Bible Editions

[Dino246]

Your word was not found in the King James Bible; therefore you have been identified as a blasphemer and an heretick.

Just poking fun, in case anyone was concerned.

 

[Davenport]

So the CSB is "perverted?" Explain that...

And, invite you to defend the CSB's perversion? One example is that it teaches that the devil's children, Jews, are God's people. E.g. Deuteronomy 32:5 in the CSB reads, "His people... are not His children." This blatant contradiction is introduced by the CSB inserting "His people" to refer to Jews.

 

[Dino246]

And, invite you to defend the CSB's perversion? One example is that it teaches that the devil's children, Jews, are God's people. E.g. Deuteronomy 32:5 in the CSB reads, "His people... are not His children." This blatant contradiction is introduced by the CSB inserting "His people" to refer to Jews.

Let's pause and consider this: you throw around c**p about a translation, but when asked to explain, you think that's an invitation to defend the translation.

Wow.

Well, no danger of logical discussion here. Moving along...

 

[dcontroversal]

Hello everyone, I'm new and this is my first forum thread. I'm not new to Christianity, but I'm fairly new to the Bible. I read it once years ago, but didn't really read it well, to be honest. I'm re-reading it, but am curious as to what the real differences are between the types of Bibles available, and what most people choose? I was on a Christian store website looking to purchase a new Bible for my Mom, and I'm so confused on what would be the best edition to buy as a gift for someone else, and what the best edition is for study. Any suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks, from a Bible newbie.

The most grammatically correct is the NASV
The King Jimmy is OK, but I recommend a good Greek Hebrew concordance to study all the words with
For the O.T. in particular I like the Jewish Tanach

I use all three....Love the way the Tanach calls God the Master of Legions.....

 

[dcontroversal]

I had no idea about the corn issue. lol

Be careful in this issue....MANY on this site worship versions over the God of the version.......serious.....

 

[John146]

Be careful in this issue....MANY on this site worship versions over the God of the version.......serious.....

And there are some of us who actually believe the God who gave us His words and commanded us to live by them, preserved them for us today. You mock and call bible believers version worshipers. Why? If we had the actual "originals" would you worship them or the Savior they proclaim? Come on brother...

 

[preacher4truth]

And, invite you to defend the CSB's perversion?

You're out of control here, no need for that attitude and false assumption.

 

[dcontroversal]

And there are some of us who actually believe the God who gave us His words and commanded us to live by them, preserved them for us today. You mock and call bible believers version worshipers. Why? If we had the actual "originals" would you worship them or the Savior they proclaim? Come on brother...

I would worship the God of the version pal.....and my criticism is not unfounded when I have personally seen King Jimmites say that both Paul and JESUS preached out of the King James...so....some of the same attitude is prevalent on this site...so...do not "COME ON BROTHER" me JOHN......

Your BIAS also prevents you from NOTICING that I do use the KING JAMES, but without allusion to the fact that it is nothing more than a translation/transliteration by 54 Episcopalian priests.....

 

[Subhumanoidal]

That's awesome. I'm not sure why I never thought to just google and find a website like that. We live in such a digital age, and I use the internet all day long for my job. You'd think I would have clued in. haha. I guess I'm just old-school, and when I think of the Bible, I think of the actual physical copy in my hand.

I think we all have those moments, unless you grew up with a phone in your hand like some younger haha.

 

[Merida]

I think we all have those moments, unless you grew up with a phone in your hand like some younger haha.

Yeah, that's so true. I was at the doctor's office a few days ago. Looking around in the waiting room, every single person there except for a few seniors and myself, had their faces in their phones or tablets. One woman had a tablet/keyboard and had pretty much claimed the corner of the waiting room as her office. lol I sometimes feel I'm living in the twilight zone.

 

[Subhumanoidal]

Yeah, that's so true. I was at the doctor's office a few days ago. Looking around in the waiting room, every single person there except for a few seniors and myself, had their faces in their phones or tablets. One woman had a tablet/keyboard and had pretty much claimed the corner of the waiting room as her office. lol I sometimes feel I'm living in the twilight zone.

Yes, I've seen those mobile office types too. They especially love bookstore coffee cafes and other locations that have food and drink.
I have my face buried in a phone at a doc office for sure. Or at least have music on with my earbuds.
As far as seniors go. Some of them can be pretty tech savvy too. I'm part of a group on fb for 35+ for a video game. It's a very full group and there are people in there 70s and I think a couple in their 80s, playing video games.
Aand my own dad, 84, is a fb troll.

 

[Merida]

Yes, I've seen those mobile office types too. They especially love bookstore coffee cafes and other locations that have food and drink.
I have my face buried in a phone at a doc office for sure. Or at least have music on with my earbuds.
As far as seniors go. Some of them can be pretty tech savvy too. I'm part of a group on fb for 35+ for a video game. It's a very full group and there are people in there 70s and I think a couple in their 80s, playing video games.
Aand my own dad, 84, is a fb troll.

Oh I'm certain there are plenty of seniors who enjoy technical stuff. I know plenty of people 70+ who use facebook and instagram. haha. A doctor's office waiting room is boring as heck, and I checked my phone a few times too while waiting. But every once in a while, I look around me, no matter where I am in public, and I think to myself.... I miss the 80's. hahaha

 

[Angela53510]

Wow! I see the usual suspects have turned up to defend the outdated, archaic and obsolete language of the KJV. Which, is the only translation I have never been able to read cover to cover, although I will admit I learned a lot of verses in Baptist Sunday School back in the early 60s. Which did well, coming back to me, when I needed them!

I was actually saved using NAB, which is a very good translation, a Catholic Bible. Just don't read the footnotes, which are basically excuses for Catholic doctrine contradicted by the Bible itself.

God can use whatever version he wants to reach and teach people! I read the NASB fore 25 years, till it was worn out. It was a bit stilted, but I learned a lot, reading it. Then I went to an ESV study Bible, then a Holman's HCSB study Bible, and currently a New English Translation Study bible. It has 60,000 notes and translational comments, which truly are fantastic! But, a hard read. The comments take twice the amount of time to read as the Bible. Plus, I had to slow down the pace.

I also read Greek and Hebrew, and I have read the NT completely in Greek, and some of the OT in Hebrew. I have also read the Bible completely in French, and I am currently reading it in German. I love that the grammar of German is so close to Greek. So much easier to read and compare to the Greek.

I would personally go for the HCSB Study Bible. It is advanced, but not too much. I learned a lot. NIV is pretty good, too. It is more dynamic in translation, more thought for thought. As for the totally functional Bibles like the KJV, that claim to be word for word, I have to say never! You simply cannot translate word for word from Greek, except some places in John, although Hebrew is a bit closer to 'English in word order.

ESV is very complementarian, which is why I stopped reading it. (However, I still can't find that word "role" in any Bible translation, including the KJV! LOL). As I said, I'm reading NET, but sometimes I don't agree with their word choices. I will say, sometimes the poetry of the KJV is amazing. That is, when I can get all those 400 year old words updated to the English I speak.

 

[Laish]

Wow! I see the usual suspects have turned up to defend the outdated, archaic and obsolete language of the KJV. Which, is the only translation I have never been able to read cover to cover, although I will admit I learned a lot of verses in Baptist Sunday School back in the early 60s. Which did well, coming back to me, when I needed them!

I was actually saved using NAB, which is a very good translation, a Catholic Bible. Just don't read the footnotes, which are basically excuses for Catholic doctrine contradicted by the Bible itself.

God can use whatever version he wants to reach and teach people! I read the NASB fore 25 years, till it was worn out. It was a bit stilted, but I learned a lot, reading it. Then I went to an ESV study Bible, then a Holman's HCSB study Bible, and currently a New English Translation Study bible. It has 60,000 notes and translational comments, which truly are fantastic! But, a hard read. The comments take twice the amount of time to read as the Bible. Plus, I had to slow down the pace.

I also read Greek and Hebrew, and I have read the NT completely in Greek, and some of the OT in Hebrew. I have also read the Bible completely in French, and I am currently reading it in German. I love that the grammar of German is so close to Greek. So much easier to read and compare to the Greek.

I would personally go for the HCSB Study Bible. It is advanced, but not too much. I learned a lot. NIV is pretty good, too. It is more dynamic in translation, more thought for thought. As for the totally functional Bibles like the KJV, that claim to be word for word, I have to say never! You simply cannot translate word for word from Greek, except some places in John, although Hebrew is a bit closer to 'English in word order.

ESV is very complementarian, which is why I stopped reading it. (However, I still can't find that word "role" in any Bible translation, including the KJV! LOL). As I said, I'm reading NET, but sometimes I don't agree with their word choices. I will say, sometimes the poetry of the KJV is amazing. That is, when I can get all those 400 year old words updated to the English I speak.

Most wondrous posteth sist'r
Blessings
Bill

 

[Merida]

Wow! I see the usual suspects have turned up to defend the outdated, archaic and obsolete language of the KJV. Which, is the only translation I have never been able to read cover to cover, although I will admit I learned a lot of verses in Baptist Sunday School back in the early 60s. Which did well, coming back to me, when I needed them!

I was actually saved using NAB, which is a very good translation, a Catholic Bible. Just don't read the footnotes, which are basically excuses for Catholic doctrine contradicted by the Bible itself.

God can use whatever version he wants to reach and teach people! I read the NASB fore 25 years, till it was worn out. It was a bit stilted, but I learned a lot, reading it. Then I went to an ESV study Bible, then a Holman's HCSB study Bible, and currently a New English Translation Study bible. It has 60,000 notes and translational comments, which truly are fantastic! But, a hard read. The comments take twice the amount of time to read as the Bible. Plus, I had to slow down the pace.

I also read Greek and Hebrew, and I have read the NT completely in Greek, and some of the OT in Hebrew. I have also read the Bible completely in French, and I am currently reading it in German. I love that the grammar of German is so close to Greek. So much easier to read and compare to the Greek.

I would personally go for the HCSB Study Bible. It is advanced, but not too much. I learned a lot. NIV is pretty good, too. It is more dynamic in translation, more thought for thought. As for the totally functional Bibles like the KJV, that claim to be word for word, I have to say never! You simply cannot translate word for word from Greek, except some places in John, although Hebrew is a bit closer to 'English in word order.

ESV is very complementarian, which is why I stopped reading it. (However, I still can't find that word "role" in any Bible translation, including the KJV! LOL). As I said, I'm reading NET, but sometimes I don't agree with their word choices. I will say, sometimes the poetry of the KJV is amazing. That is, when I can get all those 400 year old words updated to the English I speak.

Wow, thank you so much for your thoughts on this. You're clearly very well-read, and knowledgeable on many versions! This has helped me in my decision process, for sure. I truly appreciate the time you took to write such great response. And thanks to everyone else who kept things civil. I honestly had no idea this was an issue, and I wasn't trying to stir up anything - was just a confused newbie and wanted advice.

 

[Nehemiah6]

Wow! I see the usual suspects have turned up to defend the outdated, archaic and obsolete language of the KJV.

Yet it was good enough for millions of Christians over hundreds of years until the false Bibles (the Pretenders) came along.

As to "outdated, archaic, and obsolete" you have not kept up with the developments in this direction because of your built-in Westcott-Hort bias. Please note as an example:

King James Bible
Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began... (Rom 16:25)

King James 2000 Bible (almost identical to the NASB)
Now to him who is able to establish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began...

American King James Version
Now to him that is of power to establish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began...

New American Standard Bible
Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which has been kept secret for long ages past...

Now let's see which is the most faithful according to the Received Text (the true text):

Τῷ δὲ δυναμένῳ* ὑμᾶς στηρίξαι κατὰ τὸ εὐαγγέλιόν μου καὶ τὸ κήρυγμα Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, κατὰ ἀποκάλυψιν μυστηρίου χρόνοις αἰωνίοις** σεσιγημένου...

*Strong's Concordance
dunamai: to be able, to have power
Original Word: δύναμαι
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: dunamai
Phonetic Spelling: (doo'-nam-ahee)
Definition: to be able, to have power
Usage: (a) I am powerful, have (the) power, (b) I am able, I can.

1. So when the KJB says "that is of POWER" it is faithfully presenting δυναμένῳ. While humans "are able", God has the power, and all power belongs to Him.

2. "Stablish" is the older form of "establish" so this is of little consequence. Updated spelling.

3. Even though χρόνοις αἰωνίοις** (chronois aioniois) literally means "in times of the ages" it is more theologically accurate to say "since the world began" rather than "for long ages past". Why? Because according to Bible chronology (going strictly by the Bible) "since the world began" refer to approximately 6000 years (4000 at that time), while "long ages past" accommodates evolution with it millions and millions of years. We should keep in mind that many of the naturalistic textual scholars who altered the Bible believed in evolution (as well as many other false teachings).

SO ONCE AGAIN WE FIND THAT THE KING JAMES BIBLE IS THE MOST TRUSTWORTHY AND ACCURATE ENGLISH TRANSLATION EVEN TODAY.

As I stated in my first post, I have no interest in debating this issue. And if the OP is not interested in the KJB, I have no interest in pursuing this discussion. However, let's get rid of this false idea that the KJB is "outdated, archaic, and obsolete". That's what Satan would have Christians believe, since he hates this faithful translation.

 

[Merida]

I think people need to agree to disagree on this topic. I feel bad that it has triggered some people.

 

[Sackcloth-N-Ashes]

This boils down to which do you prefer, the Critical Text(CT from here on out) or the Textus Receptus(TR or received text from here on out). In 1881, Brooke Foss Wescott and Fenton J.A. Hort compiled a text that used two 4th century manuscripts, the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaicitus. The Codex Sinaicitus was found 1859 by Count Tischendorf in a monastery of St. Catherine on Mount Sinai. It was traced back to the 4th century by compating it to other known writings of that day(4th century). They trace it to 325-350 AD.

Desiderius Erasmus was the one who took and translated the NT into Greek. He then did 4 revisions of it later on. He never had access to Codex Vaticanus, either. Those who translated the Greek into English in the 1611 King James Bible had the 5 manuscripts of Erasmus(1 original and the 4 updated revisions), Theodore Beza's manuscript and Stephanus' 1550 editon.

The newest manuscript they had to use was from around 1000-1200 AD. The modern versions use the CT, and they used ~5,600 manuscripts, with them tracing back to 325-350 AD.

If you use a manuscript that is 700-1,200 years newer, you know the likelihood of error increases. The manuscripts the modern version use is closer to the days when the originals were penned.

Remember, the way the copied manuscripts back in those days was by coping them by hand. There is a huge question mark to the validity of the longer ending of Mark 15(verses 9-20 are not in a lot of the older manuscripts). Then the woman caught in the act of adultery has some concerns as well(John 7:53-8:11).

https://www.gotquestions.org/Codex-Sinaiticus-Vaticanus.html

https://www.gotquestions.org/critical-text.html

https://www.gotquestions.org/Mark-16-9-20.html

https://www.gotquestions.org/John-7-53-8-11.html

The longer ending of Mark 15 is where those who handle snakes and drink strychnine get their belief from. Also, some Baptists use it to prove that unless you are baptized, you are not saved. Jesus never advocated that, so for that to be in the longer ending is questionable.

@Merida I owe you an apology my friend. That is Mark 16, not Mark 15. My apology again, my friend.

 

[Angela53510]

I think people need to agree to disagree on this topic. I feel bad that it has triggered some people.

This is not your fault. We've been having this discussion over and over, going into 100's of post, for literally years. We all know all the characters, and what they are going to say. As a newbie, you had no way of knowing that.

Personally, I take the whole thing as kind of a joke. I have always said if the KJV was in people's heart language, in that it speaks to them, they should read it. Because the best translation is the version that gets read!

Don't blame yourself, and welcome to the forum! And thank you for the kind words about my post! I enjoyed doing it!

 

[Merida]

@Merida I owe you an apology my friend. That is Mark 16, not Mark 15. My apology again, my friend.

It's all good.