in the foot. First let me clear something up before I go on; I've never heard of anyone getting unsaved by reading thr KJV. It's not a matter of salvation but the doctrinal spin King James had ordered to be put in the Bible that bears his name. I've never been a fan or brainwashed any denomination. I doubted them all. When I started studying the Bible I had a catholic Mother, Agnostic Father a JW aunt and an LDS uncle. I was critical of all religions' so my internal goal was to sift through the made up man made parts, with the help of the Holy Spirit, discern what was the pure truth from what was twisted, spun and or manufactured.

I without @Angela53510 's education, with the help and guidance of the H.S. we've com to nearly identical conclusions on most biblical topics (politics are a different story). The KJV fan base has been a thorn in my flesh from very early on. Much of what I have been struggling with is the dogmatic doctrines that sepperate so many denominations. They have made 'Religion' nearly a dirty word to me and many others who find denominationalism repugnant and just want the truth.

The KJV is far from perfect. There are verses in quotation marks often, that are simply made up and should be overlooked. If anyone discounts the Holy Spirits' gifts, they not only cheating themselves but even the KJV. Most Pentecostals' that I used to know were HUGE KJV fans.

 

[KJV1611]

Now you shot yourself in the foot. First let me clear something up before I go on; I've never heard of anyone getting unsaved by reading thr KJV. It's not a matter of salvation but the doctrinal spin King James had ordered to be put in the Bible that bears his name. I've never been a fan or brainwashed any denomination. I doubted them all. When I started studying the Bible I had a catholic Mother, Agnostic Father a JW aunt and an LDS uncle. I was critical of all religions' so my internal goal was to sift through the made up man made parts, with the help of the Holy Spirit, discern what was the pure truth from what was twisted, spun and or manufactured.

I without @Angela53510 's education, with the help and guidance of the H.S. we've com to nearly identical conclusions on most biblical topics (politics are a different story). The KJV fan base has been a thorn in my flesh from very early on. Much of what I have been struggling with is the dogmatic doctrines that sepperate so many denominations. They have made 'Religion' nearly a dirty word to me and many others who find denominationalism repugnant and just want the truth.

The KJV is far from perfect. There are verses in quotation marks often, that are simply made up and should be overlooked. If anyone discounts the Holy Spirits' gifts, they not only cheating themselves but even the KJV. Most Pentecostals' that I used to know were HUGE KJV fans.

I never mentioned salvation in my post, so I don't know what you mean by I shot myself in the foot.

I take it from your comments that you believe that the Holy Spirit told you that the KJV is far from perfect. How do you know that it wasn't the spirit of antichrist that lead you to believe the KJV is far from perfect?

How do you distinguish between the Holy Spirit and the spirit of antichrist?

 

[John146]

Now you shot yourself in the foot. First let me clear something up before I go on; I've never heard of anyone getting unsaved by reading thr KJV. It's not a matter of salvation but the doctrinal spin King James had ordered to be put in the Bible that bears his name. I've never been a fan or brainwashed any denomination. I doubted them all. When I started studying the Bible I had a catholic Mother, Agnostic Father a JW aunt and an LDS uncle. I was critical of all religions' so my internal goal was to sift through the made up man made parts, with the help of the Holy Spirit, discern what was the pure truth from what was twisted, spun and or manufactured.

I without @Angela53510 's education, with the help and guidance of the H.S. we've com to nearly identical conclusions on most biblical topics (politics are a different story). The KJV fan base has been a thorn in my flesh from very early on. Much of what I have been struggling with is the dogmatic doctrines that sepperate so many denominations. They have made 'Religion' nearly a dirty word to me and many others who find denominationalism repugnant and just want the truth.

The KJV is far from perfect. There are verses in quotation marks often, that are simply made up and should be overlooked. If anyone discounts the Holy Spirits' gifts, they not only cheating themselves but even the KJV. Most Pentecostals' that I used to know were HUGE KJV fans.

If you had the pure words of God in your hands, how passionate would you be about them?

 

[SoulWeaver]

Tell that to new agers who will use that verse to support their ideas .

Should we take this as Jesus referring to Himself as the Light and apostle John calling Jesus the Light or Jesus calling us the light also being wrong or backwards? When pests invade your house, do you call exterminators or burn your whole house in response?

 

[SoulWeaver]

and an LDS uncle

Why did I read this as "an LSD uncle"...
Thought for a moment "well... bet that was pretty wild growing up"...
I seriously need some coffee

 

[calibob]

I never mentioned salvation in my post, so I don't know what you mean by I shot myself in the foot.

I take it from your comments that you believe that the Holy Spirit told you that the KJV is far from perfect. How do you know that it wasn't the spirit of antichrist that lead you to believe the KJV is far from perfect?

How do you distinguish between the Holy Spirit and the spirit of antichrist?

I said that what we are talking about is not a matter so salvation to point out that our choice on translations won't save or condemn us. It (the remark) was a disclaimer having nothing to do with you.

You shot yourself in the foot by saying "our religion" that takes away credibility.

I never said that the Holy Spirit told me anything. It guided me from within, It's called spiritual discernment, I don't hear voices.

I was filled with the Holy Spirit in 1977. It abides within me. There's no room for an evil spirit. The two are incompatible. A person with whom the Holy Spirit abides in cannot become possessed by a demon my friend.

 

[calibob]

If you had the pure words of God in your hands, how passionate would you be about them?

If I knew more than thought that I did, I would defend them with my life.

 

[Dino246]

The original writings have long disappeared from the face of the earth. There are accurate copies of those originals and there are inaccurate copies. There is no original to compare those copies to. Old DOES NOT mean more accurate, the number of copies has nothing to do with their accuracy.

You are correct on both these points. Of course, this means that the "majority" argument in favour of the Byzantine lineage of manuscripts has no merit.

There is ONLY ONE method of authenticity left in the world today and that method is to determine if the translation reflects the Author (God) 100% accurately. Is the translation spotless, without blemish, without error, just like the Author.

That's circular reasoning. You believe that the KJV is "spotless, without blemish, without error" but you ignore or reject a mountain of sound evidence to the contrary.

 

[calibob]

Why did I read this as "an LSD uncle"...
Thought for a moment "well... bet that was pretty wild growing up"...
I seriously need some coffee

'AN' as in one LDS Uncle. The uncle and aunt were siblings with the same household, family unit. We visited them most every Sunday.

 

[KJV1611]

I said that what we are talking about is not a matter so salvation to point out that our choice on translations won't save or condemn us. It (the remark) was a disclaimer having nothing to do with you.

You shot yourself in the foot by saying "our religion" that takes away credibility.

I never said that the Holy Spirit told me anything. It guided me from within, It's called spiritual discernment, I don't hear voices.

I was filled with the Holy Spirit in 1977. It abides within me. There's no room for an evil spirit. The two are incompatible. A person with whom the Holy Spirit abides in cannot become possessed by a demon my friend.

I agree, bible versions have nothing to do with our salvation, I was an atheist and I was saved with no bible. Salvation isn't the point, the point is that we have to HEAR the word of God to advance in our Christian FAITH. The words of the bible are the building blocks of our Religion. In other words, every single one of our doctrines MUST come from the bible. If we can't HEAR the word of God then our doctrines will be flawed and we are not advancing in our faith.

Ok so call it the Holy Spirit lead you, instead of told you. Are you saying that the Holy Spirit lead you to believe the KJV has errors?

 

[Dino246]

If you had the pure words of God in your hands, how passionate would you be about them?

This is a red herring, and one which betrays your true belief. You claim to believe that you have the pure words of God, but you really must be uncertain.

If you were actually certain, you would not be bothered in the least by claims to the contrary, and you wouldn't have such a big chip on your shoulder about it.

 

[SoulWeaver]

'AN' as in one LDS Uncle. The uncle and aunt were siblings with the same household, family unit. We visited them most every Sunday.

I misread LDS as LSD 👽... most likely because the levels of caffeine in my blood dropped...

 

[Dino246]

And because of this, one must trust that God is the one in charge of preserving His words for us today. If we do not have God's holy words to live by today, why would we be held responsible for anything that was in His word?

Fallacy: false dichotomy. God holds you responsible for the truth that you do have, not for the truth that you don't have.

 

[Kavik]

I take it from your comments that you believe that the Holy Spirit told you that the KJV is far from perfect. How do you know that it wasn't the spirit of antichrist that lead you to believe the KJV is far from perfect?

With all due respect, the KJV is riddled with mistranslations and has errors just like any other translated version. That's just fact. From the start, the King James Bible was intended to be not a literary creation, but rather a political and theological compromise between the established church and the growing Puritan movement. Essentially, James wanted a clear text with no room for doctrinal dispute.

Another interesting fact is that its translators worked on the assumption the Greek versions of the NT were written in Classical Greek; not Koine. Several words gave them issues as they did not know Koine. The committee was made up of specialists in Classical Greek, and they believed that strange phrasing in the Greek New Testament was proof that it had been written in the “language of the Holy Spirit.”

An example of the work as a political text is perhaps best illustrated in Exodus 22:18 - King James hated 'witches' and made sure his Bible did too. The line was specifically used to justify England's witch hunts. A purposeful mistranslation to justify a (then) current political landscape.

It's undergone three revisions since 1611 incorporating something like over 100,000 changes. Which version is inspired?

It is written in 17th century poetic English - something like 300 words no longer have the same meaning in Modern English. It may beg the question for some of, should we really embrace the KJV as the best translation when it uses language that not only is not clearly understood anymore, but in fact has been at times perverted and twisted (for political purposes)?

I'm not saying the above to "bash" the KJV. What I'm getting at in short, is that no translation, by the very nature of the business of language translation, is going to be perfect. The KJV is no exception to the rule.

 

[Dino246]

Is anybody at least starting to see that it's IMPOSSIBLE to translate God's word WITHOUT GOD giving them understanding?

Why do you think it's so easy for me to recognize that the KJV was inspired by God? Why is it so easy for me to see that the rest of the counterfeit translations aren't inspired by God.

If you're on the fence about which bible is right, look for the one that has the fingerprints of God all over it.

What colour is the sky in your fantasy world?

 

[KJV1611]

You are correct on both these points. Of course, this means that the "majority" argument in favour of the Byzantine lineage of manuscripts has no merit.


That's circular reasoning. You believe that the KJV is "spotless, without blemish, without error" but you ignore or reject a mountain of sound evidence to the contrary.

Where is the mountain of evidence? You're idea of an error is when something doesn't match the "originals". You just agreed that since the originals are long gone and the copies of the originals can't be verified against those originals then that can't be the litmus test for authenticity of anything.

 

[Dino246]

Furthermore, I have friend who has a copy of the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece 27th edition. It is the same Greek text as the UBS (United Bible Society) 4th edition. These are the Greek texts that are followed by such modern versions as the ESV, NIV, NASB, Holman Standard AND the new Catholic versions like the St. Joseph New American Bible 1970 and the New Jerusalem bible 1985 AND the Jehovah Witness New World Translation.

If you have a copy of the Nestle-Aland 27th edition, open the book and read what they tell us in their own words on page 45 of the introduction. Here these critical Greek text editors tell us about how the Greek New Testament (GNT, now known as the UBS) and the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece grew together and shared the same basic text.In the last paragraph on page 45 we read these words:

"The text shared by these two editions was adopted internationally by Bible Societies, and FOLLOWING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE VATICAN AND THE UNITED BIBLE SOCIETIES IT HAS SERVED AS THE BASIS FOR NEW TRANSLATIONS AND FOR REVISIONS MADE UNDER THEIR SUPERVISION. THIS MARKS A SIGNIFICANT STEP WITH REGARD TO INTERCONFESSIONAL RELATIONSHIPS. It should naturally be understood that this text is a working text: it is not to be considered as definitive, but as a stimulus to further efforts toward defining and verifying the text of the New Testament."

There it is, in their own words. They openly admit that this text is the result of an agreement between the Vatican and the UBS and that the text itself is not "definitive" - it can change, as it already has and will do so in the future, and is not the infallible words of God but merely "a stimulus to further efforts".

It appears that, though you can read English, you don't understand English.

"Following" means "subsequent to" (later in time) in this context. It doesn't mean "in the path of". It does not say that the text "is the result of" an agreement, but that, subsequent to the agreement, the text (that already existed) has served as the basis for new translations.

You have no case.