Bible Editions

[Angela53510]

Yet it was good enough for millions of Christians over hundreds of years until the false Bibles (the Pretenders) came along.

As to "outdated, archaic, and obsolete" you have not kept up with the developments in this direction because of your built-in Westcott-Hort bias. Please note as an example:

King James Bible
Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began... (Rom 16:25)

King James 2000 Bible (almost identical to the NASB)
Now to him who is able to establish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began...

American King James Version
Now to him that is of power to establish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began...

New American Standard Bible
Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which has been kept secret for long ages past...

Now let's see which is the most faithful according to the Received Text (the true text):

Τῷ δὲ δυναμένῳ* ὑμᾶς στηρίξαι κατὰ τὸ εὐαγγέλιόν μου καὶ τὸ κήρυγμα Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, κατὰ ἀποκάλυψιν μυστηρίου χρόνοις αἰωνίοις** σεσιγημένου...

*Strong's Concordance
dunamai: to be able, to have power
Original Word: δύναμαι
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: dunamai
Phonetic Spelling: (doo'-nam-ahee)
Definition: to be able, to have power
Usage: (a) I am powerful, have (the) power, (b) I am able, I can.

1. So when the KJB says "that is of POWER" it is faithfully presenting δυναμένῳ. While humans "are able", God has the power, and all power belongs to Him.

2. "Stablish" is the older form of "establish" so this is of little consequence. Updated spelling.

3. Even though χρόνοις αἰωνίοις** (chronois aioniois) literally means "in times of the ages" it is more theologically accurate to say "since the world began" rather than "for long ages past". Why? Because according to Bible chronology (going strictly by the Bible) "since the world began" refer to approximately 6000 years (4000 at that time), while "long ages past" accommodates evolution with it millions and millions of years. We should keep in mind that many of the naturalistic textual scholars who altered the Bible believed in evolution (as well as many other false teachings).

SO ONCE AGAIN WE FIND THAT THE KING JAMES BIBLE IS THE MOST TRUSTWORTHY AND ACCURATE ENGLISH TRANSLATION EVEN TODAY.

As I stated in my first post, I have no interest in debating this issue. And if the OP is not interested in the KJB, I have no interest in pursuing this discussion. However, let's get rid of this false idea that the KJB is "outdated, archaic, and obsolete". That's what Satan would have Christians believe, since he hates this faithful translation.

Nehemiah, Nehemiah! Westcott and Hort?? Really?? I have never used that version in my life. I use SBL on-line, or Nestle-Aland at home. I have strong reasons for doing so, as they are much more accurate than all the copyist mistakes in the Byzantine much later manuscripts. Seeing as there were none before the 4th century AD, and they just magically spring into existence then. Nope, give me good copies, cross compared against the 4 different manuscripts types, and I am good.

As for Strong's, you know what I think of concordances, especially the circular logic (thanks Dino!) of using KJV as the English language base to translate the Greek from. And I do agree, the KJV was excellent for many centuries, especially when people actually spoke like that. Time has passed, and we simply do not speak that way at all anymore. Your sad attempt to use Strong's and then teach me 1611 English aside, you aren't telling me anything I don't know.

I am a short earth creationist, since before I was saved. I believe God is totally sovereign and Lord. He has all power. That is what my Bibles tell me, especially the Greek version. I know there is truth in the KJV, I won't deny that. But, I also know that I speak a lot of languages, but KJ English is NOT one of them, and nothing you can say or do will ever make me want to read a version that has seen better times, in a language I don't understand.

And no, KJV is NOT the best and most trusted version, but we have done this dance before, and I am not going to bring out all my Greek and Hebrew tools, to show you why it is not, ok?

 

[John146]

I think people need to agree to disagree on this topic. I feel bad that it has triggered some people.

When you have more than one bible, it creates confusion. Satan has always been one step behind God's word trying to pervert it. Satan is a pervert. The KJV came out and help lead a revival this world has never seen. What did Satan do? Come out with his own bible versions on what God has said to corrupt the words of God and send people into confusion. Ever read the story of Adam and Eve?

 

[John146]

Nehemiah, Nehemiah! Westcott and Hort?? Really?? I have never used that version in my life. I use SBL on-line, or Nestle-Aland at home. I have strong reasons for doing so, as they are much more accurate than all the copyist mistakes in the Byzantine much later manuscripts. Seeing as there were none before the 4th century AD, and they just magically spring into existence then. Nope, give me good copies, cross compared against the 4 different manuscripts types, and I am good.

As for Strong's, you know what I think of concordances, especially the circular logic (thanks Dino!) of using KJV as the English language base to translate the Greek from. And I do agree, the KJV was excellent for many centuries, especially when people actually spoke like that. Time has passed, and we simply do not speak that way at all anymore. Your sad attempt to use Strong's and then teach me 1611 English aside, you aren't telling me anything I don't know.

I am a short earth creationist, since before I was saved. I believe God is totally sovereign and Lord. He has all power. That is what my Bibles tell me, especially the Greek version. I know there is truth in the KJV, I won't deny that. But, I also know that I speak a lot of languages, but KJ English is NOT one of them, and nothing you can say or do will ever make me want to read a version that has seen better times, in a language I don't understand.

And no, KJV is NOT the best and most trusted version, but we have done this dance before, and I am not going to bring out all my Greek and Hebrew tools, to show you why it is not, ok?

We're going with the old archaic language again. I'm surprised at you Angela with all your learning and degrees that you can't figure out a few authentic English words and allow the Holy Spirit to guide you unto all understanding; that you need it translated into easier words for you to understand. (Although you study Greek and Hebrew and German).

If you were in medical school and came across medical terms you did not understand, would you lobby to change the words to an easier understanding, or would you simply work harder to study those terms?

 

[trofimus]

When you have more than one bible, it creates confusion. Satan has always been one step behind God's word trying to pervert it. Satan is a pervert. The KJV came out and help lead a revival this world has never seen. What did Satan do? Come out with his own bible versions on what God has said to corrupt the words of God and send people into confusion. Ever read the story of Adam and Eve?

You are trying to be extreme. Satan vs God, perfect translation vs perverted translation.

But this is not reality, its fanatism.

 

[Sackcloth-N-Ashes]

We're going with the old archaic language again. I'm surprised at you Angela with all your learning and degrees that you can't figure out a few authentic English words and allow the Holy Spirit to guide you unto all understanding; that you need it translated into easier words for you to understand. (Although you study Greek and Hebrew and German).

If you were in medical school and came across medical terms you did not understand, would you lobby to change the words to an easier understanding, or would you simply work harder to study those terms?

How do you not know if the manuscripts used by modern versions are not the pure ones and the manuscripts used by the King James Bible translators are the corrupted ones? What proof do you have other than your personal opinion my friend?

 

[John146]

How do you not know if the manuscripts used by modern versions are not the pure ones and the manuscripts used by the King James Bible translators are the corrupted ones? What proof do you have other than your personal opinion my friend?

The falsehoods of the new versions...they teach corrupted truth. The KJB has been proved to be good over 400 years. The modern versions fail one after another. Few have a shelf life of over 4 years let alone 40, much less 400. God's timing is always perfect. God saw the world was ripe for His word. It came at the perfect time in history. English would expand around the world and God saw fit to have His pure words preserved in the English language through the making of the KJB.

1 Th 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

 

[Angela53510]

We're going with the old archaic language again. I'm surprised at you Angela with all your learning and degrees that you can't figure out a few authentic English words and allow the Holy Spirit to guide you unto all understanding; that you need it translated into easier words for you to understand. (Although you study Greek and Hebrew and German).

If you were in medical school and came across medical terms you did not understand, would you lobby to change the words to an easier understanding, or would you simply work harder to study those terms?

Why? Why would I want to learn hundreds if not thousands of words that I would not use for anything else, except to read an archaic, and let’s face it, a badly translated Bible?

I learned the other languages, because I have lots of use for them. German is used in theology, Hebrew the OT and Greek the NT.

I have no use to spend months or years learning a bunch of words I don’t need or want, and are for one thing only- to read a version rife with additions, copied from late manuscripts with thousands of copyist mistakes!

I read the foreign languages for practical academic purposes. I read a modern version, in my own language to hear the Holy Spirit speak through the Word!

No need ever for a Bible that isn’t a good translation, and one I simply do not understand.

As for medical terminology, lucky for me a lot of it is from Greek. If I was a doctor, I would learn those words, because it would be important for my training and career, to say nothing of saving lives. And there are no alternate words. But an old Bible translation, long past it’s expiry date? Not a chance!

 

[Angela53510]

The falsehoods of the new versions...they teach corrupted truth. The KJB has been proved to be good over 400 years. The modern versions fail one after another. Few have a shelf life of over 4 years let alone 40, much less 400. God's timing is always perfect. God saw the world was ripe for His word. It came at the perfect time in history. English would expand around the world and God saw fit to have His pure words preserved in the English language through the making of the KJB.

1 Th 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

Give me a specified doctrine or truth that is different in the KJV than modern Bibles!

Wait! You win! Every single cult member, weirdo and off track person that comes into this forum, always quote the so-called “pure” words of the KJV. My theory is that they make these huge mistakes because of the obscure words and syntax of the KJV. So much better to read something that you can understand, and is in your own language, not an extinct form of English.

Didn’t someone point out some weird things you believe? And there are people in this forum who read the KJV well, and have fairly sound doctrine. It is possible. But I am not dedicating my life to that purpose, and neither should non-Christians wanting to know about Gid, and new Christians wanting to study the Word of God!

 

[preacher4truth]

Why? Why would I want to learn hundreds if not thousands of words that I would not use for anything else, except to read an archaic, and let’s face it, a badly translated Bible?

I learned the other languages, because I have lots of use for them. German is used in theology, Hebrew the OT and Greek the NT.

I have no use to spend months or years learning a bunch of words I don’t need or want, and are for one thing only- to read a version rife with additions, copied from late manuscripts with thousands of copyist mistakes!

I read the foreign languages for practical academic purposes. I read a modern version, in my own language to hear the Holy Spirit speak through the Word!

No need ever for a Bible that isn’t a good translation, and one I simply do not understand.

As for medical terminology, lucky for me a lot of it is from Greek. If I was a doctor, I would learn those words, because it would be important for my training and career, to say nothing of saving lives. And there are no alternate words. But an old Bible translation, long past it’s expiry date? Not a chance!

All the KJVO sectarians need to speak in the Queens English when conversing. It's only logical.

Why use the common vernacular of the day when they "know" God's word is pure only in the Queens English? Or shouldest I say, why doth not they speak in the vulgar tongue of today?

It would be like those not of their sect using an ESV but speaking in the Queen's English.

 

[John146]

Give me a specified doctrine or truth that is different in the KJV than modern Bibles!

Wait! You win! Every single cult member, weirdo and off track person that comes into this forum, always quote the so-called “pure” words of the KJV. My theory is that they make these huge mistakes because of the obscure words and syntax of the KJV. So much better to read something that you can understand, and is in your own language, not an extinct form of English.

Didn’t someone point out some weird things you believe? And there are people in this forum who read the KJV well, and have fairly sound doctrine. It is possible. But I am not dedicating my life to that purpose, and neither should non-Christians wanting to know about Gid, and new Christians wanting to study the Word of God!

I've read the KJV since a child. The English language is not a barrier to me. And as you know (but would not admit), thee and thou, ye and you, adding the eth to an ending makes it purer and better to understand.

The most important doctrine of all...that God's word can be trusted...every word to be pure and without error. If one cannot trust every word, then why should one trust any of the words.

Why don't you tell that young lady the truth in which you believe. We don't have access to God's pure and holy words in the English language. Tell her in order to understand what God has said, she needs to know Greek and Hebrew and be able to correct the bible herself, use her scholarship as her final authority on what God has said.

 

[Dino246]

When you have more than one bible, it creates confusion. Satan has always been one step behind God's word trying to pervert it. Satan is a pervert. The KJV came out and help lead a revival this world has never seen. What did Satan do? Come out with his own bible versions on what God has said to corrupt the words of God and send people into confusion. Ever read the story of Adam and Eve?

As I have stated before when you've brought up this ridiculous argument, if you truly believed it, you'd be using a Tyndale version, not the KJV.

 

[Dino246]

The falsehoods of the new versions...they teach corrupted truth. The KJB has been proved to be good over 400 years. The modern versions fail one after another. Few have a shelf life of over 4 years let alone 40, much less 400. God's timing is always perfect. God saw the world was ripe for His word. It came at the perfect time in history. English would expand around the world and God saw fit to have His pure words preserved in the English language through the making of the KJB.

1 Th 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

You have not provided any evidence in response to SnA's question. You've only given your opinion.

 

[Fulldeck]

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.

Get yourself the preserved KJV. Other versions can come in handy if you're having trouble with a meaning of a verse, but they also differ and offer footnotes that say "yea, hath God said?" - that is - the footnotes offer doubt as to the inspiration of passages, just as the serpent first caused Eve to doubt God's words. Also use biblehub.com which offers many great resources.

 

[Fulldeck]

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.

The NLT adds words to faith alone.

"The time promised by God has come at last!" he announced. "The Kingdom of God is near! Repent of your sins and believe the Good News!"
Mark 1:15 NLT

And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.
Mark 1:15 KJV​

The NLT adds "of your sins" to the text. Not even the vatican variants of the Greek manuscripts add this as they do in other places (e.g. changing God in the flesh to Godliness in the flesh)

The Greek says: μετανοεῖτε καὶ πιστεύετε - Change mind and believe

The greek doesn't say - Μετανοήστε τις αμαρτίες σας και πιστέψτε (not sure if accurate, this is Google translation of "repent 'of your sins' and believe"

 

[Dino246]

Get yourself the preserved KJV. Other versions can come in handy if you're having trouble with a meaning of a verse, but they also differ and offer footnotes that say "yea, hath God said?" - that is - the footnotes offer doubt as to the inspiration of passages, just as the serpent first caused Eve to doubt God's words. Also use biblehub.com which offers many great resources.

There are notes in the 1611 version showing alternate wordings that most modern printings omit (see examples at http://www.bible.ca/b-kjv-only.htm). Your argument is therefore without merit. The KJV rendering is neither inspired nor necessarily correct.

 

[Fulldeck]

The KJV rendering is neither inspired nor necessarily correct

"Yea hath God said?"

(imagine citing catholicism-lite bible.ca)

 

[Dino246]

"Yea hath God said?"

(imagine citing catholicism-lite bible.ca)

The nahash didn't speak in 16th century English.

 

[Fulldeck]

The nahash didn't speak in 16th century English

Nay, hanachash did not, but verily hu omer "yea hath God said?"

 

[Locutus]

The NLT adds words to faith alone.

"The time promised by God has come at last!" he announced. "The Kingdom of God is near! Repent of your sins and believe the Good News!"​

Mark 1:15 NLT​

​

And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.​

Mark 1:15 KJV​

The NLT adds "of your sins" to the text.

Doesn't matter the intent is there:

Mark 1:4 And there went out unto him all the land of Judaea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins.

Mark 1:5 John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

So contextually the intent is the same.

Nit picking does not establish the "superiority" of King Jim's translation.

Do you have any more gnats to strain at?

 

[Fulldeck]

Doesn't matter the intent is there:

Mark 1:4 And there went out unto him all the land of Judaea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins.

Mark 1:5 John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

So contextually the intent is the same.

Nit picking does not establish the "superiority" of King Jim's translation.

Do you have any more gnats to strain at?

Repentance means to change your mind. Turning from sin doesn't save, Jonah 3:10 clearly calls it works. Jonah 3:10 also says God repents. God doesn't sin.

Repentance is turning from unbelief to belief. http://www.jesusisprecious.org/articles/acts_20-21.htm