Favourite Bible Translations

  • 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.
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
The KJV translators couldn't decide, which is why they included the marginal notes with alternate renderings.
Why are you telling me about the beliefs of the KJV translators when I asked how does a person keep the words of God when that person can't even decide which verses should be in the bible and which words shouldn't be.
 

Gardenias

Well-known member
Oct 27, 2020
2,281
1,117
113
U.S.A.
Personally I love the language found in the KJV both 1611 and the reprints!
However my translator,interpeter, & teacher who is also God, the Holy Spirit will NEVER fail to reveal to me what the Father wants me to understand!
I must submit to him with a willing humble heart, seeking his wisdom.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
25,606
13,863
113
God didnt use (Unsaved) adulterers to preserve his Greek Text, David repented if his sin, Kurt Aland died in it, being married to Barbara Ehlers to the grave, Adultery
So you say. I missed the part where God declared you the Judge of all the Earth.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
25,606
13,863
113
Why are you telling me about the beliefs of the KJV translators when I asked how does a person keep the words of God when that person can't even decide which verses should be in the bible and which words shouldn't be.
Read the marginal notes in the 1611 printing and you will have your answer.
 
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
Read the marginal notes in the 1611 printing and you will have your answer.
Forget the KJV or any bible. How do you keep the words of God when you can’t know what words God spoke.

It’s not a complicated question, it just has an answer that you don’t want to give and that’s why you’re trying to blow it off with secondary arguments that aren’t related to the question.
 
S

Scribe

Guest
Yep, 7,342 notes that do not need to be there. I trust the text.
12 And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks;

candlesticks were not used in the 1st century.

John said lychnias which is the Greek word for lampstand and at that time they were oil fed lampstands.

So the KJV scholars using candlesticks, knowing that the Greek word is lampstand and knowing that candlesticks were not used in the first century were attempting to modernize the word. I would rather have the literal word lampstand translated from the original Greek and allow me to understand it as an oil fed lamp and not a candlestick. I am a bit offended at their attempt to help me out by using a word that was common to their current method of lighting. It is a violation of the text.

Would you go so far as to say that you believe John saw wax candlesticks even though the greek word is lychnias (lampstand) and wax candlesticks were not yet in use in the 1st century? This is a test of your intellectual honesty. Don't mess it up.
 

Truth7t7

Well-known member
May 19, 2020
7,685
2,496
113
So you say. I missed the part where God declared you the Judge of all the Earth.
Gods words have judged Adulterer Kurt Aland, (Corrupt Fruit)

Matthew 7:17-18KJV
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
25,606
13,863
113
Forget the KJV or any bible. How do you keep the words of God when you can’t know what words God spoke.

It’s not a complicated question, it just has an answer that you don’t want to give and that’s why you’re trying to blow it off with secondary arguments that aren’t related to the question.
This is going in circles.

I'm not trying to blow it off; rather, I think your question is moot in light of the marginal notes in the 1611 printing.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
25,606
13,863
113
Gods words have judged Adulterer Kurt Aland, (Corrupt Fruit)

Matthew 7:17-18KJV
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
You want to continue slandering Kurt Aland, you go right ahead. I'm not interested in continuing that line of conversation.
 
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
This is going in circles.

I'm not trying to blow it off; rather, I think your question is moot in light of the marginal notes in the 1611 printing.
It’s going around in circles because you keep avoiding the question.
 

fredoheaven

Senior Member
Nov 17, 2015
4,114
965
113
The KJV translators couldn't decide, which is why they included the marginal notes with alternate renderings.
Who says they could not decide? That is not the intention of the marginal notes in the Kjv. In the final analysis. The kj translator decided to used words in the Kjv text.
 
S

Scribe

Guest
Personally I love the language found in the KJV both 1611 and the reprints!
However my translator,interpeter, & teacher who is also God, the Holy Spirit will NEVER fail to reveal to me what the Father wants me to understand!
I must submit to him with a willing humble heart, seeking his wisdom.
Robert Alter who released his Hebrew Translation of the Bible says that the KJV is the English translation that comes closest to capturing the poetry and prose of the Hebrew and that the KJV scholars were of a far more advanced intellect concerning the original languages. We just don't have their equal today. They did a better job of retaining the literary style of the Hebrew but still could have done better which is why he spent 20 years on his translation. I have been listening to it and I you can hear the similarity of the KJV, I know what he is talking about.

I use the KJV as my devotional text and for memorization.
 
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
Who says they could not decide? That is not the intention of the marginal notes in the Kjv. In the final analysis. The kj translator decided to used words in the Kjv text.
He knows that. He’s boxed into a corner with a question that has an answer that he’s not willing to give.
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
17,176
3,700
113
12 And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks;

candlesticks were not used in the 1st century.

John said lychnias which is the Greek word for lampstand and at that time they were oil fed lampstands.

So the KJV scholars using candlesticks, knowing that the Greek word is lampstand and knowing that candlesticks were not used in the first century were attempting to modernize the word. I would rather have the literal word lampstand translated from the original Greek and allow me to understand it as an oil fed lamp and not a candlestick. I am a bit offended at their attempt to help me out by using a word that was common to their current method of lighting. It is a violation of the text.

Would you go so far as to say that you believe John saw wax candlesticks even though the greek word is lychnias (lampstand) and wax candlesticks were not yet in use in the 1st century? This is a test of your intellectual honesty. Don't mess it up.
The old candlestick debate. Ok, I’ll bite. Here’s the clear answer from a frien of mine. If you’re interested, you will read.

The “candlestick” was not the actual candle itself, but was the stand that was composed of 7 branches, a shaft, knops and bowls in which was placed an oil that burned and was referred to as a “lamp”. Obviously we are not referring to “electrical” lamps, but rather the extended meaning of both “lamps” and “candles” which is simply any kind of artificial light.

Webster's Revised and Unabridged Dictionary 1913 - Can"dle*stick` n. [AS. candel-sticca; candel candle + sticca stick.] An instrument or utensil for supporting a candle.

American Heritage Dictionary of the English language - Candlestick - "A holder with a cup or spike for a candle."

Macmillan Dictionary - Candlestick - "an object for holding a candle"

Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary - Candlestick - " An object that holds a candle."

Please notice that the "candlestick" was NOT the actual "candle" (we will define this word in a moment) but was the instrument or utensil that held the candle, just as it is described in Exodus when Moses was ordered to build the furniture for the tabernacle, and when Jesus referred to the candle and the candlestick in Luke 8:16.

"No man, when he hath lighted A CANDLE, covereth it with a vessel, or putteth it under a bed; but setteth it on A CANDLESTICK, that they which enter in may see the light." Luke 8:16

These Bible critics recommend versions that use the word “lamp stand” and “lamps” and yet these terms themselves need to be explained and defined. They certainly did not have what most kids think of today when they hear of “lamps” and “lamp stands” being used back in the days of Moses or the apostle John.

The NASB has both “bulbs” and a “lamp stand” in Exodus 25:35- “A bulb shall be under the first pair of branches coming out of it, and a bulb under the second pair of branches coming out of it, and a bulb under the third pair of branches coming out of it, for the six branches coming out of the lampstand.”

The NIV has “lamps” on the “lamp stand” - “The buds and branches shall all be of one piece with the lampstand, hammered out of pure gold. “Then make its seven lamps and set them up on it so that they light the space in front of it.”

The “easy to understand” ESV has “calyxes” on the “lamp stand”, both of which need to be explained - “and a calyx of one piece with it under each pair of the six branches going out from the lampstand.”

And the NKJV has “seven lamps” for the “lamp stand”, which once again is not what the average 20 year old today thinks it is. It needs to be explained.

As any good dictionary tells us, one of the meanings of a candle is an artificial light of any kind as opposed to the natural light of the sun or moon. And what, pray tell, comes to mind when you read the word "lamp stand"?

Cambridge International Dictionary - "Lampstand, a heavy, often decorative, base for an electric light which stands on a table or the floor." Is this what Moses used in the tabernacle? I think not.

Encyclopedia.Com. The evidence of ancient writings is not conclusive as to the history of the candle; words translated as "candle" may have meant "torch" or "lamp" and the "candlestick" was a stand for one of these lights.

Easton Bible Dictionary

Candle - Heb. ner, Job 18:6; 29:3; Ps. 18:28; Prov. 24:20 The Hebrew word denotes properly any kind of candle or lamp or torch. It is used as a figure of conscience (Prov. 20:27), of a Christian example (Matt. 5:14, 15), and of prosperity (Job 21:17; Prov. 13:9).

Webster's Dictionary

CANDLE, n.

1. A long, but small cylindrical body of tallow, wax or spermaceti, formed on a wick composed of linen or cotton threads, twisted loosely; used for a portable light of domestic use. (Tallow is the fat of cattle or sheep)

2. A light. (Notice, the word candle can simply refer to a light!)

3. A light; a luminary. In scripture, the candle of the Lord is the divine favor and blessing, Job 14:3; or the conscience or understanding. Prov. 20:27.
 
S

Scribe

Guest
He knows that. He’s boxed into a corner with a question that has an answer that he’s not willing to give.
You have to read about how they decided to go with a particular wording and how both wording is acceptable thus the marginal notes. It is an attempt to be intellectually honest and transparent for the sake of the reader to be able to see both. One is not superior to the other in those instances, which is why they include the notes.

People should appreciate that. They should appreciate that the KJV scholars were being honest about the challenges of translating into English and retaining the same understanding that the Hebrew or Greek speaker would have understood when sometimes there is no one English word that accomplishes that task.

These same challenges are faced every time a new translation is attempted. If I live long enough I will take about 3 years of Greek and Hebrew each and read it from the original. If yall are still around I will let you know if it was worth it. :)
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
25,606
13,863
113
Who says they could not decide? That is not the intention of the marginal notes in the Kjv. In the final analysis. The kj translator decided to used words in the Kjv text.
Yes, the translators made a call as to which words to include in the text, but when a marginal note says, "Or" with an alternate rendering, the translators are clearly demonstrating the legitimacy of the alternative. See the lower-right corner in the photo:

KJV 1611 John-Chapter-2-3 alt readings.jpg

Most KJV readers would never have seen that the translators provided the alternate "from above" because the marginal notes are not included in most modern KJV printings.
 
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
You have to read about how they decided to go with a particular wording and how both wording is acceptable thus the marginal notes. It is an attempt to be intellectually honest and transparent for the sake of the reader to be able to see both. One is not superior to the other in those instances, which is why they include the notes.

People should appreciate that. They should appreciate that the KJV scholars were being honest about the challenges of translating into English and retaining the same understanding that the Hebrew or Greek speaker would have understood when sometimes there is no one English word that accomplishes that task.

These same challenges are faced every time a new translation is attempted. If I live long enough I will take about 3 years of Greek and Hebrew each and read it from the original. If yall are still around I will let you know if it was worth it. :)
This is not a translation question, it has nothing to do with any bible or any translators opinion of their work.

Jesus said that he would reveal his word to those who keep his words and hide his word from those that don’t.

How can a person keep Gods word when if that person doesn’t even know what words God spoke?
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
17,176
3,700
113
You have to read about how they decided to go with a particular wording and how both wording is acceptable thus the marginal notes. It is an attempt to be intellectually honest and transparent for the sake of the reader to be able to see both. One is not superior to the other in those instances, which is why they include the notes.

People should appreciate that. They should appreciate that the KJV scholars were being honest about the challenges of translating into English and retaining the same understanding that the Hebrew or Greek speaker would have understood when sometimes there is no one English word that accomplishes that task.

These same challenges are faced every time a new translation is attempted. If I live long enough I will take about 3 years of Greek and Hebrew each and read it from the original. If yall are still around I will let you know if it was worth it. :)
The Bible itself contains many translations from one language to the next. The translation is the inspired word of God.
 

Sipsey

Well-known member
Sep 27, 2018
1,502
713
113
I read many years ago that 80% the King James translation came directly from the translation that Tyndall did. Some even say 90% is a more accurate figure. If this is the case, and it is, how much credit goes to the KJV translators, and how much credit does Tyndale get?

So technically, the KJV is a Tyndale Bible with 10-20% revisions.
 
S

Scribe

Guest
The old candlestick debate. Ok, I’ll bite. Here’s the clear answer from a frien of mine. If you’re interested, you will read.

The “candlestick” was not the actual candle itself, but was the stand that was composed of 7 branches, a shaft, knops and bowls in which was placed an oil that burned and was referred to as a “lamp”. Obviously we are not referring to “electrical” lamps, but rather the extended meaning of both “lamps” and “candles” which is simply any kind of artificial light.

Webster's Revised and Unabridged Dictionary 1913 - Can"dle*stick` n. [AS. candel-sticca; candel candle + sticca stick.] An instrument or utensil for supporting a candle.

American Heritage Dictionary of the English language - Candlestick - "A holder with a cup or spike for a candle."

Macmillan Dictionary - Candlestick - "an object for holding a candle"

Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary - Candlestick - " An object that holds a candle."

Please notice that the "candlestick" was NOT the actual "candle" (we will define this word in a moment) but was the instrument or utensil that held the candle, just as it is described in Exodus when Moses was ordered to build the furniture for the tabernacle, and when Jesus referred to the candle and the candlestick in Luke 8:16.

"No man, when he hath lighted A CANDLE, covereth it with a vessel, or putteth it under a bed; but setteth it on A CANDLESTICK, that they which enter in may see the light." Luke 8:16

These Bible critics recommend versions that use the word “lamp stand” and “lamps” and yet these terms themselves need to be explained and defined. They certainly did not have what most kids think of today when they hear of “lamps” and “lamp stands” being used back in the days of Moses or the apostle John.

The NASB has both “bulbs” and a “lamp stand” in Exodus 25:35- “A bulb shall be under the first pair of branches coming out of it, and a bulb under the second pair of branches coming out of it, and a bulb under the third pair of branches coming out of it, for the six branches coming out of the lampstand.”

The NIV has “lamps” on the “lamp stand” - “The buds and branches shall all be of one piece with the lampstand, hammered out of pure gold. “Then make its seven lamps and set them up on it so that they light the space in front of it.”

The “easy to understand” ESV has “calyxes” on the “lamp stand”, both of which need to be explained - “and a calyx of one piece with it under each pair of the six branches going out from the lampstand.”

And the NKJV has “seven lamps” for the “lamp stand”, which once again is not what the average 20 year old today thinks it is. It needs to be explained.

As any good dictionary tells us, one of the meanings of a candle is an artificial light of any kind as opposed to the natural light of the sun or moon. And what, pray tell, comes to mind when you read the word "lamp stand"?

Cambridge International Dictionary - "Lampstand, a heavy, often decorative, base for an electric light which stands on a table or the floor." Is this what Moses used in the tabernacle? I think not.

Encyclopedia.Com. The evidence of ancient writings is not conclusive as to the history of the candle; words translated as "candle" may have meant "torch" or "lamp" and the "candlestick" was a stand for one of these lights.

Easton Bible Dictionary

Candle - Heb. ner, Job 18:6; 29:3; Ps. 18:28; Prov. 24:20 The Hebrew word denotes properly any kind of candle or lamp or torch. It is used as a figure of conscience (Prov. 20:27), of a Christian example (Matt. 5:14, 15), and of prosperity (Job 21:17; Prov. 13:9).

Webster's Dictionary

CANDLE, n.

1. A long, but small cylindrical body of tallow, wax or spermaceti, formed on a wick composed of linen or cotton threads, twisted loosely; used for a portable light of domestic use. (Tallow is the fat of cattle or sheep)

2. A light. (Notice, the word candle can simply refer to a light!)

3. A light; a luminary. In scripture, the candle of the Lord is the divine favor and blessing, Job 14:3; or the conscience or understanding. Prov. 20:27.
You are conceding that the word is lamp and lampstand. John saw oil fed lampstands. Images of ancient oil fed lamps, and lampstand can be googled. Images of the ancient oil fed minora can be seen also and your descriptions of how those were made. Jesus also was referring to an oil fed lamp and a lampstand in your Luke passage.

You are basically presenting a reason that says the KJV were explaining. It was their modern method and they used that to "explain."
Normally the argument for the superiority of the KJV accuracy of each and every word would find fault with this as not being true to the original text but you give grace in this instance. You don't give grace for any other translation that would take such liberties with the original language.

If it is ok for the KJV to use candlestick as a method of explaining why not allow another translation to use FLASH LIGHT, or as in your post "Electric Lamp". You would be offended if a translation said he an electric lamp stand. Why? If it is just about the light?
I think the fact that the light in the text is of a light that is fed by oil might have subtle typology lost with changing it to modern examples. And normaly the KJV only crowd would agree. But here they make excuses.