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.
I just spend time researching the version until I can determine if it is good or not. I also frequently use a kjv concordance to see how verses are interpreted. In language translation it sometimes is not clear how a message should be interpreted because of nuances. What do you do?
-
1
- Show all
Being a KJV only believer, I read the text and believe every word. That takes "me" out of the equation. I do not want to be the final authority of what God has said. I'll give you a for instance:
In Luke 10:1, there is truth to learn for the bible student.
KJV - After these things the Lord appointed other seventy also, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself would come.
NASB - Now after this the Lord appointed seventy-two others, and sent them in pairs ahead of Him to every city and place where He Himself was going to come.
How do I determine the truth this passage has to teach? I go with the truth as given in the KJV. Jesus sent out seventy not seventy two. One is true and one is false. A true witness cannot lie. One can be trusted and the other cannot be trusted. I trust the truth of the KJV.
In Luke 10:1, there is truth to learn for the bible student.
KJV - After these things the Lord appointed other seventy also, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself would come.
NASB - Now after this the Lord appointed seventy-two others, and sent them in pairs ahead of Him to every city and place where He Himself was going to come.
How do I determine the truth this passage has to teach? I go with the truth as given in the KJV. Jesus sent out seventy not seventy two. One is true and one is false. A true witness cannot lie. One can be trusted and the other cannot be trusted. I trust the truth of the KJV.
Yes, that's a good example of how there is a difference in the way a manuscript is translated. There are different texts that the English translations of the Bible come from. KJV was translated from Masoretic Text (OT) & Textus Receptus (NT) and most other versions were translated from Biblia Hebraica (OT) & Westcott-Hort (NT).
There are pretty detailed studies on Luke 10:1 you should investigate.
There are other manuscripts, too. LXX (OT), Byzantine/Majority text (NT), AB Polyglot (OT/NT), and Latin Vulgate (OT/NT). I don't know if there are any others.
There are pretty detailed studies on Luke 10:1 you should investigate.
There are other manuscripts, too. LXX (OT), Byzantine/Majority text (NT), AB Polyglot (OT/NT), and Latin Vulgate (OT/NT). I don't know if there are any others.
eek didnt know there were so many, I sometimes wonder if its like in George Orwells 1984 that people have to keep rewriting history.
Regarding westcott and Hort, I cant tell their motives but it just seems they found some greek manuscripts that were incomplete and tried to make a translation from them while disregarding other sources that were fuller.
Who can say they were deliberately corrupted, I think a more likely scenario is they were just doing the best with what they had. And since their version turned out different, then . made the spurious claim that theirs was 'better' and 'more accurate' when most people who had read the majority version can tell straight away that stuff is missing.
Regarding westcott and Hort, I cant tell their motives but it just seems they found some greek manuscripts that were incomplete and tried to make a translation from them while disregarding other sources that were fuller.
Who can say they were deliberately corrupted, I think a more likely scenario is they were just doing the best with what they had. And since their version turned out different, then . made the spurious claim that theirs was 'better' and 'more accurate' when most people who had read the majority version can tell straight away that stuff is missing.
Pilgrim, you do not go to a site that is considered by some to be a bias, you can go directly to the JW site. Here's the link
https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/appendix-a/how-the-bible-came-to-us/
https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/appendix-a/how-the-bible-came-to-us/
S
I found this when googling the question:
Answer: Luke 10 is the only place where we find the account of Jesus sending a specific 70 (or 72) disciples to prepare the way before Him. The discrepancies in the number (70 or 72) come from differences found in approximately half of the ancient scrolls used in translation. The texts are nearly evenly divided between the numbers, and scholars do not agree on whether the number should be 70 or 72, although such a minor issue is no cause for debate. Since the number 70 is repeated other places in Scripture (Exodus 24:1; Numbers 11:16; Jeremiah 29:10), it may be more likely that the actual number of disciples was 70, with the 2 being a copyist’s error. Whether there were 70 or 72 disciples sent out by Jesus is irrelevant. What is important are the instructions Jesus gave them and the power that came upon them to perform miracles and cast out demons (Luke 10:17).
If the KJV scholars determined that 70 was more likely then go with that if you like. It is not a big deal to me. Just like when the KJV scholars determined that candlestick would be a good word for lampstand in Rev 1 even though candlesticks were not used in the first century. In that case the NASB is better. Lampstand (oil fed lamps) was what John saw not wax candlesticks. Do I not read the KJV because of this? I understand that lampstand is a better word but I don't reject the KJV over this. You have to take each issue on a case by case basis. In this case maybe 70 is a better choice.
It is not necessary to reason that you cannot know what the Bible really says if you have to compare English translations. That is a leap of logic that is based on some kind of immature emotional reaction.
Don't be scared. God has preserved His Word. You will not backslide if you become open to careful analysis of Greek manuscripts.
Translating from the original languages in the manuscripts to English will occasionally require textual criticism based on analysis of all the manuscripts. The KJV scholars did this often. Having older manuscripts discovered after 1600s would require a fresh approach bringing those manuscripts into the analysis. Why reject that? Why be stubborn in a view that the older manuscripts discovered after 1600 are not to be considered? Don't be scared. God has preserved His Word. You will not backslide if you become open to careful analysis of Greek manuscripts.
Answer: Luke 10 is the only place where we find the account of Jesus sending a specific 70 (or 72) disciples to prepare the way before Him. The discrepancies in the number (70 or 72) come from differences found in approximately half of the ancient scrolls used in translation. The texts are nearly evenly divided between the numbers, and scholars do not agree on whether the number should be 70 or 72, although such a minor issue is no cause for debate. Since the number 70 is repeated other places in Scripture (Exodus 24:1; Numbers 11:16; Jeremiah 29:10), it may be more likely that the actual number of disciples was 70, with the 2 being a copyist’s error. Whether there were 70 or 72 disciples sent out by Jesus is irrelevant. What is important are the instructions Jesus gave them and the power that came upon them to perform miracles and cast out demons (Luke 10:17).
If the KJV scholars determined that 70 was more likely then go with that if you like. It is not a big deal to me. Just like when the KJV scholars determined that candlestick would be a good word for lampstand in Rev 1 even though candlesticks were not used in the first century. In that case the NASB is better. Lampstand (oil fed lamps) was what John saw not wax candlesticks. Do I not read the KJV because of this? I understand that lampstand is a better word but I don't reject the KJV over this. You have to take each issue on a case by case basis. In this case maybe 70 is a better choice.
It is not necessary to reason that you cannot know what the Bible really says if you have to compare English translations. That is a leap of logic that is based on some kind of immature emotional reaction.
Don't be scared. God has preserved His Word. You will not backslide if you become open to careful analysis of Greek manuscripts.
Translating from the original languages in the manuscripts to English will occasionally require textual criticism based on analysis of all the manuscripts. The KJV scholars did this often. Having older manuscripts discovered after 1600s would require a fresh approach bringing those manuscripts into the analysis. Why reject that? Why be stubborn in a view that the older manuscripts discovered after 1600 are not to be considered? Don't be scared. God has preserved His Word. You will not backslide if you become open to careful analysis of Greek manuscripts.
-
1
- Show all
