Favourite Bible Translations
- Thread starter true_believer
- Start date
-
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.
well, i have read other translations, and, having compared them to the KJV, plus my own research, i have concluded that the kjv is indeed more accurate. when someone asks what translation to read, i recommend to them, not "force" them, to read the kjv. i want to save them the hassle of reading a translation that isn't accurate. of course, its the choice of the person to read which translation they choose.
No problem.
I've been happy with my NIV for many years. Though I use a few other Bibles as well.
I personally enjoy the wealth of available translations & study aids we now have.
As for accuracy if we begin with the KJV as the standard of accuracy & measure all others against it, it would be more accurate.
But it would be a heavily biased comparison.
Primarily, you should have need to listen to His words, before anyone else.
Because my proposition is correct that they can be used interchangeably using the Bible.
Now you are seeing nothing wrong when phileo is used as the love of God, hence. your “two COMPLETELY different thing” have left you by many modern Scholars and agreeing rather to my proposition
So actually, you are the one saying “you can’t” meaning “I can’t” that certainly proves your prejudices against me. Perhaps that too is personal, off the topic. John 21 rather proves my assertion than yours simply looking at the context. Verse 17 does all the commentary. From the gospel writer John says “ he said to him THE THIRD TIME”. What? The Greek mentioned 2 Greek verb for agapao and 1 phileo, yet the gospel writer is saying Jesus said to Peter the third time.
And yet this kind of post is another of saying the KJV is incorrect while you haven't disprove it wrong. Seems to me your opinion is going higher without taking the English word "another" and since your proposal needs to be check in many lexicon as you like, then can you cite to me the link or sources of your Greek definition and why the KJV translators were wrong? You have done nothing of justifying yours.
interesting; how did Paul manage to preach in Athens to the Gentiles he found there? what was he thinking writing the epistle to the Romans ((in Greek)) and quoting the law & prophets?
know that i love you, brother. we're just having discussions
Yeah I got that from Bible Gateway. Seems like they changed their mind on what should and shouldn’t be in the Bible.
Shouldn’t we sound the alarm when people cast doubt on the inerrancy of scripture. I would think you would be doing the same.
If you could focus on the inerrancy of Scripture and get away from the (alleged) inerrancy of the KJV translation of Scripture, it would really help.
Regardless of what you and other KJV-only folks believe, the KJV is NOT exclusively synonymous with "Scripture".
i can see, that it could be read as though the subject that 'testified' is what the Spirit in the prophets 'signified' -- so that 'it' would fit.
i could also see, that it could be read as though the subject testifying is the Spirit that was also signifying -- so 'He' would fit.
so overall my comment on that subject is just that i think it's not a big doctrinal difference; it's equivalent in both KJV and NASB. i tried to say that earlier but maybe i could phrase it better now: it's like this, if i quote some passage of scripture i could say,
the Bible says " . . . . "
or i could say
God says " . . . . " and there is no material difference between those two ways of saying it. the Bible would take the English pronoun 'it' and God in English would take the pronoun 'He' -- i could say it says; i could say He says. whichever way doesn't change the meaning of what i do by quoting the Bible.
overall, my view of the broad subject, is that language is a medium for communicating ideas & concepts. those concepts/ideas are the thing that is written or spoken; that is what God has preserved on earth. when a person reads or hears the Bible, no matter who they are and what language they speak and what time period they are living in, concepts & ideas are being communicated to them by the Spirit who breathed them. someone in China isn't hearing the same 'words' made up of sounds or reading the same 'words' signified by marks on a paper when they read John 1, but they are reading the same thing being communicated to them by the same Spirit. so 'the Word' of God, the scripture, isn't 'text' at all -- it's more than that. it's something transcendent, that we as humans use oral & written language to describe; language in and of itself is only a tangible representation of a metaphysical thing that is communicated.
example: blue.
note that the text is colored black, but the idea isn't
I've got your MO figured out. You have a ideas in your head and when a version matches your idea, you keep those words exactly as written. But if a version doesn't match your idea you say all versions say the same thing or as with our previous example you drop words or phrases out of the verse and then you say all versions say the same thing.