Favourite Bible Translations

[Dino246]

No Jew in his right mind would translate the Hebrew text into Greek.

Again, a truth claim with no evidence.

 

[Dino246]

Furthermore, if a person knows anything about the so called Greek LXX, then they know it is a horrible translation, almost a total paraphrase and it differs by literally hundreds of whole verses either added to or omitted from what we have in the Hebrew Scriptures and it differs A LOT in many places from what the Hebrew O.T. says.

No, it differs from what the Massoretic text says. BIG difference.

 

[UCA4J]

It’s not, unless yur like one of the cult members who are trying to push that it is Gods perfect word with no flaws.

then we have issues,

why on earth, would i be a cult member?

 

[Dino246]

Actually, Satan loves the new versions that corrupt Gods word. Satan loves the Vatican and Egyptian texts.

And you know this because of

...

familiarity with him?

 

[UCA4J]

It isn't. It never has been. Preference for the KJV is no problem for anyone here.

Those of us who prefer other versions have our Bibles constantly harassed by a core group of extremist KJV ONLY proponents. They begin hostilities every time there is a thread like this & we are forced to defend the other English versions from slander. They won't stop calling all other English translations corrupt. We are forced to defend the bibles we love and have been reading for years.

They believe the KJV is frozen in time and is God's pure word. God's only word. Word for word, exactly as the KJV puts it. Even purer & more accurate than the Hebrew & Greek. THAT is where the problem lies. We disagree on that.

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.

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

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.

 

[fredoheaven]

1. So I should listen to you not people,who have studied Greek for years?

Primarily, you should have need to listen to His words, before anyone else.

 

[fredoheaven]

2. you failed to use the right passages, actually they go to prove my point, that the same English word is used, how can we tell the difference?

Because my proposition is correct that they can be used interchangeably using the Bible.

 

[John146]

Again, a truth claim with no evidence.

ok, thanks

 

[John146]

why on earth, would i be a cult member?

Shame on you for believing that God would preserve his words for us today.🤓

 

[fredoheaven]

3. phileo fits all of those passages, I see nothing wrong with them (I had to cut them out because they made the post to long, and did not do anything to disprove what I said) all you did here was show you assume you know what my argument, is, you failed

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

 

[fredoheaven]

4. I mentioned peters and Jesus discussion. how about that one?

John 21: 15 Now when they had finished breakfast, Jesus *said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love (agape] Me more than these?” He *said to Him, “Yes, Lord; You know that I love (Phileo) You.” He *said to him, “Tend My lambs.” 16 He *said to him again, a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love (agape) Me?” He *said to Him, “Yes, Lord; You know that I love (Phileo) You.” He *said to him, “Shepherd My sheep.” 17 He *said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love Me?” Peter was hurt because He said to him the third time, “Do you love Me?” And he said to Him, “Lord, You know all things; You know that I love (phileo) )You.” Jesus *said to him, “Tend My sheep.

can you explain how I can get the true meaning of what happened here by reading any English text? Since one word (love) is used in-spite of the fact that two different Greek words were used? You can’t!

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.

 

[fredoheaven]

this is not the only example, in Gal 1. Paul speaks of those who teach another gospel, which is not another

From the KJV (authorized)
Galatians 1:6–7 (AV): I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: 7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

why is the same word used?

the first another is the Greek word heteros.. which means different in kind, a more accurate translation would be different, (funny how in the NKJV is is corrected to fit what the actual Greek word is)

the second another is the Greek word Allos which literally means another, (ie another one which is different than the one, but also works.)

Paul literally says he is astounded that the people of Galatia would believe a different Gospel (grace pulse works) which is not another gospel (you Can be saved by that gospel also)

again, the KJV fails in this area just like in John, however, this one the new version corrected the issue.

so yeah, once again who is biased here

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.

 

[posthuman]

No Jew in his right mind would translate the Hebrew text into Greek.

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

 

[Dino246]

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.

What you have described here is the essence of circular reasoning.

 

[KJV1611]

Wow
Where in the word do you get off being so judgmental against others?
The way you post can be judged also against the words of God.
While I appreciate your stance in what you believe, I am soooo disappointed in the way you class yourself from others as believers!

Im sorry but I looked this verse up in a 1995 NASB and it doesnt have " continually " in it.
Maybe youre reading from an older translation.
1John 3: No one who is born of God practices sin,because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

Yeah I got that from Bible Gateway. Seems like they changed their mind on what should and shouldn’t be in the Bible.

 

[KJV1611]

Oh I see. You are trying to twist the scripture to support your idolatry.

I missed the twist could you point out.

 

[KJV1611]

Wow
Where in the word do you get off being so judgmental against others?
The way you post can be judged also against the words of God.
While I appreciate your stance in what you believe, I am soooo disappointed in the way you class yourself from others as believers!

Shouldn’t we sound the alarm when people cast doubt on the inerrancy of scripture. I would think you would be doing the same.

 

[Dino246]

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".

 

[KJV1611]

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

Yes, I can, and I did, because the KJV rendering is unclear and theologically unsound. Your explanation is woefully weak. As I already stated, there is nothing in the passage hinting that "it" refers to "Scripture". You can pretend there is, but you aren't convincing anyone.


No, it doesn't. You lose this round on grammar alone.

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.