Favourite Bible Translations

[Sipsey]

Years ago a fellow coworker and I were discussing the NIV. He said, “I came to saving faith in Christ Jesus after reading the NIV. I shared my newfound faith with several Christian friends and they told me that it was impossible to be saved reading such a corrupt, perverted Bible as this.“

What’s wrong with this picture?

Yet this is the same attitude that the Jewish pharisees’s had. A close examination of NT quotes by the Apostles and Jesus will show that they often changed an OT verse to fit their audience. If one cannot explain the Grace of God in their own words, they are a hypocrite.

 

[Truth7t7]

In the end they are all Westcott & Hort. You can see this for yourself on Bible Hub. And when they claim that they used the Masoretic Text, that too is a false claim. Kittel's Biblica Hebraica is a corrupted form of the Masoretic Text.

Kurt Aland was a German professor born in 1915, he was the mastermind behind the Nestle-Aland Greek Text, he was the person who founded the (Institute For New Testament Research) in Munster Germany 1959

Kurt Aland also was instrumental in founding the (German Bible Society)1965, this organization is in primary control of printing and distributing the Kittle (Biblia Hebraica) and (Novum Testamentum Graece)

You are 100% correct in stating that the Novum Testamentum Graece is in the lineage of Westcott & Hort because it is, Ebhard Nestle used their work 100%, and hung his name on this Greek Text to support the 1901 American Standard Version, Westcott & Horts work on American soil

Wikipedia: (Novum Testamentum Graece)

History

The first edition published by Eberhard Nestle in 1898 combined the readings of the editions of Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort and Weymouth, placing the majority reading of these in the text and the third reading in the apparatus. In 1901, he replaced the Weymouth New Testament with Bernhard Weiss's text. In later editions, Nestle began noting the attestation of certain important manuscripts in his apparatus.

Eberhard's son Erwin Nestle took over after his father's death and issued the 13th edition in 1927. This edition introduced a separate critical apparatus and finally introduced consistency to the majority reading principle.[7] In the apparatus only a few minuscules were included.[8]

Kurt Aland became the associate editor of the 21st edition in 1952. At Erwin Nestle's request, he reviewed and expanded the critical apparatus, adding many more manuscripts. This eventually led to the 25th edition of 1963

 

[KJV1611]

Years ago a fellow coworker and I were discussing the NIV. He said, “I came to saving faith in Christ Jesus after reading the NIV. I shared my newfound faith with several Christian friends and they told me that it was impossible to be saved reading such a corrupt, perverted Bible as this.“

What’s wrong with this picture?

Yet this is the same attitude that the Jewish pharisees’s had. A close examination of NT quotes by the Apostles and Jesus will show that they often changed an OT verse to fit their audience. If one cannot explain the Grace of God in their own words, they are a hypocrite.

I would say it's like a guy trying to tell a blind and deaf guy that he's standing on the railroad track and the train is about to hit him. And the blind guy says I don't see no train coming.

 

[calibob]

Years ago a fellow coworker and I were discussing the NIV. He said, “I came to saving faith in Christ Jesus after reading the NIV. I shared my newfound faith with several Christian friends and they told me that it was impossible to be saved reading such a corrupt, perverted Bible as this.“

What’s wrong with this picture?

Yet this is the same attitude that the Jewish pharisees’s had. A close examination of NT quotes by the Apostles and Jesus will show that they often changed an OT verse to fit their audience. If one cannot explain the Grace of God in their own words, they are a hypocrite.

I knew a lot of theology students, that took hermeneutics. They could read and translate Greek some also , Hebrew & Aramaic. KJV was by far the most popular translation of the time. It's written on about a 12th grade level and NIV 8th grade. they said that the accuracy of both is nearly equal but Niv is better because it's easier to read and understand because KJ's, 1611 English is obsolete.

 

[Truth7t7]

Ok so they used Eberhard Nestle's Novum Graece, This edition was adopted by the British and Foreign Bible Society, replacing the Textus Receptus. After a few years this edition received worldwide recognition as the best edition of the Greek New Testament. This edition took the place which formerly belonged to the Textus Receptus and became a "New Textus Receptus".
One bit of info I didn't know, was that they had replaced the textus receptus.
But it is right there in the references I posted.
I also looked up this Kurk Aland. Y'all attacked him as an adulterer because he has got divorced and remarried. Not that he even matters to this conversation. The edition he was involved in is called the Eberhard Aland edition. And it came out in 1993.
So what do you have against the Eberhard Nestle greek text?

Real Big Smiles!

Your cracking the books, good for you!

(No) the Nestle-Aland isnt a (New Textus Receptus) another false claim out of ignorance, In Love

The Nestle-Aland Follows the Westcott-Hort, the Greek Text of (Both) are supported by Alexandrian Egyptian Greek Texts, Primarily The (Sinaticus), and (Vaticanus) manuscripts, the (Minority 1% Text) that supports all new versions.

The Textus Receptus that supports the KJV has nothing to do with the Alexandrian Text Type

The Church never used or distributed this Alexandrian Greek Text, they were aware of its corruption, being from the philosophical schools of Clement, Origen, And Arius, in Alexandria Egypt

 

[Sipsey]

I knew a lot of theology students, that took hermeneutics. They could read and translate Greek some also , Hebrew & Aramaic. KJV was by far the most popular translation of the time. It's written on about a 12th grade level and NIV 8th grade. they said that the accuracy of both is nearly equal but Niv is better because it's easier to read and understand because KJ's, 1611 English is obsolete.

I have used the KJV for so many years that it my go to. I also use NASB, TLB, NIV, and various Greek text to help with difficult passages. I have some good software (Bibleworks) that my old teacher recommended. That and three bookcases can help me figure out the gist of most passages.

I have seen many more literate Bible folks than myself that have a “form of Godliness, but deny its power.” Many think that they simply need to have superior knowledge. That’s who Paul had many debates with, the folks with gnosis vs epignosis. There is “nothing new under the sun.”

 

[TheIndianGirl]

I use the NRSV now, which is the translation used by many seminaries. I took a NT class at a Baptist seminary and had to buy a NRSV Bible for this class (I also have KJV, NIV, and ESV versions). The NRSV is frequently used by Bible scholars.

 

[Truth7t7]

Don't bother wrestling with a pig; you'll only get covered in mud.

Ole Truth7t7 is now a (Pig) for presenting Truth regarding the NASB

You witnessed before your eyes, the claims of Duelist were wrong, it was clearly shown that the NASB is supported by the>

NOVUM TESTAMENTUM GRAECE

I Have Studied The Subject For Decades, As I Stated (Several Times) The NOVUM TESTAMENTUM GRAECE
Is The Supprting Greek Text

NASB Copyright Holder, (Lockman Foundation Website Link)

NASB 1995 TEXTUAL BASIS

For the Old Testament: The latest edition of Rudolf Kittel’s BIBLIA HEBRAICA was employed together with the research from lexicography, cognate languages, and the Dead Sea Scrolls.

For the New Testament: Consideration was given to the latest available manuscripts with a view to determining the best Greek text. In most instances the 26th edition of Eberhard Nestle’s NOVUM TESTAMENTUM GRAECE was followed.

 

[calibob]

I have used the KJV for so many years that it my go to. I also use NASB, TLB, NIV, and various Greek text to help with difficult passages. I have some good software (Bibleworks) that my old teacher recommended. That and three bookcases can help me figure out the gist of most passages.

I have seen many more literate Bible folks than myself that have a “form of Godliness, but deny its power.” Many think that they simply need to have superior knowledge. That’s who Paul had many debates with, the folks with gnosis vs epignosis. There is “nothing new under the sun.”

What the mind of a child can understand, many theologian can't.

 

[Truth7t7]

I knew a lot of theology students, that took hermeneutics. They could read and translate Greek some also , Hebrew & Aramaic. KJV was by far the most popular translation of the time. It's written on about a 12th grade level and NIV 8th grade. they said that the accuracy of both is nearly equal but Niv is better because it's easier to read and understand because KJ's, 1611 English is obsolete.

Try Finding The Verses Below In Your NIV, ESV?

Matthew 17:21
Matthew 18:11
Acts 8:37
Roman's 16:24

Time Honored King James Version, 409 Years And Going Strong

A Masterpiece, The King James Bible and its translators, all confessing Christian's, scholars beyond comparison!

For a closer look at the King James Bible and its translators, check out the attached link

 

[Truth7t7]

I use the NRSV now, which is the translation used by many seminaries. I took a NT class at a Baptist seminary and had to buy a NRSV Bible for this class (I also have KJV, NIV, and ESV versions). The NRSV is frequently used by Bible scholars.

Look There, Acts 8:37 Has Been Removed In The NRSV, They Forgot To Let You Know At The Baptist Seminary

Acts 8:37NRSV (Gone)?
36 As they were going along the road, they came to some water; and the eunuch said, “Look, here is water! What is to prevent me from being baptized?”[h] 38 He commanded the chariot to stop, and both of them, Philip and the eunuch, went down into the water, and Philip[i] baptized him.

Acts 8:37KJV
37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

Time Honored King James Version, 409 Years And Going Strong

A Masterpiece, The King James Bible and its translators, all confessing Christian's, scholars beyond comparison!

For a closer look at the King James Bible and its translators, check out the attached link

 

[Dino246]

I assume that the bible speaks of the Gospel in high terms .

Your assumptions do not constitute evidence as to which translation is correct.

 

[TheIndianGirl]

Time Honored King James Version, 409 Years And Going Strong

I agree KJV is the most accurate version (because it is one of the the oldest versions), however it is written in Shakespearean-style English. It doesn't help to read this version if one doesn't completely understand it (especially those who consider English as their second language). Many people including Europeans consider English as a second language. KJV may be translated into foreign languages but I'm sure there will be inconsistencies in translations there as well.

 

[Dino246]

You witnessed before your eyes, the claims of Duelist were wrong, it was clearly shown that the NASB is supported by the...

What I witnessed is your mindless repetitions, hypocritical attacks, slanderous assertions, and shockingly poor grammar from someone who supposedly reads the KJV regularly.

Dude, you have absolutely no credibility with me. You're a clanging cymbal and nothing more.

 

[Dino246]

I agree KJV is the most accurate version (because it is one of the the oldest versions), however it is written in Shakespearean-style English. It doesn't help to read this version if one doesn't completely understand it (especially those who consider English as their second language). Many people including Europeans consider English as a second language. KJV may be translated into foreign languages but I'm sure there will be inconsistencies in translations there as well.

Thanks for contributing.

You believe that the KJV (1611) is the most accurate "because it is one of the oldest". Would you therefore consider Tyndale's translation (c. 1526) more accurate because it is older than the KJV? What about Wycliffe (c. 1384, middle English)? The Vulgate (c. 405, Latin), perhaps?

"Old", by itself, is not a good criteria for "accurate".

Are you aware that, when the KJV was penned, there were perhaps a couple of dozen Greek manuscripts of the New Testament books known, and that now, there are nearly 6,000?

Are you aware that there is a rule of Greek grammar that was only discovered almost 300 years after the KJV was penned, and which renders certain wordings in the KJV incorrect?

Are you aware that the oldest-known Greek manuscripts are actually different in places than the source material that led to the KJV?

I can respect your appreciation of the KJV, and have no problem if it is your choice of Bible in English. However, I would encourage you to do some more research on the issues and not allow your choice to stand on such precarious reasoning.

 

[calibob]

Ok see for yourselves! Galatians > Chapter 5 > Verse 12

New International Version
As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!

New Living Translation
I just wish that those troublemakers who want to mutilate you by circumcision would mutilate themselves.

English Standard Version
I wish those who unsettle you would emasculate themselves!

Berean Study Bible
As for those who are agitating you, I wish they would proceed to emasculate themselves!

Berean Literal Bible
I wish those upsetting you also will emasculate themselves!

New American Standard Bible
I wish that those who are troubling you would even mutilate themselves.

New King James Version
I could wish that those who trouble you would even cut themselves off!​

 

[throughfaith]

Your assumptions do not constitute evidence as to which translation is correct.

If it was just that one verse you may have a point .

 

[calibob]

Home / Read the Bible / The Geneva Bible (1587) / Galatians / Chapter 5
The Geneva Bible (1587)
Galatians 5:12

Would to God they were euen cut off, which doe disquiet you.​

 

[fredoheaven]

Thanks for contributing.

You believe that the KJV (1611) is the most accurate "because it is one of the oldest". Would you therefore consider Tyndale's translation (c. 1526) more accurate because it is older than the KJV? What about Wycliffe (c. 1384, middle English)? The Vulgate (c. 405, Latin), perhaps?

"Old", by itself, is not a good criteria for "accurate".

Are you aware that, when the KJV was penned, there were perhaps a couple of dozen Greek manuscripts of the New Testament books known, and that now, there are nearly 6,000?

Are you aware that there is a rule of Greek grammar that was only discovered almost 300 years after the KJV was penned, and which renders certain wordings in the KJV incorrect?

Are you aware that the oldest-known Greek manuscripts are actually different in places than the source material that led to the KJV?

I can respect your appreciation of the KJV, and have no problem if it is your choice of Bible in English. However, I would encourage you to do some more research on the issues and not allow your choice to stand on such precarious reasoning.

And what is that Greek grammar rule that renders certain wordings in the KJV incorrect? Thanks

 

[breno785au]

I agree KJV is the most accurate version (because it is one of the the oldest versions), however it is written in Shakespearean-style English. It doesn't help to read this version if one doesn't completely understand it (especially those who consider English as their second language). Many people including Europeans consider English as a second language. KJV may be translated into foreign languages but I'm sure there will be inconsistencies in translations there as well.

By that logic the Great Bible, Bishops Bible and Geneva Bible must be even more accurate!