Bible Editions

[Merida]

Hello everyone, I'm new and this is my first forum thread. I'm not new to Christianity, but I'm fairly new to the Bible. I read it once years ago, but didn't really read it well, to be honest. I'm re-reading it, but am curious as to what the real differences are between the types of Bibles available, and what most people choose? I was on a Christian store website looking to purchase a new Bible for my Mom, and I'm so confused on what would be the best edition to buy as a gift for someone else, and what the best edition is for study. Any suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks, from a Bible newbie.

 

[Nehemiah6]

Any suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks, from a Bible newbie.

Hello Merida,. and Welcome to CC.

There is no doubt that the multitude of Bible versions has led to a lot of confusion and distress. What I can say from personal experience is that I have researched the matter thoroughly and discovered that there is NOT A SINGLE MODERN BIBLE VERSION which is trustworthy.

The reason is very simple. All Reformation Bibles were based upon the Hebrew and Greek traditional texts (which are supported by THE MAJORITY of manuscripts). Hence the 1611 King James Bible is the most trustworthy English language version to this day. It has also stood the test of time -- over 400 years of effectiveness.

Conversely, all modern English versions since 1881 have been based upon the Minority texts. In the case of the New Testament, primarily two ancient but CORRUPT manuscripts (Aleph and B, or Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus). Since there are thousands of manuscripts, it is unreasonable to presume that just two or five or a handful of manuscripts are superior to the rest.

Now you will be getting a whole bunch of posts trying to contradict what I have said. But truth is on my side (and the side of those who still hold fast to the King James Bible). So I trust you will simply ignore the naysayers, and get on with your Christian life, knowing you have a Bible which has been around for hundreds of years and proved itself.

 

[Sackcloth-N-Ashes]

@Merida

Here is a little excerpt from an 1611 King James Bible

Good luck reading it.

 

[Sackcloth-N-Ashes]

Hello Merida,. and Welcome to CC.

There is no doubt that the multitude of Bible versions has led to a lot of confusion and distress. What I can say from personal experience is that I have researched the matter thoroughly and discovered that there is NOT A SINGLE MODERN BIBLE VERSION which is trustworthy.

The reason is very simple. All Reformation Bibles were based upon the Hebrew and Greek traditional texts (which are supported by THE MAJORITY of manuscripts). Hence the 1611 King James Bible is the most trustworthy English language version to this day. It has also stood the test of time -- over 400 years of effectiveness.

Conversely, all modern English versions since 1881 have been based upon the Minority texts. In the case of the New Testament, primarily two ancient but CORRUPT manuscripts (Aleph and B, or Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus). Since there are thousands of manuscripts, it is unreasonable to presume that just two or five or a handful of manuscripts are superior to the rest.

Now you will be getting a whole bunch of posts trying to contradict what I have said. But truth is on my side (and the side of those who still hold fast to the King James Bible). So I trust you will simply ignore the naysayers, and get on with your Christian life, knowing you have a Bible which has been around for hundreds of years and proved itself.

If you want to base longevity as proven success, the Quran has the King James Bible beaten by almost 1,000 years, as it was completed in 632.

 

[Sackcloth-N-Ashes]

Hello everyone, I'm new and this is my first forum thread. I'm not new to Christianity, but I'm fairly new to the Bible. I read it once years ago, but didn't really read it well, to be honest. I'm re-reading it, but am curious as to what the real differences are between the types of Bibles available, and what most people choose? I was on a Christian store website looking to purchase a new Bible for my Mom, and I'm so confused on what would be the best edition to buy as a gift for someone else, and what the best edition is for study. Any suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks, from a Bible newbie.

My dear friend, there are many to choose from. I like The Message, the CSB, NIV. NASB, ESV. I suggest you go to www.biblegateway.com and peruse the many versions they offer and choose the one that is easiest for you to understand. If the King James Bible is the one you like the best, please study from it.

 

[Merida]

@Merida

Here is a little excerpt from an 1611 King James Bible

Good luck reading it.

That certainly is hard to read.

 

[Sackcloth-N-Ashes]

That certainly is hard to read.

Those who are King James Bible only defend the 1611 King James Bible, but they are really reading the 1769 version. And in that edition, it comes in Cambridge and Oxford editions. Kind of have to defend the King James Bible only stance when the revisions made in it since 1611 is quite a few.

 

[Nehemiah6]

Here is a little excerpt from an 1611 King James Bible... Good luck reading it.

S-N-A, you are a newbie here and you should be ashamed of yourself. This is an attempt to mock the KJB instead of provide any serious guidance.

1. First of all nobody reads that typeface today. So that is pure deception.

2. Secondly there was a lot of updating of the KJB since 1611, even though the text itself remained the same.

3. There are even more recent updated versions of the KJB, which eliminate all the tired objections to this outstanding Bible.

4. Neither Merida nor I wish to debate about this matter. If you think there is another version to outshine the KJB, you can present it and I will show Merida why it is unacceptable.

 

[Merida]

S-N-A, you are a newbie here and you should be ashamed of yourself. This is an attempt to mock the KJB instead of provide any serious guidance.

1. First of all nobody reads that typeface today. So that is pure deception.

2. Secondly there was a lot of updating of the KJB since 1611, even though the text itself remained the same.

3. There are even more recent updated versions of the KJB, which eliminate all the tired objections to this outstanding Bible.

4. Neither Merida nor I wish to debate about this matter. If you think there is another version to outshine the KJB, you can present it and I will show Merida why it is unacceptable.

I agree, that font is just not something that is really used anymore.

I just have another question, while we're talking about revisions. What about the "Gospel Of Mary Magdalene"? Some people say it was part of the original Bible, but was removed in the King James Version. Is there any truth to that?

 

[Nehemiah6]

Those who are King James Bible only defend the 1611 King James Bible, but they are really reading the 1769 version. And in that edition, it comes in Cambridge and Oxford editions. Kind of have to defend the King James Bible only stance when the revisions made in it since 1611 is quite a few.

Let's deal with this nonsense right from the start. I will reproduce John 1:1-18 as originally written and as presently read. There are NO DIFFERENCES other than spelling.

ORIGINAL AUTHORIZED VERSION
1 In the beginning was the Word, & the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men.
5 And the light shineth in darknesse, and the darknesse comprehended it not.
6¶ There was a man sent from God, whose name was Iohn.
7 The same came for a witnesse, to beare witnesse of the light, that all men through him might beleeue.
8 Hee was not that light, but was sent to beare witnesse of that light.
9 That was the true light, which lighteth euery man that commeth into the world.
10 Hee was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
11 Hee came vnto his owne, and his owne receiued him not.
12 But as many as receiued him, to them gaue hee power to become the sonnes of God, euen to them that beleeue on his Name:
13 Which were borne, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among vs (& we beheld his glory, the glory as of the onely begotten of the Father) full of grace and trueth.
15¶ Iohn bare witnesse of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that commeth after me, is preferred before me, for he was before me.
16 And of his fulnesse haue all wee receiued, and grace for grace.
17 For the Law was giuen by Moses, but grace and trueth came by Iesus Christ.
18 No man hath seene God at any time: the onely begotten Sonne, which is in the bosome of the Father, he hath declared him.

CURRENT KING JAMES BIBLE
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all menthrough him might believe.
8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
9That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
15 John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.
16 And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace.
17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.
18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

 

[Nehemiah6]

I just have another question, while we're talking about revisions. What about the "Gospel Of Mary Magdalene"? Some people say it was part of the original Bible, but was removed in the King James Version. Is there any truth to that?

There's no truth to that. There were many so-called Gospels written by the Gnostics, such as the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Mary Magdalene. If you check out gnosis.org (a Gnostic web site) you will see that they have it as one of their phony gospels.

Here's a nonsensical quote from the Gospel of MM: Matter gave birth to a passion that has no equal, which proceeded from something contrary to nature. Then there arises a disturbance in its whole body.

 

[Sackcloth-N-Ashes]

S-N-A, you are a newbie here and you should be ashamed of yourself. This is an attempt to mock the KJB instead of provide any serious guidance.

1. First of all nobody reads that typeface today. So that is pure deception.

2. Secondly there was a lot of updating of the KJB since 1611, even though the text itself remained the same.

3. There are even more recent updated versions of the KJB, which eliminate all the tired objections to this outstanding Bible.

4. Neither Merida nor I wish to debate about this matter. If you think there is another version to outshine the KJB, you can present it and I will show Merida why it is unacceptable.

And by what basis do you know with 100% certainty the King James Bible is the word of God and the others are not?

 

[Sackcloth-N-Ashes]

I agree, that font is just not something that is really used anymore.

I just have another question, while we're talking about revisions. What about the "Gospel Of Mary Magdalene"? Some people say it was part of the original Bible, but was removed in the King James Version. Is there any truth to that?

My friend, please follow this thread and see where the angst, acrimony, hatred comes from. Those of us who prefer modern versions are okay with others reading the King James Bible. We see it as a version of God's word.

However, those who hold to the King James Bible only stance will not tolerate others reading anything other than the King James Bible. All others are corrupted and can not save anyone.

Its liberal ideology at its finest. Its either agree with them or you are an idiot.

 

[Sackcloth-N-Ashes]

Hello everyone, I'm new and this is my first forum thread. I'm not new to Christianity, but I'm fairly new to the Bible. I read it once years ago, but didn't really read it well, to be honest. I'm re-reading it, but am curious as to what the real differences are between the types of Bibles available, and what most people choose? I was on a Christian store website looking to purchase a new Bible for my Mom, and I'm so confused on what would be the best edition to buy as a gift for someone else, and what the best edition is for study. Any suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks, from a Bible newbie.

This boils down to which do you prefer, the Critical Text(CT from here on out) or the Textus Receptus(TR or received text from here on out). In 1881, Brooke Foss Wescott and Fenton J.A. Hort compiled a text that used two 4th century manuscripts, the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaicitus. The Codex Sinaicitus was found 1859 by Count Tischendorf in a monastery of St. Catherine on Mount Sinai. It was traced back to the 4th century by compating it to other known writings of that day(4th century). They trace it to 325-350 AD.

Desiderius Erasmus was the one who took and translated the NT into Greek. He then did 4 revisions of it later on. He never had access to Codex Vaticanus, either. Those who translated the Greek into English in the 1611 King James Bible had the 5 manuscripts of Erasmus(1 original and the 4 updated revisions), Theodore Beza's manuscript and Stephanus' 1550 editon.

The newest manuscript they had to use was from around 1000-1200 AD. The modern versions use the CT, and they used ~5,600 manuscripts, with them tracing back to 325-350 AD.

If you use a manuscript that is 700-1,200 years newer, you know the likelihood of error increases. The manuscripts the modern version use is closer to the days when the originals were penned.

Remember, the way the copied manuscripts back in those days was by coping them by hand. There is a huge question mark to the validity of the longer ending of Mark 15(verses 9-20 are not in a lot of the older manuscripts). Then the woman caught in the act of adultery has some concerns as well(John 7:53-8:11).

https://www.gotquestions.org/Codex-Sinaiticus-Vaticanus.html

https://www.gotquestions.org/critical-text.html

https://www.gotquestions.org/Mark-16-9-20.html

https://www.gotquestions.org/John-7-53-8-11.html

The longer ending of Mark 15 is where those who handle snakes and drink strychnine get their belief from. Also, some Baptists use it to prove that unless you are baptized, you are not saved. Jesus never advocated that, so for that to be in the longer ending is questionable.

 

[Subhumanoidal]

Hello everyone, I'm new and this is my first forum thread. I'm not new to Christianity, but I'm fairly new to the Bible. I read it once years ago, but didn't really read it well, to be honest. I'm re-reading it, but am curious as to what the real differences are between the types of Bibles available, and what most people choose? I was on a Christian store website looking to purchase a new Bible for my Mom, and I'm so confused on what would be the best edition to buy as a gift for someone else, and what the best edition is for study. Any suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks, from a Bible newbie.

I find the NLT (New Living Translation) to be easy to read yet still a ails translation.
Just don't confuse it with the TLB (The Living Bible), which is no good.

 

[Merida]

This boils down to which do you prefer, the Critical Text(CT from here on out) or the Textus Receptus(TR or received text from here on out). In 1881, Brooke Foss Wescott and Fenton J.A. Hort compiled a text that used two 4th century manuscripts, the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaicitus. The Codex Sinaicitus was found 1859 by Count Tischendorf in a monastery of St. Catherine on Mount Sinai. It was traced back to the 4th century by compating it to other known writings of that day(4th century). They trace it to 325-350 AD.

Desiderius Erasmus was the one who took and translated the NT into Greek. He then did 4 revisions of it later on. He never had access to Codex Vaticanus, either. Those who translated the Greek into English in the 1611 King James Bible had the 5 manuscripts of Erasmus(1 original and the 4 updated revisions), Theodore Beza's manuscript and Stephanus' 1550 editon.

The newest manuscript they had to use was from around 1000-1200 AD. The modern versions use the CT, and they used ~5,600 manuscripts, with them tracing back to 325-350 AD.

If you use a manuscript that is 700-1,200 years newer, you know the likelihood of error increases. The manuscripts the modern version use is closer to the days when the originals were penned.

Remember, the way the copied manuscripts back in those days was by coping them by hand. There is a huge question mark to the validity of the longer ending of Mark 15(verses 9-20 are not in a lot of the older manuscripts). Then the woman caught in the act of adultery has some concerns as well(John 7:53-8:11).

https://www.gotquestions.org/Codex-Sinaiticus-Vaticanus.html

https://www.gotquestions.org/critical-text.html

https://www.gotquestions.org/Mark-16-9-20.html

https://www.gotquestions.org/John-7-53-8-11.html

The longer ending of Mark 15 is where those who handle snakes and drink strychnine get their belief from. Also, some Baptists use it to prove that unless you are baptized, you are not saved. Jesus never advocated that, so for that to be in the longer ending is questionable.

I keep an open mind, so thank you for your replies. I'll check into this. I honestly didn't realize that this is a hot topic, and didn't want to start a debate between people.

 

[Davenport]

Hello everyone, I'm new and this is my first forum thread. I'm not new to Christianity, but I'm fairly new to the Bible. I read it once years ago, but didn't really read it well, to be honest. I'm re-reading it, but am curious as to what the real differences are between the types of Bibles available, and what most people choose? I was on a Christian store website looking to purchase a new Bible for my Mom, and I'm so confused on what would be the best edition to buy as a gift for someone else, and what the best edition is for study. Any suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks, from a Bible newbie.

Isn't if funny? You come here is a newbie and asked for the best edition for study, and then a battle follows of people arguing over which translation is best.

Without intent of entering the circus, you should choose the ESV. The ESV is easy to read is and more faithful to the original meaning than most modern translations.

The King James Bible uses outdated language which can be both difficult to read and misleading. For example, if you read the word "corn", you think, oh, the thing that you make popcorn out of. That's not what corn meant when the King James was written. The translators of the King James had never heard of corn. Yet, the word "corn" is in the King James over 100 times.

 

[Merida]

I find the NLT (New Living Translation) to be easy to read yet still a ails translation.
Just don't confuse it with the TLB (The Living Bible), which is no good.

Okay thank you so much

 

[Merida]

Isn't if funny? You come here is a newbie and asked for the best edition for study, and then a battle follows of people arguing over which translation is best.

Without intent of entering the circus, you should choose the ESV. The ESV is easy to read is and more faithful to the original meaning than most modern translations.

The King James Bible uses outdated language which can be both difficult to read and misleading. For example, if you read the word "corn", you think, oh, the thing that you make popcorn out of. That's not what corn meant when the King James was written. The translators of the King James had never heard of corn. Yet, the word "corn" is in the King James over 100 times.

I had no idea about the corn issue. lol

 

[Davenport]

The NLT is a very loose and biased translation, which makes it a poor choice for study. People who use it often come off looking like idiots in debates.