Favourite Bible Translations

[Dino246]

You're idea of an error is when something doesn't match the "originals". You just agreed that since the originals are long gone and the copies of the originals can't be verified against those originals then that can't be the litmus test for authenticity of anything.

Fallacy: equivocation.

Original languages. Please stop with your ignorant blather.

 

[KJV1611]

With all due respect, the KJV is riddled with mistranslations and has errors just like any other translated version. That's just fact. From the start, the King James Bible was intended to be not a literary creation, but rather a political and theological compromise between the established church and the growing Puritan movement. Essentially, James wanted a clear text with no room for doctrinal dispute.

Another interesting fact is that its translators worked on the assumption the Greek versions of the NT were written in Classical Greek; not Koine. Several words gave them issues as they did not know Koine. The committee was made up of specialists in Classical Greek, and they believed that strange phrasing in the Greek New Testament was proof that it had been written in the “language of the Holy Spirit.”

An example of the work as a political text is perhaps best illustrated in Exodus 22:18 - King James hated 'witches' and made sure his Bible did too. The line was specifically used to justify England's witch hunts. A purposeful mistranslation to justify a (then) current political landscape.

It's undergone three revisions since 1611 incorporating something like over 100,000 changes. Which version is inspired?

It is written in 17th century poetic English - something like 300 words no longer have the same meaning in Modern English. It may beg the question for some of, should we really embrace the KJV as the best translation when it uses language that not only is not clearly understood anymore, but in fact has been at times perverted and twisted (for political purposes)?

I'm not saying the above to "bash" the KJV. What I'm getting at in short, is that no translation, by the very nature of the business of language translation, is going to be perfect. The KJV is no exception to the rule.

What are you basing errors on? The originals disappeared long ago and the copies of the originals come from at least two different lines that disagree with one another in multiple places. How can you make the claim that any bible has or doesn't have errors?

 

[John146]

Fallacy: false dichotomy. God holds you responsible for the truth that you do have, not for the truth that you don't have.

Can you give an example in the Bible? Thanks.

Keep reading a false version and God will not hold you accountable to much truth.

 

[KJV1611]

Fallacy: equivocation.

Original languages. Please stop with your ignorant blather.

Ok, explain how "original languages" prove an error in any bible.

 

[KJV1611]

The originals are gone.
The copies are useless, because they can't be verified against the originals.
To argue bible errors based on anything to do with the original language is insanity.

 

[calibob]

@KJV1611 We usually agree or at least get along with each others scriptural matters but your just torchering your fingers now. I'm going to unwatch this thread now. See ya.

 

[KJV1611]

@KJV1611 We usually agree or at least get along with each others scriptural matters but your just torchering your fingers now. I'm going to unwatch this thread now. See ya.

I'm sorry you feel that way. I'm just trying point out the EXTREME IMPORTANCE of EVERY SINGLE WORD in the bible. It is the key to our life in Christ.

 

[calibob]

I'm sorry you feel that way. I'm just trying point out the EXTREME IMPORTANCE of EVERY SINGLE WORD in the bible. It is the key to our life in Christ.

Yes I agree. The point id that not every single word in the KJV (or any other translation) is correct. If fact after a short break I came back here to correct something that I may have said wrong myself.

In the original texts there are no punctuation marks. some of the parenthesis were added by the translators. Entire verses' were also added, particularly to the KJV, I use Biblehub to compare KJV, NIV, BSB NASV, ESV and RSV translations with each other for clarity and before I copy/ paste to here. I'm not an XXX only fan of any translation and I no longer read paraphrased either.

 

[Scribe]

What are you basing errors on? The originals disappeared long ago and the copies of the originals come from at least two different lines that disagree with one another in multiple places. How can you make the claim that any bible has or doesn't have errors?

Copies may be all we have but there are enough of them to compare and confirm. We have examples of the copy of Isaiah 900 years older than what was known to compare and find that there current copies were trust worthy. This gives us EVERY REASON to believe that God preserved his Word of us in these COPIES.
We trust them first, over translations. Who would think it logical to trust the KJV over the copies that were used to translate to the KJV? That would be fanaticism. The source is not the KJV and the inspired writer was not one of the KJV scholars. Holy men of God wrote as they were moved by the Holy Ghost applies to the authors of the books of the bible only.

 

[iamsoandso]

The interesting part that I see from these types of threads is that we always argue over one of the "English versions" instead of the Polish,German,Russian ect. versions although it's an "international site" and Scriptures would be translated into different words in many of the other languages.

 

[SoulWeaver]

I'm sorry you feel that way. I'm just trying point out the EXTREME IMPORTANCE of EVERY SINGLE WORD in the bible. It is the key to our life in Christ.

While I agree it's important, that level of stress and hoping into a book to me is not of faith, I used to think like this but not any more.
God is able to teach a person the entire Bible independently, without a Bible, if He so wishes.
The Bible points to God, and teaches us what is God like and where to find Him. It is not God.

 

[KJV1611]

Yes I agree. The point id that not every single word in the KJV (or any other translation) is correct. If fact after a short break I came back here to correct something that I may have said wrong myself.

In the original texts there are no punctuation marks. some of the parenthesis were added by the translators. Entire verses' were also added, particularly to the KJV, I use Biblehub to compare KJV, NIV, BSB NASV, ESV and RSV translations with each other for clarity and before I copy/ paste to here. I'm not an XXX only fan of any translation and I no longer read paraphrased either.

The only way we could say that the KJV added verses would be to have an original manuscript in our hands and comparing the KJV to that original. It's impossible to say what was or was not in the original manuscripts, that's why God allowed them to fade away.

 

[Scribe]

The interesting part that I see from these types of threads is that we always argue over one of the "English versions" instead of the Polish,German,Russian ect. versions although it's an "international site" and Scriptures would be translated into different words in many of the other languages.

Because KJV fanatics are fanatics and don't stop to consider the multiple billions in the world who will never read the KJV but who may know more of the Word of God hidden in their hearts and memorized from their own language translation than these KJV fanatics ever will.

 

[KJV1611]

Copies may be all we have but there are enough of them to compare and confirm. We have examples of the copy of Isaiah 900 years older than what was known to compare and find that there current copies were trust worthy. This gives us EVERY REASON to believe that God preserved his Word of us in these COPIES.
We trust them first, over translations. Who would think it logical to trust the KJV over the copies that were used to translate to the KJV? That would be fanaticism. The source is not the KJV and the inspired writer was not one of the KJV scholars. Holy men of God wrote as they were moved by the Holy Ghost applies to the authors of the books of the bible only.

Get real man, we don't even know which copies are the real copies and which copies are fake.

 

[iamsoandso]

The only way we could say that the KJV added verses would be to have an original manuscript in our hands and comparing the KJV to that original. It's impossible to say what was or was not in the original manuscripts, that's why God allowed them to fade away.

I have always used the KJV and still do so don't see this as an attack but if I ask you what does "forborne" mean,,, what would you think it that it means?

 

[KJV1611]

While I agree it's important, that level of stress and hoping into a book to me is not of faith, I used to think like this but not any more.
God is able to teach a person the entire Bible independently, without a Bible, if He so wishes.
The Bible points to God, and teaches us what is God like and where to find Him. It is not God.

So does God just impart doctrine into our lives through the Holy Spirit?

 

[Truth7t7]

I find it really amusing that one person criticized me for not being humble about my qualifications, which is why I bring them up. Not to brag! Not to be arrogant, but to show I have really studied the Bible, not just listened to cult followers of Ruckman and others.

Then you tell me I am expressing opinions, meaning I don't know what I am talking about. So, am I arrogant or uneducated? Am I not humble, or just mouthing off about an opinion formed without any research or consideration of the facts. You can't have it both ways.

I am very well read where the Bible is concerned and very educated on Biblical issues, languages and hermeneutics. Throw in history, and some practical skills, and maybe understand I don't comment on things I am not sure about (there are Bible topics which I am not well versed in). When I comment, it is because I have read it and studied. Also I read real scholars, not the useless people who support KJVOism, and literally tell lies. No, the KJV is not the complete Bible text. There are just too many added verses. Verses which have been tracked back in history to the 2nd or 3rd century, and manuscript scholars know where these extra verses were added. Both in time, and within the actual ancient manuscript. Try studying about manuscript history, instead of blindly following this fruitless cult of KJVOism. Read the KJV if you like it and understand its limitations.

I do not understand KJV English. I would rather read it in English, French, German or Koine Greek and Hebrew. Why? Because I have studied those languages and I understand them. And I guarantee you, that no matter how much you love the KJV, it simply is not the best translation. Why? Because 7 very late Greek NT manuscripts were used, that were very corrupted. I think Erasmus, a Catholic priest, and the KJV Committee probably did a fair job considering how poor the manuscripts were. But today, with 6000 manuscripts, every word in every one of them tracked, followed and analyzed, we simply have so much more information today on Koine Greek, that those gentlemen in the 17th century. We also have more contemporaneous manuscripts of secular origin, which help us explain all the hapax legomena, or words that are found only once in the Bible. Bibles today leave out all those spurious verses the KJV people love to say are deleted words. Nope, the KJV has all those extra verses, which were added. Study the manuscript evidence, if your can pull yourself out of this stupid cult. I dare you!

I dont believe in or support KJVOnlism

I believe the Lord has preserved his truth through the (Byzantine) Textual family, that the KJV finds its foundation in

I read and speak Spanish, I use the (Reina Valera Antigua 1569/1602) supported by the Byzantine Textual Family

All new bible versions NIV, NASB, ESV, NRSV, follow the Novum Testamentum Graece, that is the (Alexandrian Text Type)

Its Byzantine v Alexandrian it's that simple

The church didnt use or receive the corruptions from Egypt, the philosophical schools of Clement, Origen, Arius

Westcott & Hort in Englands 1881 revived this Alexandrian Text never used or received by the Church, Nestle-Aland Followed In The Footsteps Of Westco tt& Hort

 

[KJV1611]

I have always used the KJV and still do so don't see this as an attack but if I ask you what does "forborne" mean,,, what would you think it that it means?

I don't know what it means, I would have to look it up in a dictionary.

 

[SoulWeaver]

So does God just impart doctrine into our lives through the Holy Spirit?

He very well may, if the book isn't available. And if it is available, it's the Holy Spirit that makes your heart understand what you read.
I had dreams with details from the Bible before reading the Bible.
God will use whatever is available and teach the person whose heart has been opened to listen to Him.
A lot of people have experienced conviction for sin and other things before ever reading the Bible. This is the work of Holy Spirit.

 

[KJV1611]

He very well may, if the book isn't available. And if it is available, it's the Holy Spirit that makes your heart understand what you read.
I had dreams with details from the Bible before reading the Bible.
God will use whatever is available and teach the person whose heart has been opened to listen to Him.
A lot of people have experienced conviction for sin and other things before ever reading the Bible. This is the work of Holy Spirit.

Obviously that imparted wisdom from God has to be verified against the word of God. I mean every cult and false doctrine out there comes from "the Holy Spirit" according to most false doctrine purveyors.