Bible "versions"?

  • 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.

oyster67

Senior Member
May 24, 2014
11,887
8,705
113
#61
Could you please link or post a definition for "theosis" as you are using the term.
References in periodicals archive


While Newman was very much formed by the Eastern Fathers, my colleague Mark McInroy showed that in discussing theosis, or deification, the process by which we become not just good but gods--a doctrine many attribute solely to the East--Newman's single most quoted Father was St.
St. Augustine, Dad, and Me
 

JaumeJ

Senior Member
Jul 2, 2011
21,412
6,698
113
#62
References in periodicals archive


"While Newman was very much formed by the Eastern Fathers, my colleague Mark McInroy showed that in discussing theosis, or deification, the process by which we become not just good but gods--a doctrine many attribute solely to the East--Newman's single most quoted Father was St."
St. Augustine, Dad, and Me

Our friend believes He is becoming deity, i.e., a god.
Thank you, and now I understand. God bless you for your works...
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
25,369
13,730
113
#63
Believe it or not, the "archaic" language of the KJV makes it perfect.
Your understanding of "perfect" is rather strange. ;)

For example, using thee, thou, you, and ye makes the meaning more precise.
I will grant you that. However, the language is confusing for people who don't know the precise meaning of second-person pronouns... which is most modern English speakers.
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
17,097
3,683
113
#64
I will grant you that. However, the language is confusing for people who don't know the precise meaning of second-person pronouns... which is most modern English speakers.
That’s on them not God. If they truly have a desire to know, then they will study.
 

oyster67

Senior Member
May 24, 2014
11,887
8,705
113
#65
That’s on them not God. If they truly have a desire to know, then
...the truth will be revealed unto them by the Holy Spirit. We must not take credit for knowledge granted to us by our Maker. We receive from God. We must not/ can not boast at any level.
 

Blik

Senior Member
Dec 6, 2016
7,312
2,428
113
#66
Grace And Peace, Precious friend(s). I believe it is a very serious matter
to determine Which version of “the Bible” Is “The Correct Word Of God!”

I am sure we All agree, do we not, that we are All going to each give an
"account To HIM,"
(2 Corinthians 5:10), According to His Gospel of Grace,
To
Paul (Romans 2:16), correct?

Thus, in Light of Paul's "...knowing therefore The Terror Of The LORD..." {v. 11}, to me,
I humbly present why I personally believe KJV Is “The Best Bible” to read/study:

(1) Q: Is IT not God’s Pure And PRESERVED WORD!?:

The WORDS Of The LORD Are Pure WORDS: as silver tried
in a furnace of earth, Purified Seven Times. Thou Shalt Keep THEM,
O LORD, Thou Shalt PRESERVE THEM from this generation for ever.”

(Psalms 12:6-7 KJB!)

Now, Comparing This, with a couple of newer versions, what do we find?

NASB: “The words of the Lord are pure words…You, Lord, will keep them;
You will protect him from this generation forever.

NIV: “The words of the Lord are flawless…You, Lord, will keep the needy
safe and will protect us forever from the wicked,...

Do these Also claim God’s “Purity And Preservation for ALL generations”?

They both claim “pure/flawless” words, but, then they both
Omit Some Of: “Preserve THEM from this generation for ever” and
Change words TO the noted “Different” words above. How is that Purity ?

Q: Will The Holy Spirit, our Blessed Teacher, Help us understand
The Purity of These Words,” considering these newer versions
have Changed Them? How, then, do we “study AND agree”?

{Diligent/Noble Berean students can find MANY of These Changes
{And, Also “omissions”}, and Prayerfully/Carefully decide for themselves
about the “Purity of God’s Words,” and which version is best, for them,
correct?}

(2) I personally have decided on Both “The Purity And The
Preservation Of The Authorized Version/underlying manuscripts,”

for the following reasons:

Q2: Is The Following the “Reason” why the newer versions Cannot claim:

God’s Promise To “Preserve HIS Pure Word for ALL generations”?

Since the newer versions did not appear until about 1880,
would not that be a “Lack Of Preservation,” due to the fact
that the underlying {older/better?} manuscripts had to be
“Re-discovered/translated,” Skipping the generations since 1611?

Can that be God’s Purpose For HIS Pure/Preserved Word?
+
(3) God's Pure/Preserved Word Is ABOVE All Else! Is IT not?:

"I will worship toward Thy holy temple, and praise Thy HOLY
Name for Thy LovingKindness and for Thy TRUTH: for Thou
Hast MAGNIFIED Thy WORD Above All Thy Name!
"
( Psalms 138:2 KJB! )

imho, unless I am mistaken, on Judgment Day, I would Not want
one of the "good deeds done in my body," to be “Bad, by my claiming”
that corrupt/Changed/Missing words {translated from older/hidden
{UNpreserved} manuscripts into “newer easier-to-read/understand
versions,” are to be:

God's Pure Word, Which Is Magnified Above All Of God’s Pure/Holy Name,”

would you, Precious friend(s)?
Finally:

IF it is true that “Many {~~ 2,800?} Of “God’s PURE Words”
are missing {ie: Acts 8:37 NASB et al?} from newer versions, then,
IF the “version user” Cannot read Them {because They are missing},
how is it possible then, for that one to obey God’s Exhortation:

“man Shall Not live by bread alone, But By EVERY Word
That Proceedeth Out Of The Mouth Of God!

(Matthew 4:4 cp Luke 4:4; Deuteronomy 8:3 KJB!)?

Just wondering: How can God's "children of light" be in agreement
when each uses a Different Problematic version?: Are we not all,
By A Faithful God:

"...Called Into Fellowship With God's SON, The LORD JESUS CHRIST"
(
1 Corinthians 1:9 KJB!), And, should we not all be:

"Endeavouring to keep The Unity Of God's Spirit In The Bond Of
PEACE!..." (
Ephesians 4:3 KJB!), obeying God's Exhortations!:

...speak...the things which become Sound Doctrine!”
(
Titus 2:1 cp "SAME mind And judgment!" 1 Corinthians 1:10 KJB!)?

Being faithful And Pleasing to our LORD and Saviour, JESUS CHRIST, Correct?

--------------------------------------------

Addendum:

Some do Not like archaic words in God’s Preserved Word, but isn’t
that Why God Commands us to “study” (2 Timothy 2:15 KJB!)? I.e.:

“...we which are alive and remain unto the coming of The LORD shall not
prevent [precede] them which are asleep…” (1 Thessalonians 4:15 KJB!)

Once I “studied & found the meaning,” have never had any problem since. Amen?
+
I would also, when Prayerfully/Carefully “studying, like to know," When "God Is
Addressing"
one person {singular: thee, thine, & thou}, or More than one person
{plural: ye/you/your}. Could make a Huge Difference in His Pure Words, correct?

Since newer versions have Totally Lost these distinctions, considering
“you/your” Could be Either singular OR plural, causing Confusion, of
which
God Is Not the author of,” (1 Corinthians 14:33 KJB!), correct,
Precious friend(s)?

Conclusion: Besides changing God’s PURE Words, is there not Also
HIS “Command NOT to Add, Nor To Take Away From HIS Word!”?
(
Deuteronomy 4:2, 12:32; Revelation 22:18-19 KJB!)
+
"found a liar" (Proverbs 30:5-6) cp "every liar" (Rev 21 : 8, 22 : 15, 19 KJB!)

So, yes, I sincerely believe This Is “A Very Serious And Important”
decision Of faith to be made! After all, "a corrupt {#} version Will
Cause a corrupt faith,” correct? Since God’s PURE Word Teaches:

...faith cometh by hearing, and hearing By The WORD Of God!”
(
Romans 10:17 KJB!)

Be Blessed!

{#} Corruption had Already Begun in "Paul's day," thus it should not
surprise us, that it very well Could be in our midst, today, correct?:

"For we are not as many, which corrupt The Word Of God: but as
of sincerity, but as of God, in The Sight Of God speak we in CHRIST."
(2 Corinthians 2:17 KJB!)

Precious friend(s), instead of All of the Mass Confusion, is not
God's Simple Will Much Better? to be continued in (2a) below...
There is absolutely no translation of scripture that is the true word of God, for it is impossible for one language to completely and accurately translate into another language.

Actually the Greek that much of scripture was written in is a sort of translation of the original Hebrew because that is the original language of all the men God gave his breath to, it is the basic was they thought. Also, most were scholars who went to their college that taught from the old testament, most of it in Hebrew. They had to know Hebrew to study scripture.

Unless you could know the ancient Hebrew, you must struggle to know scripture. The Hebrew language has changed, just as all languages change with time. Have you ever struggled with 15th century language of Shakespeare?
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
25,369
13,730
113
#67
There is absolutely no translation of scripture that is the true word of God, for it is impossible for one language to completely and accurately translate into another language.
I think it's quite legitimate to say that it is impossible to translate perfectly, because languages differ in structure. However, I also think that because God's desire is for His word to be available to all people, that He superintends efforts to translate it (except where done by cultists and others with malicious intent), such that the translations can rightly be called "the true word of God".

Actually the Greek that much of scripture was written in is a sort of translation of the original Hebrew because that is the original language of all the men God gave his breath to, it is the basic was they thought. Also, most were scholars who went to their college that taught from the old testament, most of it in Hebrew. They had to know Hebrew to study scripture.
Paul was a scholar. Luke was probably trained in the first-century equivalent of a university, but was a doctor, not a scholar. Peter, James, Jude, and John were unlearned fishermen and tradesmen.
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
17,097
3,683
113
#68
...the truth will be revealed unto them by the Holy Spirit. We must not take credit for knowledge granted to us by our Maker. We receive from God. We must not/ can not boast at any level.
True, but it does take effort on our part. His word commands us to study to shew ourselves approved unto God. If we don't take the time out to read and study, then we quench the Holy Spirit in our lives to reveal truth to us.
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
17,097
3,683
113
#69
There is absolutely no translation of scripture that is the true word of God, for it is impossible for one language to completely and accurately translate into another language.
This does not matter. Cannot God give His words in English, and that translation be the exact English words of His word? There are numerous examples throughout scripture.
 
Apr 17, 2019
71
47
18
#70
There is nothing special about the KJV. When I got saved, it was the main version in use. Most preachers had to spend part of their message explaining what the KJV actually meant.
I totally concur with the comment above as well as an earlier comment: "A good Bible version is one that you will actually read!"

But as a life-long Bible student and one with a degree in Spanish linguistics and a current teacher of languages at the community college level, I can provide the following background that might be helpful:

Bible translations cover a broad spectrum of styles, but they fall into three basic categories.
1) Interlinear translations are at one end of the spectrum. These translations contain the original-language text along with a word-for-word rendering into the target language.
2) Paraphrase translations fall at the other end of the spectrum. Translators of these versions freely restate the message of the Bible as they understand it in a way that they feel will appeal to their audience.
3) A third category embraces translations that endeavor to strike a balance between these two extremes. These versions of the Bible strive to convey the meaning and flavor of the original-language expressions while also making the text easy to read.

The NT has about 5,500 unique words while the OT has about 8,500 unique words (many of these are geographical locations and infrequently used names of humans). As a result, Bible translators have the heavy responsibility to do more than simply render an original-language idea into a modern language; they have to assemble the words and sentences in their translation in a way that conforms to the rules of grammar of the target language while factoring in the linguistic AND cultural context (this is especially important with ancient idioms that would not make sense to us).

While we all could go on and on about what Bible translation to use, please remember that the Bible was written using the common, everyday languages of average people, such as farmers, shepherds, and fishermen. (Nehemiah 8:8, 12; Acts 4:13) Therefore, a good translation of the Bible makes the message it contains accessible to sincere people, regardless of their background. A desirable translation will also do the following:
▪ Accurately convey the original message that was inspired by God.—2 Timothy 3:16.
▪ Translate the meaning of words literally when the wording and structure of the original text allows for such a rendering in the target language.
▪ Communicate the correct sense of a word or a phrase when a literal rendering of the original-language expression would distort or obscure the meaning.
▪ Use natural, easy-to-understand language that encourages reading.

As mentioned earlier as well, I frequent Bible Hub a lot and use translations in another language that I know quite well too.

Thanks for reading.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
25,369
13,730
113
#71
I totally concur with the comment above as well as an earlier comment: "A good Bible version is one that you will actually read!"

But as a life-long Bible student and one with a degree in Spanish linguistics and a current teacher of languages at the community college level, I can provide the following background that might be helpful:

Bible translations cover a broad spectrum of styles, but they fall into three basic categories.
1) Interlinear translations are at one end of the spectrum. These translations contain the original-language text along with a word-for-word rendering into the target language.
2) Paraphrase translations fall at the other end of the spectrum. Translators of these versions freely restate the message of the Bible as they understand it in a way that they feel will appeal to their audience.
3) A third category embraces translations that endeavor to strike a balance between these two extremes. These versions of the Bible strive to convey the meaning and flavor of the original-language expressions while also making the text easy to read.

The NT has about 5,500 unique words while the OT has about 8,500 unique words (many of these are geographical locations and infrequently used names of humans). As a result, Bible translators have the heavy responsibility to do more than simply render an original-language idea into a modern language; they have to assemble the words and sentences in their translation in a way that conforms to the rules of grammar of the target language while factoring in the linguistic AND cultural context (this is especially important with ancient idioms that would not make sense to us).

While we all could go on and on about what Bible translation to use, please remember that the Bible was written using the common, everyday languages of average people, such as farmers, shepherds, and fishermen. (Nehemiah 8:8, 12; Acts 4:13) Therefore, a good translation of the Bible makes the message it contains accessible to sincere people, regardless of their background. A desirable translation will also do the following:
▪ Accurately convey the original message that was inspired by God.—2 Timothy 3:16.
▪ Translate the meaning of words literally when the wording and structure of the original text allows for such a rendering in the target language.
▪ Communicate the correct sense of a word or a phrase when a literal rendering of the original-language expression would distort or obscure the meaning.
▪ Use natural, easy-to-understand language that encourages reading.

As mentioned earlier as well, I frequent Bible Hub a lot and use translations in another language that I know quite well too.

Thanks for reading.
Excellent summary. Thanks for contributing! :)
 

Blik

Senior Member
Dec 6, 2016
7,312
2,428
113
#72
This does not matter. Cannot God give His words in English, and that translation be the exact English words of His word? There are numerous examples throughout scripture.
If the Lord gave us words that tell of the spiritual world in one language, and if that language is impossible to accurately translate into another language, then we have to work hard as we can with that English translation. The Hebrew word shalom for example. How would you translate that word accurately into any other language?
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
17,097
3,683
113
#73
If the Lord gave us words that tell of the spiritual world in one language, and if that language is impossible to accurately translate into another language, then we have to work hard as we can with that English translation. The Hebrew word shalom for example. How would you translate that word accurately into any other language?
A word for word translation is not necessarily as long as we have the exact English words that God wants us to have. Again, there are numerous examples in scripture of translations and the translation ended up being the “original.” Joseph spoke Egyptian yet in the originals it was in Hebrew. Was it a word for word translation? Or was it the exact Hebrew words needed?
 
Jun 9, 2021
1,871
425
83
#74
Personally, I don't think anyone can go wrong with what God Himself gave to Moses by way of the Hebrew Torah and Hebrew Tanakh for the Old Testament. And as far as the New Testament goes, the very oldest Greek Bible the Codex Vaticanus, and the Codex Sinaiticus are as legit as it gets.
 

Nehemiah6

Senior Member
Jul 18, 2017
26,074
13,771
113
#75
And as far as the New Testament goes, the very oldest Greek Bible the Codex Vaticanus, and the Codex Sinaiticus are as legit as it gets.
In this case oldest means MOST CORRUPT! Did you know that those two manuscripts are the most corrupt? You need to study Burgon and Scrivener.

And since not even 0.01% of Christians know Hebrew, they must stick to reliable and faithful English translations. Of which the KJB is the leading translation.
 

Blik

Senior Member
Dec 6, 2016
7,312
2,428
113
#76
A word for word translation is not necessarily as long as we have the exact English words that God wants us to have. Again, there are numerous examples in scripture of translations and the translation ended up being the “original.” Joseph spoke Egyptian yet in the originals it was in Hebrew. Was it a word for word translation? Or was it the exact Hebrew words needed?
There are also times that no English translation reflects the original.

Think of light as God created it. In Genesis 1:3-5 It tells us God created light. Then in Genesis 1:16, days later, God created light. It takes going to the original Hebrew to find the difference.
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
17,097
3,683
113
#77
There are also times that no English translation reflects the original.
I‘m ok with that, but the English words we have within the KJV are the preserved words of God in English.
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
17,097
3,683
113
#78
There are also times that no English translation reflects the original.

Think of light as God created it. In Genesis 1:3-5 It tells us God created light. Then in Genesis 1:16, days later, God created light. It takes going to the original Hebrew to find the difference.
It is easy to see that the light in verse 3 is different than the two great lights of verse 16.
 

throughfaith

Well-known member
Aug 4, 2020
10,467
1,593
113
#79
Grace And Peace, Precious friend(s). I believe it is a very serious matter
to determine Which version of “the Bible” Is “The Correct Word Of God!”

I am sure we All agree, do we not, that we are All going to each give an
"account To HIM,"
(2 Corinthians 5:10), According to His Gospel of Grace,
To
Paul (Romans 2:16), correct?

Thus, in Light of Paul's "...knowing therefore The Terror Of The LORD..." {v. 11}, to me,
I humbly present why I personally believe KJV Is “The Best Bible” to read/study:

(1) Q: Is IT not God’s Pure And PRESERVED WORD!?:

The WORDS Of The LORD Are Pure WORDS: as silver tried
in a furnace of earth, Purified Seven Times. Thou Shalt Keep THEM,
O LORD, Thou Shalt PRESERVE THEM from this generation for ever.”

(Psalms 12:6-7 KJB!)

Now, Comparing This, with a couple of newer versions, what do we find?

NASB: “The words of the Lord are pure words…You, Lord, will keep them;
You will protect him from this generation forever.

NIV: “The words of the Lord are flawless…You, Lord, will keep the needy
safe and will protect us forever from the wicked,...

Do these Also claim God’s “Purity And Preservation for ALL generations”?

They both claim “pure/flawless” words, but, then they both
Omit Some Of: “Preserve THEM from this generation for ever” and
Change words TO the noted “Different” words above. How is that Purity ?

Q: Will The Holy Spirit, our Blessed Teacher, Help us understand
The Purity of These Words,” considering these newer versions
have Changed Them? How, then, do we “study AND agree”?

{Diligent/Noble Berean students can find MANY of These Changes
{And, Also “omissions”}, and Prayerfully/Carefully decide for themselves
about the “Purity of God’s Words,” and which version is best, for them,
correct?}

(2) I personally have decided on Both “The Purity And The
Preservation Of The Authorized Version/underlying manuscripts,”

for the following reasons:

Q2: Is The Following the “Reason” why the newer versions Cannot claim:

God’s Promise To “Preserve HIS Pure Word for ALL generations”?

Since the newer versions did not appear until about 1880,
would not that be a “Lack Of Preservation,” due to the fact
that the underlying {older/better?} manuscripts had to be
“Re-discovered/translated,” Skipping the generations since 1611?

Can that be God’s Purpose For HIS Pure/Preserved Word?
+
(3) God's Pure/Preserved Word Is ABOVE All Else! Is IT not?:

"I will worship toward Thy holy temple, and praise Thy HOLY
Name for Thy LovingKindness and for Thy TRUTH: for Thou
Hast MAGNIFIED Thy WORD Above All Thy Name!
"
( Psalms 138:2 KJB! )

imho, unless I am mistaken, on Judgment Day, I would Not want
one of the "good deeds done in my body," to be “Bad, by my claiming”
that corrupt/Changed/Missing words {translated from older/hidden
{UNpreserved} manuscripts into “newer easier-to-read/understand
versions,” are to be:

God's Pure Word, Which Is Magnified Above All Of God’s Pure/Holy Name,”

would you, Precious friend(s)?
Finally:

IF it is true that “Many {~~ 2,800?} Of “God’s PURE Words”
are missing {ie: Acts 8:37 NASB et al?} from newer versions, then,
IF the “version user” Cannot read Them {because They are missing},
how is it possible then, for that one to obey God’s Exhortation:

“man Shall Not live by bread alone, But By EVERY Word
That Proceedeth Out Of The Mouth Of God!

(Matthew 4:4 cp Luke 4:4; Deuteronomy 8:3 KJB!)?

Just wondering: How can God's "children of light" be in agreement
when each uses a Different Problematic version?: Are we not all,
By A Faithful God:

"...Called Into Fellowship With God's SON, The LORD JESUS CHRIST"
(
1 Corinthians 1:9 KJB!), And, should we not all be:

"Endeavouring to keep The Unity Of God's Spirit In The Bond Of
PEACE!..." (
Ephesians 4:3 KJB!), obeying God's Exhortations!:

...speak...the things which become Sound Doctrine!”
(
Titus 2:1 cp "SAME mind And judgment!" 1 Corinthians 1:10 KJB!)?

Being faithful And Pleasing to our LORD and Saviour, JESUS CHRIST, Correct?

--------------------------------------------

Addendum:

Some do Not like archaic words in God’s Preserved Word, but isn’t
that Why God Commands us to “study” (2 Timothy 2:15 KJB!)? I.e.:

“...we which are alive and remain unto the coming of The LORD shall not
prevent [precede] them which are asleep…” (1 Thessalonians 4:15 KJB!)

Once I “studied & found the meaning,” have never had any problem since. Amen?
+
I would also, when Prayerfully/Carefully “studying, like to know," When "God Is
Addressing"
one person {singular: thee, thine, & thou}, or More than one person
{plural: ye/you/your}. Could make a Huge Difference in His Pure Words, correct?

Since newer versions have Totally Lost these distinctions, considering
“you/your” Could be Either singular OR plural, causing Confusion, of
which
God Is Not the author of,” (1 Corinthians 14:33 KJB!), correct,
Precious friend(s)?

Conclusion: Besides changing God’s PURE Words, is there not Also
HIS “Command NOT to Add, Nor To Take Away From HIS Word!”?
(
Deuteronomy 4:2, 12:32; Revelation 22:18-19 KJB!)
+
"found a liar" (Proverbs 30:5-6) cp "every liar" (Rev 21 : 8, 22 : 15, 19 KJB!)

So, yes, I sincerely believe This Is “A Very Serious And Important”
decision Of faith to be made! After all, "a corrupt {#} version Will
Cause a corrupt faith,” correct? Since God’s PURE Word Teaches:

...faith cometh by hearing, and hearing By The WORD Of God!”
(
Romans 10:17 KJB!)

Be Blessed!

{#} Corruption had Already Begun in "Paul's day," thus it should not
surprise us, that it very well Could be in our midst, today, correct?:

"For we are not as many, which corrupt The Word Of God: but as
of sincerity, but as of God, in The Sight Of God speak we in CHRIST."
(2 Corinthians 2:17 KJB!)

Precious friend(s), instead of All of the Mass Confusion, is not
God's Simple Will Much Better? to be continued in (2a) below...
Agree .
 

throughfaith

Well-known member
Aug 4, 2020
10,467
1,593
113
#80
What about the millions of Christians for whom English is not their language? Have you considered that reality?



Thanks for your personal opinion. You do understand that personal opinions have no evidentiary value, right?



As usual with KJV-only advocates, you have completely overlooked the words, "from this generation" (as well as the context of these verses). As such, your argument is completely baseless. Also, it's rather ironic that you argue for a version that allegedly preserves God's words, while you ignore three of His words in one of your arguments!



God promises to preserve HIS PEOPLE. If you read the other translations with something other than suspicion, you might learn something. Your argument is based on your assumption that the wording of the KJV is correct. You cannot make a logically valid argument on that basis.



You don't know a second language, do you? If you did, you would understand that in most cases, there is not only one way to translate one passage appropriately into another language.



Or do the newer versions have it correct, where the KJV is wrong? Your argument is silly, because you are comparing one translation to another translation, instead of comparing both to the source materials. The KJV is not the standard against which other translations are to be judged!



Your rhetoric is laughable, and would only convince the utterly ignorant. Those who do their homework have no difficulty with these issues.



And the KJV appeared 1500+ years after the last of the original autographs. Perhaps you think that God did not preserve His words in that period. Or perhaps you believe that Jesus was carrying around a KJV tucked in his belt?


That's only one of the ways to translate that verse. See my notes on translating above.



God's pure words aren't "missing" from the newer versions. You're parroting old and oft-refuted blather.



Newer translations say the same thing.



You prefer an archaic problematic version instead? You would do well to think through your arguments before you post them.



Why hamstring yourself with archaic language when God's preserved word is available in modern English?



The newer translations have not "Totally Lost" anything. It seems that you haven't done your homework.



So you need to explain why there are thousands of words ADDED to the text of Scripture in the KJV. Just look for the ones in italics.



That's not an argument for the KJV; other versions say the same thing. The faith of the Christian is dependent on the Holy Spirit, not on the KJV.



That's not an argument for the KJV either. It's just fear-mongering.



So you should be reading Tyndale, not KJV. Better yet, the Septuagint and the NT in Greek.
I used to agree with most of what you said . Until i started a small bible study group . Its been on going now for over 2 years . We all have different translations . I never used to think the Kjv was the the best translation we have ,until this bible study ( half way through ) . I was shocked at the differences to begin with . The context is where the modern translations fall apart. We have a mixture of bibles still. I value the comparisons still . Its still educational. I just no longer trust the modern translations anymore. I.ll use others . But I rely on the kjv now above all .