Favourite Bible Translations
- Thread starter true_believer
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Good to know he think of God as an IT. 
-- KJV gets this right & NASB fails, IMO.
modern translations like to put 'the holy child' but the Greek is pretty straightforward, it doesn't have the world 'child' in it; it's just the word 'holy' and it's neuter gender. either 'the holy thing' as KJV phrases it or 'the holy one' as some others do, seems to be the accurate literal rendition.
but this isn't a 'major doctrinal disagreement' either.
my larger point tho -- was that IMO 'the greatest revival on earth' was with the coming of John the Baptist, the prophesied Elijah who was to turn the hearts of the people toward God & prepare the way, and the advent of Christ and the giving of the gospel and the birth of the church.
at this time there wasn't a KJV. the most widely used Bible was the OT having been translated to Greek. that's very likely what the apostles largely preached from when they brought the good news to the Jews ((many of whom didn't speak Hebrew anymore)) and the Gentiles -- Gentiles who didn't know Hebrew but spoke Greek. if they knew the Torah, they knew it in Greek, and even if they didn't, they were being preached to in Greek so it was Greek quotes they were being preached to with.
so your original argument about 'the translation used during the greatest revival' -- i certainly get your point but i'd argue that it's the LXX that fits that description better than the KJV does, that's all
at this time there wasn't a KJV. the most widely used Bible was the OT having been translated to Greek. that's very likely what the apostles largely preached from when they brought the good news to the Jews ((many of whom didn't speak Hebrew anymore)) and the Gentiles -- Gentiles who didn't know Hebrew but spoke Greek. if they knew the Torah, they knew it in Greek, and even if they didn't, they were being preached to in Greek so it was Greek quotes they were being preached to with.
so your original argument about 'the translation used during the greatest revival' -- i certainly get your point but i'd argue that it's the LXX that fits that description better than the KJV does, that's all
-
1
-
1
- Show all
Augustine says something here we ought to both find useful, @John146 --
this is relevant to our situation today, because it can't be denied that the Bible was given by God in languages foreign to us ((Hebrew & Greek, and Nebuchadnezzar's scripture in Aramaic)) and in order for us to read it, it's been translated to English. at the time these brothers are writing, much of the church spoke Latin -- so it was expedient to translate the scripture for them also to have it in a language they readily understood.
the problem he & Jerome saw then is the same problem many of you bring up constantly in these constant threads we have -- that without an authoritative translation in our language the flock is open to mistrust the scripture. i don't disagree
At the same time, we are in no small measure thankful to God for the work in which you have translated the Gospels from the original Greek, because in almost every passage we have found nothing to object to, when we compared it with the Greek Scriptures. By this work, any disputant who supports an old false translation is either convinced or confuted with the utmost ease by the production and collation of manuscripts. And if, as indeed very rarely happens, something be found to which exception may be taken, who would be so unreasonable as not to excuse it readily in a work so useful that it cannot be too highly praised? I wish you would have the kindness to open up to me what you think to be the reason of the frequent discrepancies between the text supported by the Hebrew codices and the Greek Septuagint version. For the latter has no mean authority, seeing that it has obtained so wide circulation, and was the one which the apostles used, as is not only proved by looking to the text itself, but has also been, as I remember, affirmed by yourself. You would therefore confer upon us a much greater boon if you gave an exact Latin translation of the Greek Septuagint version: for the variations found in the different codices of the Latin text are intolerably numerous; and it is so justly open to suspicion as possibly different from what is to be found in the Greek, that one has no confidence in either quoting it or proving anything by its help.
he says that the apostles used the LXX, stating it as though there is no argument about it. and he also shares the sentiment that the numerous variations in Latin translations floating around at that time were "intolerable" -- that it may produce a lack of confidence in the word of God. this is relevant to our situation today, because it can't be denied that the Bible was given by God in languages foreign to us ((Hebrew & Greek, and Nebuchadnezzar's scripture in Aramaic)) and in order for us to read it, it's been translated to English. at the time these brothers are writing, much of the church spoke Latin -- so it was expedient to translate the scripture for them also to have it in a language they readily understood.
the problem he & Jerome saw then is the same problem many of you bring up constantly in these constant threads we have -- that without an authoritative translation in our language the flock is open to mistrust the scripture. i don't disagree
compare Luke 1:35 -- the incarnate Christ in Mary's womb is called 'The Holy Thing'
-- KJV gets this right & NASB fails, IMO.
modern translations like to put 'the holy child' but the Greek is pretty straightforward, it doesn't have the world 'child' in it; it's just the word 'holy' and it's neuter gender. either 'the holy thing' as KJV phrases it or 'the holy one' as some others do, seems to be the accurate literal rendition.
but this isn't a 'major doctrinal disagreement' either.
-- KJV gets this right & NASB fails, IMO.
modern translations like to put 'the holy child' but the Greek is pretty straightforward, it doesn't have the world 'child' in it; it's just the word 'holy' and it's neuter gender. either 'the holy thing' as KJV phrases it or 'the holy one' as some others do, seems to be the accurate literal rendition.
but this isn't a 'major doctrinal disagreement' either.
This is actually another example of an argument out of context.
Here's the NASB of verses 10 and 11: "As to this salvation, the prophets who prophesied of the grace that would come to you made careful searches and inquiries, seeking to know what person or time the Spirit of Christ within them was indicating as He predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories to follow.
Here's the KJV: "Of which salvation the prophets have inquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: Searching what or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.
The NASB is perfectly clear, theologically accurate, and grammatically consistent.
The KJV is unclear, theologically questionable, and grammatically inconsistent. There is absolutely no hint that the "it" refers to Scripture; that's entirely an argument from silence, probably invented to support the KJV wording.
KJV1611, instead of presuming that the KJV is correct (are you even capable of doing otherwise?), and making convoluted explanations to justify it, do yourself a favour: think carefully through the arguments on both sides.
Here's the NASB of verses 10 and 11: "As to this salvation, the prophets who prophesied of the grace that would come to you made careful searches and inquiries, seeking to know what person or time the Spirit of Christ within them was indicating as He predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories to follow.
Here's the KJV: "Of which salvation the prophets have inquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: Searching what or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.
The NASB is perfectly clear, theologically accurate, and grammatically consistent.
The KJV is unclear, theologically questionable, and grammatically inconsistent. There is absolutely no hint that the "it" refers to Scripture; that's entirely an argument from silence, probably invented to support the KJV wording.
KJV1611, instead of presuming that the KJV is correct (are you even capable of doing otherwise?), and making convoluted explanations to justify it, do yourself a favour: think carefully through the arguments on both sides.
-
1
- Show all
E
compare Luke 1:35 -- the incarnate Christ in Mary's womb is called 'The Holy Thing'
-- KJV gets this right & NASB fails, IMO.
modern translations like to put 'the holy child' but the Greek is pretty straightforward, it doesn't have the world 'child' in it; it's just the word 'holy' and it's neuter gender. either 'the holy thing' as KJV phrases it or 'the holy one' as some others do, seems to be the accurate literal rendition.
but this isn't a 'major doctrinal disagreement' either.
-- KJV gets this right & NASB fails, IMO.
modern translations like to put 'the holy child' but the Greek is pretty straightforward, it doesn't have the world 'child' in it; it's just the word 'holy' and it's neuter gender. either 'the holy thing' as KJV phrases it or 'the holy one' as some others do, seems to be the accurate literal rendition.
but this isn't a 'major doctrinal disagreement' either.
actually it sort of proves my point, thing is better than it. It in itself is a flawed statement, in John 6 when Jesus said he will not losing any of it. It is speaking of those who are saved , a more accurate rendering would be them, but then is singular where the word is singular. So instead it uses the word “it” because there is not other word to use in the flawed English text
hmm if it's about the human body, Jesus is clearly male. so..
but i think it is a direct reference neither to the body of Jesus nor the person, but to the hypostatic union: the God-man ((where 'man' here is 'human' not gender)). this, being altogether marvelous, 'the mystery' as Paul calls it ((1 Tim. 3:16)), is a 'thing' -- because the reference is to the mystery itself, the fact of the LORD adding humanity to Himself.
but i think it is a direct reference neither to the body of Jesus nor the person, but to the hypostatic union: the God-man ((where 'man' here is 'human' not gender)). this, being altogether marvelous, 'the mystery' as Paul calls it ((1 Tim. 3:16)), is a 'thing' -- because the reference is to the mystery itself, the fact of the LORD adding humanity to Himself.
-
1
- Show all
The KJV isn't UNCLEAR in the slightest. The KJV identifies the Spirit of Christ as the Scripture by calling the Spirit of Christ "IT:. You can believe the KJV or the NASB, it's your choice. But you can not say the KJV is UNCLEAR and theologically unsound.
It comes down to a choice, which bible will you chose to believe.
It comes down to a choice, which bible will you chose to believe.
. . but all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as He will.
(1 Corinthians 12:11, AKJV)
unless you think that spiritual gifts are chosen and assigned by the people who receive them, rather than God who gives them?
i remember, i think 2-3 years ago now, someone here had that interpretation in this verse and stuck by it when i challenged her over it, but i can't remember who... i know it wasn't you bro, tho maybe you do, too?