Bible "versions"?

[JerryInBoston]

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...

I would prefer the original autographs, even though I neither read nor speak Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic. I'll have to settle for the KJV, NKJV, ESV, NASB, as they sell seem to be fairly literal according to scholars and theologians I've listened to on the subject of accuracy.

 

[John146]

I would prefer the original autographs, even though I neither read nor speak Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic. I'll have to settle for the KJV, NKJV, ESV, NASB, as they sell seem to be fairly literal according to scholars and theologians I've listened to on the subject of accuracy.

And these versions all contain different words and different truths. How do you know which one to go with? The theologians?

 

[JerryInBoston]

And these versions all contain different words and different truths. How do you know which one to go with? The theologians?

I understand why different translations exist: much of it has to do with later manuscripts, some of it has to do with creating an income flow. Either way, i prefer so-called "literalI" to paraphrased. I also enjoy going to the Greek and Hebrew lexicon to learn what certain words mean, and if that meaning has changed over the centuries or millennia.

 

[John146]

I understand why different translations exist: much of it has to do with later manuscripts, some of it has to do with creating an income flow. Either way, i prefer so-called "literalI" to paraphrased. I also enjoy going to the Greek and Hebrew lexicon to learn what certain words mean, and if that meaning has changed over the centuries or millennia.

If we do not have one standard to go by, then ultimately we become the final authority on what God has said. I'm not willing to do that.

 

[JerryInBoston]

If we do not have one standard to go by, then ultimately we become the final authority on what God has said. I'm not willing to do that.

What Bible version do you suggest be our "one standard"?

 

[John146]

What Bible version do you suggest be our "one standard"?

I believe the KJV is God's preserved words in English. It has never been proven to be in error.

 

[JerryInBoston]

I believe the KJV is God's preserved words in English. It has never been proven to be in error.

All of the Greek manuscripts use the word πάσχα (pascha) 29 times, which is translated 28 times in the KJV as Passover. The KJV mistranslated πάσχα (pascha) one time in Acts 12:4 as Easter, which is a word that was not in use until the 11th or 12th century.

Why do you think the KJV translators discarded God's word "pascha" for something else?

 

[John146]

All of the Greek manuscripts use the word πάσχα (pascha) 29 times, which is translated 28 times in the KJV as Passover. The KJV mistranslated πάσχα (pascha) one time in Acts 12:4 as Easter, which is a word that was not in use until the 11th or 12th century.

Why do you think the KJV translators discarded God's word "pascha" for something else?

I and many others have debunked this at length on these threads. You can do a search if you really want to find answers. Short answer, this is the first mention of the word after the resurrection. Christ is our Passover Lamb = Easter. Passover is no longer in effect after the resurrection rather Easter, Christ the Passover.

 

[Dino246]

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 .

I respect your choice, though your reasoning wouldn't convince me. As you have described it here, it seems that you decided (or were convinced by someone) to start comparing other versions to the KJV instead of comparing all to the original-language texts.

Perhaps you could unpack your statement, "The context is where the modern translations fall apart."

 

[JerryInBoston]

I and many others have debunked this at length on these threads. You can do a search if you really want to find answers. Short answer, this is the first mention of the word after the resurrection. Christ is our Passover Lamb = Easter. Passover is no longer in effect after the resurrection rather Easter, Christ the Passover.

That's a non-answer if there ever was one.

Tyndale was the first to discard God's word πάσχα (pascha) and replace it with Easter. The KJV translators also disregarded God's word πάσχα (pascha) and simply took from what Tyndale wrote - Easter. It was error to do so, yet KJV onlyists like Ruckman and others make up their own contrvied excuses for this clear error.

 

[Dino246]

I‘m ok with that, but the English words we have within the KJV are the preserved words of God in English.

As they are in Tyndale, Geneva, Bishop's, NIV, NASB, NLT, etc.

 

[Chester]

If we do not have one standard to go by, then ultimately we become the final authority on what God has said. I'm not willing to do that.

The one standard to go by is the original autographs - that is what God gave under inspiration. If man chooses one translation as the standard, then man becomes the final authority on what God said. I am not willing to do that.

 

[Dino246]

A word for word translation is not necessarily as long as we have the exact English words that God wants us to have.

Here's the rub: choosing one translation based on such an approach is pure speculation and flawed thinking. There is no objective means of determining which words are "the exact English words that God wants us to have".

 

[Dino246]

If we do not have one standard to go by, then ultimately we become the final authority on what God has said. I'm not willing to do that.

And these versions all contain different words and different truths. How do you know which one to go with? The theologians?

You go with "the theologians" from the 17th century instead of those from the 20th century. There is no fundamental difference in that regard.

And these versions all contain different words and different truths.

Different renderings in English, which is not a sound argument. As for "different truths", you have yet to justify your rhetoric with evidence. Remember, the KJV is only one translation, not the standard against which others are to be compared.

 

[Chester]

I believe the KJV is God's preserved words in English. It has never been proven to be in error.

I believe God gave his words by inspiration in the original autographs. They have never been proven to be in error.

 

[JerryInBoston]

The one standard to go by is the original autographs - that is what God gave under inspiration. If man chooses one translation as the standard, then man becomes the final authority on what God said. I am not willing to do that.

When I think of the autographs existing or not, I'm reminded of the Isaiah scroll found in Qumran that affirmed the disputed Isaiah 53 passages. How God moves to reveal Himself is at times beyond comprehension. All blessing, honor, praise, and power to you, Lord.

 

[Dino246]

I believe the KJV is God's preserved words in English. It has never been proven to be in error.

You have never been convinced that the KJV is in error. You refuse to consider the possibility and so insulate yourself from the evidence.

 

[JerryInBoston]

You have never been convinced that the KJV is in error. You refuse to consider the possibility and so insulate yourself from the evidence.

One of the things KJV onlyists seem to overlook almost entirely is the KJV translators preface to the KJV revision, wherein the translators give high regard to ongoing revisions when further evidence (manuscripts) is discovered.

 

[Dino246]

One of the things KJV onlyists seem to overlook almost entirely is the KJV translators preface to the KJV revision, wherein the translators give high regard to ongoing revisions when further evidence (manuscripts) is discovered.

His response would be, "But the Preface is not Scripture." He's used it more than once before.

He is correct; the Preface isn't Scripture. However, it does reveal what the translators thought (knew!) about their own work, which he can't process because it seriously undermines his position.

 

[throughfaith]

I respect your choice, though your reasoning wouldn't convince me. As you have described it here, it seems that you decided (or were convinced by someone) to start comparing other versions to the KJV instead of comparing all to the original-language texts.

Perhaps you could unpack your statement, "The context is where the modern translations fall apart."

No , we literally Just simply had a bible study . The translation issue wasn't on our minds at all at the start . The focus was a bible study . But it was a great opportunity to compare the difference.