Bible versions-Is there only one?

  • 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.

Is there only one true version of the Bible?


  • Total voters
    21
Go ahead I might learn something.
The NASB has "Holy Spirit" in verse 6 and "Spirit of Jesus" in verse 7. I thought the KJV might have the same, but it doesn't. The Greek interlinear versions I have differ on that; one has "Jesus", the other doesn't. I suspect a textual issue there that needs further investigation.
 
The NASB has "Holy Spirit" in verse 6 and "Spirit of Jesus" in verse 7. I thought the KJV might have the same, but it doesn't. The Greek interlinear versions I have differ on that; one has "Jesus", the other doesn't. I suspect a textual issue there that needs further investigation.
What would prove one way or another if they disagree? Age?
 
Every time God has updated his word he has given more revelation.
This statement is very problematic.
It leaves the idea that translators can change original text because of new revelation, leaving the newest Bible the latest and greatest. I find that to be fallacious. If the original language texts are not authoritative then we have nothing. The original language texts are copies of copies, while other language texts are translations or interpretations of those texts.
 
This statement is very problematic.
It leaves the idea that translators can change original text because of new revelation, leaving the newest Bible the latest and greatest. I find that to be fallacious. If the original language texts are not authoritative then we have nothing. The original language texts are copies of copies, while other language texts are translations or interpretations of those texts.

I hardly believe this is what KJV1611 is eluding to.

Can the Lord preserve His words in another language other than the "original languages" and that updated version be the word of God?
 
  • Like
Reactions: KJV1611
I believe the Holy Spirit can use many translations to show us everything He wants us to see. I bet some translations are better than others and easier to find the original message in. (and I wouldn't be surprised if some translations were made with out right false information being put in)


I personally like the kvj the most but I know mature believers who prefer the nasb and the niv....

not sure of which bibles should be avoided all together...
I hardly believe this is what KJV1611 is eluding to.

Can the Lord preserve His words in another language other than the "original languages" and that updated version be the word of God?
Depends on ones definition of “Updated”
 
This statement is very problematic.
It leaves the idea that translators can change original text because of new revelation, leaving the newest Bible the latest and greatest. I find that to be fallacious. If the original language texts are not authoritative then we have nothing. The original language texts are copies of copies, while other language texts are translations or interpretations of those texts.
The original language text WERE authoritative and any copies that are exact duplicates of the originals are still authoritative. The word of God isn't bound by words, there are many different words that can convey whatever was conveyed in the originals. However, some words can give even more revelation than the original words.

Almost everything written in the new testament was originally written in the old testament, but it was written vaguely and not direct and it was VERY HARD to see. The new testament came along and gave us the same story and message as the old testament, but in a direct way, a way that we could clearly see. The new Testament gave MORE REVELATION than the old testament.
 
Depends on ones definition of “Updated”
By updated I mean we were given words that give better understanding of things that were previously written. Not new ideas or new concepts, just wording changes that help us better understand what was originally written.
 
By updated I mean we were given words that give better understanding of things that were previously written. Not new ideas or new concepts, just wording changes that help us better understand what was originally written.
I completely agree. Some revised Bibles intentionally change words to be give a diffident meaning. Some do it to be more “Inclusive”.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KJV1611
I completely agree. Some revised Bibles intentionally change words to be give a diffident meaning. Some do it to be more “Inclusive”.
Updating the words DEMANDS inspiration or else all bibles are just a group of men's interpretation of the word of God.
 
Updating the words DEMANDS inspiration or else all bibles are just a group of men's interpretation of the word of God.
I agree. I dare to say most don’t. Case in point, Luke 1:30. RRC changed the verbiage from “Favored with grace” to “Full of grace”.
That changes the whole perception of the virgin.
 
I agree. I dare to say most don’t. Case in point, Luke 1:30. RRC changed the verbiage from “Favored with grace” to “Full of grace”.
That changes the whole perception of the virgin.
That is my point exactly. The RCC translated based on THEIR view of God and Mary. That's why I keep saying that if God didn't inspire the translation our bibles, then we don't have anything remotely close to his word. God is the only one capable of translating and preserving his word in all languages.
 
I hardly believe this is what KJV1611 is eluding to.

Can the Lord preserve His words in another language other than the "original languages" and that updated version be the word of God?
God can do as he wishes, however unless he specifically directs I don't trust "up dated" any thing. I believe he gave his word to us and it's best we hold to the utter most to directly translate as possible, and this will be directed by the Holy Spirit. I don't believe we have authority to "up date" anything. Both Mormons and JWs and there are others who have "up dated" the text, and they claim to be at the directive of the Holy Spirit.
 
The original language text WERE authoritative and any copies that are exact duplicates of the originals are still authoritative. The word of God isn't bound by words, there are many different words that can convey whatever was conveyed in the originals. However, some words can give even more revelation than the original words.

Almost everything written in the new testament was originally written in the old testament, but it was written vaguely and not direct and it was VERY HARD to see. The new testament came along and gave us the same story and message as the old testament, but in a direct way, a way that we could clearly see. The new Testament gave MORE REVELATION than the old testament.
That don't mean we have authority to "up date" the text.
 
No we don't but God does.
It has always been that God used men to write scripture. Which man among us is God's anointed to write scripture now? According to this philosophy of thought the JW, Bible or Mormon Bible, or even this new queen James Bible could be the scriptures updated. How do you know?
I'm sticking with written by the apostles of Jesus, first generation of the church texts. You can trust that someone is anointed to alter scripture, but I'm not buying in.
 
So now we have gotten to the Crux of the cult of King James onlyists. It is not that you believe that he did the most accurate job of translating, but willingly admit that he modified the text, and furthermore that he did so with the authority of the Holy Spirit.
 
It has always been that God used men to write scripture. Which man among us is God's anointed to write scripture now? According to this philosophy of thought the JW, Bible or Mormon Bible, or even this new queen James Bible could be the scriptures updated. How do you know?
I'm sticking with written by the apostles of Jesus, first generation of the church texts. You can trust that someone is anointed to alter scripture, but I'm not buying in.
There are many who have and continue to believe that God gives them new revelations. Of course the are compete deceivers as not one their proclamations have come to fruition.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Locoponydirtman
It has always been that God used men to write scripture. Which man among us is God's anointed to write scripture now? According to this philosophy of thought the JW, Bible or Mormon Bible, or even this new queen James Bible could be the scriptures updated. How do you know?
I'm sticking with written by the apostles of Jesus, first generation of the church texts. You can trust that someone is anointed to alter scripture, but I'm not buying in.
All of those you mentioned could have been updated scriptures, but what but prevents them from being so? They added to the word of God and they contradict their own writings.

In the last part of your post you make it sound like you put all your faith in the first generation copies as if one you are fluent in those dead languages and can actually read them. I can't read them and I seriously doubt that any average person today can read them.

So when you say that you put your faith in those copies, you're not really doing that. You're actually putting your faith in what OTHER PEOPLE tell you those copies say. Do you agree with this?