Do we have a complete, perfect, and sufficient Bible?

Hi @Nehemiah6

I firmly believe that the Scriptures, as the 66 books that most believers understand as the Scriptures, are complete. That they are valuable for reproof, correction and understanding of all that God has done and what His desire and will is for those who will believe in Him. For me, the translation of the Scriptures isn't the important issue concerning the Scriptures. It's whether or not it reaches into the heart of the reader to confirm that truth and understanding of God and all that He has done that some might find His salvation. Therefore, any 'reliable' translation is sufficient for that purpose.

There are no 'reliable' translations in which one cannot find the truth of God and His promise of eternal life with Him. I say 'reliable' to agree that yes, there are some questionable translations. The Message version is one that I find pretty out there. The New World translation is also one of questionable truth. But there are some two dozen or so translations that are perfectly able to complete the work for which God has sent His word forth into our world.

Personally, I prefer the NKJV to the KJV. But I was raised up in the beginning of my faith with the NIV or the 1990's printing. However, I have since read many, and I don't find any of the reliable translations that fall short in telling the reader 'who God is'; 'what God has done'; 'what God asks of those who love and honor Him'.

God bless you as you persevere to the end.
Ted

First and foremost, a believer needs the guidance of the Holy Spirit working with the believer. Without this, spiritual things cannot be understood and many things would not be brought to mind. However, even with the Holy Spirits help, one cannot penetrate the deeper and perhaps controversial doctrines without much study, prayer and meditation. Therefore, since "study" is required, (2 Tim. 2:15), we should endeavor to be like the Bereans - always checking the accuracy of what others have said and questioning ourselves about the accuracy of what we hold true.

Again, a good Bible translation can get us there. Nevertheless, we as believers should never cast dispersion upon individuals who desire to gain a better understanding through learning the Original Autograph Languages. Understanding the various Biblical languages helps solve many controversial elements within various Doctrines (of course, sometimes it creates them as well). Ultimately, the Lord has to reveal the Truth to the one seeking. Additionally, any good Bible Commentator, that is worth their salt, will know Hebrew and Greek.

As an example: Look at how knowing the Koine Greek solves this problem in the KJV - Acts 12:4 And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.
However, the RSV translates this verse as: Acts 12:4 And when he had taken him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to guard him; intending after the Passover to bring him forth to the people.

Which is correct?
If you are one of those who is thinking right now: "Who cares" or "Does it really matter?" You can leave now.

If you don't know how to use the Greek, then you will have to read a bunch of gobbledygook, full of bias, about why the KJV is right or wrong. The simple truth is this: The KJV has no reason for this translation error. It is a mistranslation - pure and simple.

The Greek word is: πάσχα (Pas'-khah). It is used 29 times in the New Testament. 28 times it is translated Passover in the KJV and only once as Easter. Therefore, there is no grammatical construction or reason to alter the Greek words English translation.

Sorry, this got a bit longer than I originally intended.
Any who, I hope you see what I am getting at.

I firmly believe that God is more than capable of preserving His Holy Word and providing us with all we need to come to a relationship with Him, and to thrive in that relationship. But I would believe no differently if all I had were the third chapter of Johns gospel.

I was brought up on the AV and that was the translation that the Lord opened up to me when I received His Holy Spirit. A mind blowing experience to say the least. You read the bible for years, and then one day you actually understand it.
Amazing!

My first church used the NIV, which I detest, so I split the difference and bought an NASB. I used to look down on the KJV only crowd, and for good reason. I had not been a believer very long when I came across a verse one day that made no sense to me. The Spirit of God within me was telling me one thing, and the text something altogether different. So I prayed about it and went to see my pastor.
That's when I found out that my English bible was just a translation, go figure. A quick trip to the christian bookstore and the rest is history. And yes, that scripture (I'm sorry but this was thirty years ago so I can't tell you what scripture) turned out to be a very poor translation.

After that I was committed to the NASB for over thirty years, until early last year when I went through somewhat of a personal revival and decided to get a new bible and chose the AV..

At that time I also did a deep dive into textual criticism and the various available manuscripts. To say the least, I am no longer quite so critical of the KJV only crowd.

The Word of God, no matter the language or translation, will lead a person to Christ, though if all you read is the NIV, it might take a little longer. I'm kind of joking there.

That being said, one bible which I hardly ever see mentioned here is the Geneva. Most people don't realise that the Geneva Bible (I prefer the 1560 facsimile reprint) was the first English bible to include chapter and verse, as well as notes. Those notes, probably more than any other factor are why the KJV was commissioned in the first place.

The best bible translation is the one you actually read. Are there crappy versions out there? Tons.
Is God able to save a mans soul regardless of which version he reads? Absolutely.

At the end of the day, we likely won't answer to God for which bible we chose to read, or which bible version we understood the best. But we will give an account for our obedience to that which we read and understood, whatever your preferred manuscript or translation.

Actually we will. Important verses have been omitted from modern versions to distort the truth, which means that you will mislead yourself and others.

For example the ESV has omitted this verse: Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. (Mt 12:47). Look at the context, and then compare it with Mark 3:31-35 and Luke 8:19-21. Mark 3 is almost identical. Look at the context in the KJB and see that it cannot be omitted without distorting the truth.

While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him. Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother. (Mt 12: 46-48) . In that context, was that verse important? Is this teaching of Christ important? That those who do God's will are Christ's brother, and sister, and mother? That His physical relationship to Mary and his brothers was not critical?

The ESV has been praised to high heaven: Crossway claims that the ESV continues a legacy of precision and faithfulness in translating the original text into English.[c] It describes the ESV as a translation that adheres to an "essentially literal" translation philosophy, taking into account "differences in grammar, syntax, and idiom between current literary English and the original languages."[16] It also describes the ESV as a translation that "emphasizes 'word-for-word' accuracy, literary excellence, and depth of meaning."[11] Since its official publication, the ESV has received endorsement from numerous evangelical pastors and theologians, including John Piper and R. C. Sproul.[17]

So let's say you are using the ESV based on this hype, and either studying it with others or preaching or teaching from it. If you cross-reference it with the other passages, and find this important verse missing when it has been replicated in Mark 3:32 where it says: And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee. how are you going to explain this to others? Is this precision and faithfulness or DELIBERATE CORRUPTION when all the other translations have retained it? Since every word of Scripture is critical, there was no excuse to omit 17 words of Scripture given by divine inspiration to Matthew (as translated).

And this is just one example of dozens. The Bible says "But he answered" or responded to all those people, since his mother and brethren "stood without" (outside). Without that verse how could Christ respond as stated? So in the end the ESV has deceived you and those who you shared this with.

Omegatime made a really good point about letting the Holy Spirit Guide us through scripture. I may add that the KJV, I use because I have taken a lot of time in specialized libraries to search for a version that is accurate while remaining easy to read. As A french speaking Canadian from a catholic family background I chose that one, It is truly an excellent version have no doubt about it. I also own a good french version and they both say the same thing. it is rare that i have to refer to the original texts in Greek or Hebrew.



if you stick to the word for word part of the graph you are good to go.


Blessings

I agree many versions have omission or worse, they changed the meaning. These versions can mislead people.

All new translations follow Westcott and Hort [the Revised bible]

I ask

How can folks who did not BELIEVE that Jesus was truly God, did not BELIEVE He was born of a virgin, miraculously conceived in the womb, be trusted to translate the scriptures?

People wonder why so many no longer believe Jesus is truly God, the new translations are the cause.

And if Jesus was not born of a virgin then the WHOLE gospel is to be rejected, He is merely born out of wedlock [as the Jews have always claimed] and the whole thing is a lie to cover up His illegitimacy.

Westcott and Hort, they dared not to stray too far from the KJV they KNEW there would be an outcry, they KNEW their work would be utterly rejected and they could not bear that.

So they balanced their word of unbelief in words which appear to say one thing but actually say something a little less. This is patticularly so with regard to Christ divinity.

It's not the departure from the KJV it is the departure from Tynedale, from his theology and the theology of the Reformation to a more Erasmasian understanding of theology. Erasmus was Catholic. Westcott was high church Anglican. Go figure.

Tynedale and the KJV are treasures without price.

The question on the inclusion of Matthew 12:47 needs to be approached from the standpoint of: what that verse in the original manuscript that Matthew wrote? You are seeming to argue that it should be included because leaving it out give incomplete thought and interpretation.

I am not here arguing that the verse should or should not be included in the text. My point is on the method of coming to that conclusion.

Of all those statements I am in complete agreement. There are many translations of God's Scriptures, but of the core facts of the faith that God asks of us and the salvation that He has prepared for us. I find none of the reliable translations that are lacking in that task.

Your post here does not agree with your previous post #85. All those versions except the KJV have missing verses.

Proverbs 14:5 A faithful witness will not lie: but a false witness will utter lies.

Hi @John146

I'm always humored when I read that claim about the KJ translation. Since we don't have any of the original written words of the many who wrote the Scriptures, how would you know that is true? How can you prove, that a particular passage in question was in the original written words, if you don't have the original written words to check it with?

I had little doubt you would chime in with a comment like this. What a joyless life you must live. Have a blessed day.

Hi @Nehemiah6

I've been here before on this subject. First of all, what important verses have been omitted from modern versions that distort the truth? Secondly, what proof can you offer that such verses were or were not in the original writtings?

And yes, I've read through the many lists from folks that proclaim that newer versions omit certain passages. Yet, I don't find that any passage, that I've researched so far, somehow distorts the purpose for which God sent forth His testimony to us. So, what have you got? What verse is in the KJ that isn't in newer versions that will prevent someone from understanding all that God is teaching us in His word? What specific verse have you found, that if someone leaves it out, will prevent someone who is reading that translation from understanding that God is the Creator of all that is; that man is a sinner; that the only way to find peace with God is through His Son?

What ya' got?

Hi again @Nehemiah6

You know, I've told the account of Jesus standing in the synagogue in Nazareth and reading the words of Isaiah. Luke writes for us the very words that Jesus was supposed to have read. Are you aware that there is really no place today, in the book of Isaiah, that actually says what Luke says Jesus read in that synagogue?

Here it is, according to your favorite translation:

“The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”

This comes from Isaiah's writings that today we understand as chapter 61 verses 1-2. Also from your favorite translation.

The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted*, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound; To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD,

Hmmm, seems a bit different in some ways. There is no mention in the KJ text of Isaiah about 'sight for the blind'. Jesus apparently read in Nazareth, 'to set the oppressed free'. But the very passage in the KJ text of Isaiah says, 'to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound.

Did Luke get it wrong? I mean, he writes that Jesus stood up in the synagogue and took and opened the scroll of Isaiah and read from it the words that Luke writes to us. Why is Luke's account of what Jesus said in the synagogue in Nazareth reading the words of Isaiah, not what the account written in Isaiah some 700 years previously, actually says?

Is it possible that there were some word differences in the scroll that Jesus held in his hands in the synagogue, compared to the actual words that the writings of Isaiah contained 700 years before? How do you explain that? You believe that we must know word for word what the original manuscripts said and that any changes must be weighed against the KJ version which wasn't available for some 1500 years after Jesus left us.

Did that scroll that Jesus held say what Luke wrote to us that Jesus read from it? The description of Jesus reading of the passage doesn't seem to allude that he hunted around to various places on the scroll and cobbled together some various group of statements made in different parts of Isaiah's testimony. It says that he stood up; opened the scroll; read from it, and sat down. Why doesn't the KJ translation of the new covenant, in recording for us the very words of Jesus, I mean they are in red in my copy, match what Isaiah actually wrote according to what the KJ translation says at that point?

I would not expect a civil response if I were you. Go take a quick look at Nehemiah's posting history. You're just going to be called names and branded a heretic by this one. It's pretty sad, but its all right there in black and white.

Dean John William Burgon already established the genuineness of this verse in the MAJORITY of manuscripts. Even the critical text has it:

RECEIVED TEXT
Stephanus Textus Receptus 1550
εἶπεν δέ τις αὐτῷ Ἰδού, ἡ μήτηρ σου καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοί σου ἔξω ἑστήκασιν ζητοῦντές σοι λαλῆσαι
CRITICAL TEXT OF NESTLE
Nestle Greek New Testament 1904
εἶπεν δέ τις αὐτῷ Ἰδοὺ ἡ μήτηρ σου καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοί σου ἔξω ἑστήκασιν ζητοῦντές σοι λαλῆσαι.

Nestle generally followed Westcott & Hort, but here he did not put this verse in square brackets. Why? Here's probably one of the reasons:
Greek Orthodox Church 1904
εἶπεν δέ τις αὐτῷ· Ἰδοὺ ἡ μήτηρ σου καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοί σου ἑστήκασιν ἔξω ζητοῦντές σε ἰδεῖν.

As a result all the other modern versions (which generally follow W&H) rejected W&H's square brackets and somehow it crept back into the English Revised Version:
English Revised Version (RV)
And one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, seeking to speak to thee.
New International Version
Someone told him, "Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you."
New American Standard Bible
Someone said to Him, "Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You."
International Standard Version
Someone told him, "Look! Your mother and your brothers are standing outside, asking to speak to you."
New Living Translation
Someone told Jesus, "Your mother and your brothers are outside, and they want to speak to you."
erean Study Bible
Someone told Him, “Look, Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to You.”
Holman Christian Standard Bible
Someone told Him, "Look, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to You."
NET Bible
Someone told him, "Look, your mother and your brothers are standing outside wanting to speak to you."
Aramaic Bible in Plain English
And a man said to him, “Behold, your mother and your brothers are standing outside and want to speak with you.”
GOD'S WORD® Translation
Someone told him, "Your mother and your brothers are standing outside. They want to talk to you."
Jubilee Bible 2000
Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brothers stand without, desiring to speak with thee.
Douay-Rheims Bible
And one said unto him: Behold thy mother and thy brethren stand without, seeking thee.
Darby Bible Translation
Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren are standing without, seeking to speak to thee.
Webster's Bible Translation
Then one said to him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.
Weymouth New Testament
So some one told Him, "Your mother and your brothers are standing outside, and desire to speak to you."
World English Bible
One said to him, "Behold, your mother and your brothers stand outside, seeking to speak to you."
Young's Literal Translation
and one said to him, 'Lo, thy mother and thy brethren do stand without, seeking to speak to thee.'

Only the wonderful ESV has this result:
English Standard Version BLANK

Absolutely. But they ATTACK fundamental Bible doctrines and Bible truths.

Take Matthew 6:13 which is an extremely important statement of our Lord (quoted from the OT) and the conclusion to the Lord's Prayer. And yet this has been omitted from at least a dozen modern versions which are very popular: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.

King James Bible
And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.

OMITTED IN THE FOLLOWING VERSIONS
New International Version
And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one.'
New Living Translation
And don't let us yield to temptation, but rescue us from the evil one.
English Standard Version
And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.
American Standard Version
And bring us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one.
Revised Standard Version: And lead us not into temptation, But deliver us from evil.
Berean Study Bible
And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one.’
International Standard Version
And never bring us into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one.'
NET Bible
And do not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one.
GOD'S WORD® Translation
Don't allow us to be tempted. Instead, rescue us from the evil one.
Douay-Rheims Bible
And lead us not into temptation. But deliver us from evil. Amen.
Darby Bible Translation
and lead us not into temptation, but save us from evil.
English Revised Version
And bring us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one.
Weymouth New Testament
and bring us not into temptation, but rescue us from the Evil one.'

Dean Burgon had this to say about the genuineness of that clause: But how will men pretend to explain an interpolation universal as the present; which may be traced as far back as the second century; which has established itself without appreciable variety of reading in all the MSS.; which has therefore found its way from the earliest time into every part of Christendom; is met with in all Lectionaries [lesson-books], and in all Greek liturgies; and has so effectually won the Church’s confidence that to this hour it forms part of the public and private devotions of the faithful all over the world?” (The Causes of Textual Corruption, p. 82)

The Lord Jesus Christ was quoting 1 Chronicles 29:11: Thine, O LORD, is the greatness, and the power, and the glory, and the victory, and the majesty: for all that is in the heaven and in the earth is thine; thine is the kingdom, O LORD, and thou art exalted as head above all.

Was David speaking by divine inspiration? And is Christ the Word of God who gave the words to David by the Holy Spirit? So how can there be any justification for this important omission, which can only be explained by someone corrupting the text.

Ok, let's go on your premise. It is true, we do not have any of the original writings. What happened to the original ten commandments? Moses busted them in anger. God simply had a copy made of the original, and that copy became the inspired word of God. You should at least admit that there are many differences between the KJV and the modern versions. If so, one of two things must be true:

1. Neither the KJV or the modern versions are the preserved words of God and none can be trusted.
2. The KJV is the preserved words of God.

What is your choice?

With regard to the idea that anyone may "receive the gospel" from any bible version:

1) I am not so sure that it is nearly-as-likely with a bible version that has reduced or eliminated such important and significant things as the deity of Christ.

2) While it is sometimes suggested that - "since the gospel is the main thing" - so that any bible from which a salvation message may be gleened should be considered a worthwhile bible - a very crucial fact is overlooked - after being saved - a bible that fits the intent of the thread title question is required for the best possible growth in/of the Christian life.

Why would anyone think that the Bible should not be sufficient for every aspect of the Christian life?

I believe there is a lot of truth in this statement.

The modern translations that are based on the W&H manuscripts have done major damage...