Favourite Bible Translations

[KJV1611]

And I still think you're overstating the issue. It's also rather self-serving, as you feel entitled to dismiss anyone who disagrees with your interpretation as 'not having the mind of Christ'.

It's not an opinion it's fact. You can't accurately translate words when you don't understand the authors intent.

In 1 John 3:9 the context is that there is no law for believers, because the law applies to our dead husband, not us. It's impossible for us to COMMIT sin because ALL things are lawful to us. The KJV accurately translated the verse accurately because they knew the context. The NASB screwed it up because they didn't understand the context.

1 John 3:9
King James Version
9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.


1 John 3:9
New American Standard Bible
9 No one who has been born of God practices sin, because His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin continually, because he has been born of God.

 

[KJV1611]

^ Another example of two completely different messages.

 

[Dino246]

It's not an opinion it's fact. You can't accurately translate words when you don't understand the authors intent.

In 1 John 3:9 the context is that there is no law for believers, because the law applies to our dead husband, not us. It's impossible for us to COMMIT sin because ALL things are lawful to us. The KJV accurately translated the verse accurately because they knew the context. The NASB screwed it up because they didn't understand the context.

That's your opinion!

It is simply INVALID to claim that the KJV is correct and any other translation is incorrect on the basis of a conclusion drawn from the wording of the KJV! It's called circular reasoning and if there's anything that is consistent among KJV-only proponents, it's a rank ignorance of what that is!

Further, you are implying that the translators of the NASB did not "have the mind of Christ", meaning they are not Christians! Can you get any more arrogant?

 

[KJV1611]

That's your opinion!

It is simply INVALID to claim that the KJV is correct and any other translation is incorrect on the basis of a conclusion drawn from the wording of the KJV! It's called circular reasoning and if there's anything that is consistent among KJV-only proponents, it's a rank ignorance of what that is!

Further, you are implying that the translators of the NASB did not "have the mind of Christ", meaning they are not Christians! Can you get any more arrogant?

Can you sin now that your old husband is dead? Are all things lawful for you?

 

[Dino246]

Can you sin now that your old husband is dead? Are all things lawful for you?

I'm not going to justify fallacious argumentation.

 

[KJV1611]

I'm not going to justify fallacious argumentation.

If you don't understand these BASIC doctrines of Christianity, it would behoove you to refrain from judging any translation.

 

[Rosemaryx]

That's your opinion!

It is simply INVALID to claim that the KJV is correct and any other translation is incorrect on the basis of a conclusion drawn from the wording of the KJV! It's called circular reasoning and if there's anything that is consistent among KJV-only proponents, it's a rank ignorance of what that is!

Further, you are implying that the translators of the NASB did not "have the mind of Christ", meaning they are not Christians! Can you get any more arrogant?

That is what it boils down to...
KJV are only saved because the Holy Spirit is not in the other translations , that sort of thinking can keep people stumbling...

People can be brought to Christ through a tract , or a hand written Scripture in a card...
...xox...

 

[Dino246]

If you don't understand these BASIC doctrines of Christianity, it would behoove you to refrain from judging any translation.

That's an unwarranted comment. It's sad that you revert to slinging mud when your manipulation doesn't succeed.

 

[KJV1611]

That's an unwarranted comment. It's sad that you revert to slinging mud when your manipulation doesn't succeed.

Seriously? If you don't know what you're talking about you shouldn't talk about it.

 

[Dino246]

Seriously? If you don't know what you're talking about you shouldn't talk about it.

Likewise, if you don't understand basic logic, you should stay out of debates.

It goes both ways.

 

[Lanolin]

The KJV relies heavily on the Masoretic which has some verses omitted or changed. They filled in some parts from the Latin Vulgate so it's a bit of a patchwork. There have been verses omitted, added & omitted again in successive editions of the KJB. Onlyists aren't even curious to discus them because they believe in a magic translation frozen in time with the edition they now use.
Anyone seriously pursuing truth would want to seek out & understand where the KJV might be lacking.

I prefer an honest translation that recognises all the manuscript evidence available. There are some good translations that print the verses from the Masoretic in brackets where they differ from the Septuagint. This would have been difficult to do in 1611.
The KJ translators also didn't have the benefit of the DSS for comparison .

The work bilingual or multilingual translators do is a science that depends on copies of available manuscripts. The older manuscripts must be recognised. The entire Old Testament was translated into Greek at Alexandria BC. That's an incredible work that I want recognised in any version I'm reading. Not disregarded entirely because of a claim of corruption in later manuscripts.

I dont think kjv onlyists believe in magic?!
thats just an accusation thats a bit baseless. The thing with people who prefer KJV is that its scripture is inspired and they use it everyday, so all other bibles translations in comparison fall short.

KJV translators also had lots of mansucripts available to them at the time. Its mostly based on Tyndales translation. The team didnt have to resort to any latin because they he was translating from the ORIGINAL langauages, not from the latin. It as only some words that you cannot translate as one word into english, that are added or transliterated. These are in italics. Most editions have this.

If there is a better translation that most christians use, then name it, but for over four hundred years its been inspiring christians so I wouldnt knock it.

 

[Graceguy]

This is a completely unnecessary comment. There is good reason why those verses are not in the NIV and ESV. The OP asked which is your favourite and why, not why others aren't your favourite.

Agree , 100%. It’s amazing isn’t it ....we fall so easily into comparisons and judgement.

 

[Lanolin]

I found NASB to be so wishy washy and always confusing when people would quote it and somehow make it opposite of what the verses meant in the context of scripture.

Same with NIV. I had a study edition that confused me even more.

CEV would take a roundabout way to say things.

There is one translation called ETR - easy to read version, meant for ESL learners, but thing is...why not just translate the Bible into the native tongue of the ESL learner? Which is what all translators ought to be doing, not giving out ten million different english translations and confusing people further.

the intent of the KJV bible was a noble one to translate the Bible into the english langauage so ordinary english people could read it in their own tongue, cos latin was not actually spoken at the time.

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

If you don't understand these BASIC doctrines of Christianity, it would behoove you to refrain from judging any translation.

That is an unfair comment on 2 levels
1. The poster has demonstrated a more than adequate understanding of the basic doctrines of Christianity
2. It's very hypocritical. You are not qualified to judge translations due to your KJVO prejudice.

3. (bonus) "behoove" is an obsolete word.

 

[KJV1611]

That is an unfair comment on 2 levels
1. The poster has demonstrated a more than adequate understanding of the basic doctrines of Christianity
2. It's very hypocritical. You are not qualified to judge translations due to your KJVO prejudice.

3. (bonus) "behoove" is an obsolete word.

You're entitled to your opinion.

 

[true_believer]

How about favourite study Bibles? I'd like to know what are your favourites and why?

 

[Graceguy]

When I was first saved the only Bible that I knew about was KJV. I could not understand it then , but as time went on it got no better. I know the NIV is not perfect but have since learned the KJV has gaps in its reliability also. The NIV is probably now my most favourite. Thanks for the question.

 

[Dino246]

The thing with people who prefer KJV is that its scripture is inspired and they use it everyday, so all other bibles translations in comparison fall short.

I'm going to restructure your statement as a syllogism to show how silly it is:

Premise 1: The scripture of the KJV is inspired.
Premise 2: People who prefer the KJV use it everyday (sic).
Conclusion: Therefore all other bible translations fall short.

That's called a non sequitur. The conclusion does not follow from the premises. In fact, in this case, it doesn't relate in any way to the premises.

To your first premise, the word of God is indeed inspired, as we are told in 2 Timothy 3:16. However, that is true of every translation, not just the KJV!

To your second premise, people who prefer the NASB use it every day; people who prefer the NIV use it every day, and so on. Your premise has no evidentiary value whatsoever.

KJV translators also had lots of mansucripts available to them at the time. Its mostly based on Tyndales translation. The team didnt have to resort to any latin because they he was translating from the ORIGINAL langauages, not from the latin.

Erasmus used manuscripts, and the KJV translators used Erasmus. Erasmus could not obtain Greek manuscripts of certain verses of Revelation, so he used the Latin Vulgate for those few verses. His translation from the Vulgate was not corrected with Greek manuscript sources before being used as the source for the KJV.

Since when does less than twenty qualify as "lots" when compared with the nearly 6,000 available today?

If there is a better translation that most christians use, then name it, but for over four hundred years its been inspiring christians so I wouldnt knock it.

That's just wacky. The length of time for which a translation has been used is no reason to excuse that translation from critical analysis.

 

[KJV1611]

Am I the only one here that can see that these two translations say two completely different things?

1 John 3:9
King James Version
9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.


1 John 3:9
New American Standard Bible
9 No one who has been born of God practices sin, because His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin continually, because he has been born of God.

 

[Dino246]

Am I the only one here that can see that these two translations say two completely different things?

1 John 3:9
King James Version
9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.


1 John 3:9
New American Standard Bible
9 No one who has been born of God practices sin, because His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin continually, because he has been born of God.

Aaaand yet another claim of "the NASB must be wrong because it doesn't agree with the KJV".

Don't you have something meaningful to do with your time... like learn about logical fallacies?