bible versions

I read a bit of that site, then I got to the statement
that the King James Bible is the only trustworthy, accurate, scholarly, and whole Bible available in the world!
Click to expand...

Aye yi yi...really? So no other language but English has an accurate Bible? A bible that is original Greek and Hebrew is not accurate?

All at the same time I felt the urge to laugh out loud and pee my pants.

I grew up on the KJV and am so glad that I dont have to use it anymore. Just a horrible read in my opinion, painful and distracting and confusing. I had to use it recently when talking with some Mormons and I found myself all confused and befuddled by their statements which really looked true when using the KJV. I pulled out my ESV and thank the Lord I had some clarity and was able to make a good counterpoint.

Sorry but the KJV is more a tool of Satan to me then it is a good Bible. Honestly, it does far more damage then good in my context and experience.
 
I quickly dismiss any argument that ends with "the KJV is the only English translation we should use." The original KJV had over 300,000 corrections between the first print and the 3rd edition. If it's a perfect Bible, why did it need to be changed so many times? The obvious answer is, all translations are finished in the hands of men, so they are prone to errors.

The first site you linked says that NIV removed and NASB bracketed a series of passages. If you read the NIV footnotes, they say things like, "Matthew 18:11 Some manuscripts include here the words of Luke 19:10." THEY TELL YOU THAT SOME MANUSCRIPTS INCLUDE THAT TEXT. But more importantly, they tell you that older texts (like the Q-documents, older copies of the Septuagint, etc) do not include the text, and therefore, they have omitted them as well.

One important example is that there is no reference to the Trinity in the modern Bible. There was a scribe that took it upon himself to add the phrase in 1 John 5:14. There is no reference to the Trinity prior to the 14th century. Which Bible is more accurate? The one that added words like the KJV (which falls against multiple warnings in the Bible), or the ones that removed it, like the NIV and NASB?

Frankly, your repeated attempts to attack the NIV Bible and try to guilt us into reading a more difficult version of the Bible (which contains errors, too) frustrate me to no end. I couldn't help but respond this time, but I'll likely be stepping out of further discussion on this point, unless you bring something new and insightful. I have far better things to do with my little bits of free time than continue to beat my head against the wall when I've spoken my peace and you retort with no new information or ideas.
 
i have said it before and will say again because we forget eisily... i find no fault in people who find god in NIV or other versions...
but if you want the whole word as it was written in the dead sea scrols then the KJV is best.. there is just allot of docterine taken out. yes the KJV has some mistakes... only the texus recepticus is more accurate.. aincent history has changed the versions and they have rewritten them to fit their own bidding.
now i dont agree with evrything he says, but this vid shows the history...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ykbnIQocq0&feature=related
same with other vids ive shown... i dont understand why your so angry about this...especialy at me.
 
Once again here is a response to your link that describes it as pure fiction. Kent Hovind presented his history of the Bible as fact but he is in error and this series looks at the presentation you posted and shows it is unreliable and factually untrue. He takes it piece by piece and really dismantles the video you posted.

This video is of James White a theologian and director of Alpha and Omega Ministries, a Christian apologetics organization based in Phoenix, Arizona. His creditability is leagues beyond Kent Hovind who is currently serving a ten-year prison sentence after being convicted of 58 federal counts, including twelve tax offenses, one count of obstructing federal agents and forty-five counts of structuring cash transactions. He is currently incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution, Jesup.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-r7ZsUBn9nQ&feature=related
 
Last edited:
Preacher I know that the reason my anger warms up as you post this stuff is you look very close to a WOLF in my opinion. The stuff you post is divisive, distracting and dangerous for those young in the Faith to hear. Your continual posting of heretical and blatantly false material looks a bit like someone who is trying to lead people away from truth and into deception.

Of course I don't know you from Adam, but this is the red flags that go off in my mind as I read your posts. Feel free to correct me and present your intentions/motives as I do not want to judge you falsely.
 
Kent Hovind's material is actually what helped turn my life around. Looking back, sure, some of it was exaggerated or opinionated, and he had no right to evade taxes and such, but it personally allowed me to get a new appreciation for God's creation. The disciples were also imprisoned, but still did the Lord's work. I'm not trying to defend Hovind or what Preacher wrote, but just saying that it didn't deter me from the Christian walk.

For one idea on the correct version, I suggest checking out Ivan Panin's finding on Bible numerics. Turns out that the KJV is 94% correct, but the American Standard Version is moreso.

/as long as it's not the Message, I'm fine with it
 
Last edited:
I have never been one of the KJV only crowd. I have used the NASB for several years. I have been reading recently that there is some controversy regarding the authenticity of the Alexandrian manuscripts used in most modern translations as having had Gnostic influence.

I imagine that there is some truth to it. Unfortunately the KJV-only crowd, although well meaning, has been so overzealous to try to prove it they have turned many people off to their message. Many of the arguments they bring up don't hold up to careful examination of the scriptures. I have read enough compelling evidence though to make me seriously question the validity of the Alexandrian documents used in Westcott & Hort to the point that I am going to go to a translation that has its basis in the Textus Receptus and Masoretic texts. Err on the side of caution so to speak.

I have been in search of the "perfect" translation for many years. I own the NASB, ESV, NLT, NKJV, KJV, NET, NIV, MKJV, KJ3, LITV Interlinear and a few others. None of them alone have satisfied my hunger for God's word by themselves. Whenever I do any serious study I use the free Bible program e-sword and constantly look back and forth between many translations to make sure I get the proper meaning.

I just found in the last couple of days a "compilation" Bible that takes and builds on the scholarship of the KJV, NKJV, KJ3/LITV and MKJV. All of those have their basis in the Textus Receptus and Masoretic texts. Its called the "Voice in then Wilderness" Bible www.a-voice.org. From what I've seen so far it is promising. I don't 100% agree with the guys theology, but he seems to have been careful to try to remove any theological bias from the VW-Bible. I will be studying from it over the next few weeks to see if I like it.
 
Last edited:
careful to try to remove any theological bias from the VW-Bible
Click to expand...

That's a pretty hefty undertaking. We can't help but be influenced by what we've read before, been taught before, etc. Let me know how it goes. This actually sounds interesting.
 
Durruck said:
That's a pretty hefty undertaking. We can't help but be influenced by what we've read before, been taught before, etc. Let me know how it goes. This actually sounds interesting.
Click to expand...

Very true. We all look at the scriptures thru our own personal doctrinal lens.

So far it seems good, but I'm not sure if I want to use the VW for my primary translation.
 
I think i'm going to switch to the NKJV for the time being. It has been badly beaten down by KJV-only critics, but it seems more like a witch hunt to me than any real serious flaw on the translations part. Perhaps because it doesn't have the thee's and thou's. I find no real evidence that supports the kind of hatred some people have for it. Some of their claims against it are just plain absurd. It, like all translations, is not perfect but it is a good solid literal and readable version.

It has been reviewed by some scholars, who have reviewed it honestly and sincerely, and found it to be of about the same level of accuracy as the NASB, and the NKJV seems to paraphrase less. The NKJV is translated from the same manuscripts as the KJV, so I feel more comfortable using it. At least till I find that elusive perfect translation... :p
 
Last edited:
ya i prefer the nkjv for understanding.. some people cant understand the old english. i personaly think as long as u find a bible you can read it helps. even the KJV has miss translations but it has fewer than the rest. what i do is write in my nkjv in areas where kjv has difrent wording.
heres somethin you all might like.
NIV truth
 
quite honestly, this doesn't matter to me based on the way I study.

I'm willing to accept that the committee is trying to address the fact that we don't have an adequate word in the English language to describe the point the original authors and Author were trying to make.

We don't get bent out of shape about the way the six words/expressions for "sin" are all translated the same. We don't complain that "love" is actually several different words with specifically different meanings. Men and women have equal judgement under sin, equal forgiveness through grace by faith in Jesus.

While Paul may have been making a specific point in Ephesians addressing women (who had no legal rights, but were recently given spiritual freedom through Christ's message), he didn't make the same implications when he wrote to the church in Corinth or Rome. In fact, some of Paul's greetings were to the women leaders and pastors in the churches that he established.

Linguistically, we can't replicate exactly what Paul (et al) wrote. The use of non-specific, gender-neutral references in places where such things were indicated in the original texts should be acknowledged as such when possible.

Don't blame God for us being bigots.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top