What Bible translation do you use?

[Abba San]

What about before the KJV? Those people for 1600 years didn't have Jesus? Or those who have a Bible in their own tongue - translated by Wycliffe or another group? They don't have Jesus? Please...

 

[Wolfeman]

As I said earlier, I use a King James 1611. I will use other translations as well as concordances and commentaries for increased understanding but if they disagree with the Perfect Word then I know there is a problem with the other translation, the commentary, concordance or just how we understand the passage. I know this because God does not make mistakes and He is powerful enough to keep his Word perfect no matter how much we try to fix it.

Personally, I look for ways to prove the King James is perfect instead of why it is not.

What about before the KJV? Those people for 1600 years didn't have Jesus? Or those who have a Bible in their own tongue - translated by Wycliffe or another group? They don't have Jesus? Please...

I've covered this already. Historically Biblical texts came from two basic sources. Outside of Egypt thru groups generally known as Anabaptist or from inside or through Egypt by groups and translators associated or hired by the Catholic Church. The groups outside the Catholic Church had the pure words of God (God tends to use a remnant or small group for his will to effect everyone else as a whole). They passed these texts from person to person, group to group. Eventually, these texts were what made up the Textus Receptus which is what the King James Bible is based upon. When English became the common language of the land, God (in His time) put His word in what was and still is that language.

However, I am curious. If the 1611 was the Word of God for the last 400 years, why does it need to be corrected now? Did they not have the correct Words for the last 400 years?

Seriously, though, I prefer to have something that is easy reading (NIV/ESV/etc)

If you have the one who is and wrote the Word of God in your heart, why can't you understand His Word? But that's a whole nother discussion.

Guys, everyone knows that Jesus actually spoke Elizabethian English and there is only one true bible translation, despite the many known translation errors in the KJV.

This comment more than any other proves Proverbs 12:15. Proverbs 26:4-5 is why I will no longer be taking part in this discussion. We have all selected our facts based upon our opinions. My belief in the King James 1611 as the perfect, inspired and preserved Word of God is based upon historical research I've done, my opinion and information from those wiser than I. It is also based upon the fruit I've seen it produce in my life and the lives of others.


For the person who asked me about Doctrines that have been corrupted by the new translations, Here's a good article about doctrines changed by the NIV (the old NIV, not the TNIV or the new NIV about to come out).

 

[Lloren]

People who don't speak english obviously will never know the true Perfect Word. /s

 

[Patriot]

For the person who asked me about Doctrines that have been corrupted by the new translations, Here's a good article about doctrines changed by the NIV (the old NIV, not the TNIV or the new NIV about to come out).

Since I asked for this I'll take a look even though you don't plan on replying. Figure everyone else might get something useful out of this even if you don't.

In Revelation 22:16 both the NIV and the KJB identify the morning star as being Jesus and all the other noted references allude to the same concept. If a person is to accept the NIV as the Word of God, then he or she must also accept that it was Jesus who was cast from heaven in the event described in Isaiah 14:12. This really does not make sense because the Bible clearly teaches that Jesus voluntarily left heaven to provide a way of salvation for mankind, and it nowhere implies that He defied God and was cast out. The NIV really strikes out on this one.

I suppose, if we want to disregard context altogether. . .Which is a very bad way to interpret the Bible. Strike 1.

According to I Corinthians 6:9 in the NIV if a person offends a homosexual, he or she will not enter the kingdom of God. In this version, the homosexual offender is placed in the same category as adulterers, idolaters, the greedy, drunkards, slanderers, and swindlers. Keep in mind this is not the sin of homosexuality as described in the KJB, but is specified as being those who offend homosexuals.

Perhaps this is made clearer by Webster's Dictionary definition of offend which means to strike against or to cause dislike, anger, or vexation. Offender is the noun presentation of the verb offend. An offender then is one who offends. It denotes action on the part of a person. In the case of the NIV, it is one who offends a homosexual.

I'm afraid this person doesn't understand the English language. Perhaps been reading the KJV too much? The issue in this one: "Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." Of course, offender in this case refers to the person committing the act, such as you would refer to someone in jail multiple times as a "repeat offender" not because they caused offense but because the committed the crime. Strike 2.

Baptism and profession of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ must go hand in hand if one is to genuinely be born again. This is accurately depicted in Acts, Chapter 8 of the KJB where Philip witnessed to the Ethiopian eunuch, and he subsequently accepted the Lord Jesus Christ as his Savior, and was properly baptized expressing this belief. Throughout the Bible it is clearly presented as an absolute fact that we must believe in Jesus Christ to be saved, and any version should make this issue perfectly clear regarding the salvation and baptism of the eunuch as this is a principle of doctrine. We notice that the NIV, however, hedges a little in regards to this point.

Doctrine is not changed when viewed with regard to the rest of Scripture, which is how we should always interpret. Strike 3.

Mark Chapter 10 presents the account of Jesus' dealing with the rich young ruler. Jesus tells the young man to give all he has to the poor, but he refuses. Using this man as an example, Jesus relates in verse 24 just how hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God to give us a full disclosure of the dangers of devoting one's life to obtaining wealth. The NIV rightly presents the story in verse 23, but subsequently changes the emphasis away from riches in verse 24 to tell about how hard it is for anyone to enter the kingdom of God.

Again, failure to account for context. Verse 25 explains that Jesus is talking about the rich. Can I do strike 4? I hadn't planned on going beyond 3 but I'm wondering if this article makes any valid points and I'm reading as I'm writing this critique.

All students of the Bible are familiar with the story of the three Hebrew men who were cast into the fiery furnace as related in Daniel 3:25. The Bible tells of their deliverance by a fourth man who was seen walking around in the fire. This fourth man has always been considered to be Jesus Christ in an appearance in the Old Testament; however the NIV speaks of this person as being a son of the gods which in no way describes Jesus Christ, the Son of the living God.

For those who advocate the NIV, I suppose this means that there are many gods who have many sons. This certainly does not agree with the one God concept held by the prophets and apostles and advocated by Christians down through the centuries.. Reference to the Scripture will show that there are major differences between the NIV and the KJB in this area.

Absurd. This is a pagan king speaking. A pagan king who had people pray to himself as a god. Should we expect him to correctly identify the pre-incarnate Christ? If the author decided to change the quote from the king then the Bible would not be "perfect." Therefore, either a pagan king who regarded himself as a god recognized and identified Jesus for who he was or the KJV is not the "perfect" book you think it is. Regardless, no doctrine changed.

The term "Godhead" is the strongest expression of the Trinity in the Bible, and well expresses the relationship of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. The NIV does not use this expression, and in its place uses divine being, deity, and divine nature. None of these words adequately express the unique relationship between the three persons of the Godhead, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Both the Trinity and the Godhead are important doctrines and must be presented properly in any version of the Bible that wants to accurately portray the biblical concept of God.

Semantics. I won't waste time with this one, but no doctrine changed. Getting tired, not sure how many more I'm going to bother going through.

It is interesting to note the way the NIV expresses John 1:18 and John 3:16 to present the possibility of there being more than one God and to cast doubt on God's fatherhood of Jesus by dropping the term "begotten" from these important verses.

Semantics again. No doctrinal change.

The NIV deletes part of the Lord's Prayer in Matthew 6:9-13. On the surface this doesn't seem important, but if we look closely at the words which are deleted, it will be apparent that the NIV is following its predisposition to lessen the supremacy of God.

No doctrinal change. Semantics on the forgiveness part. The deletion is obvious throughout the entirety of Scripture.

I'm tired and have other things to do. If anyone wants me to review a specific point I would be happy to do so, but I'm not going to go through the rest of these in this post. I scanned through a number of them and can say most of them would not be doctrinal and those that seem to be are ignoring context or improperly interpreting Scripture.

 

[shadetaker]

This comment more than any other proves Proverbs 12:15. Proverbs 26:4-5 is why I will no longer be taking part in this discussion. We have all selected our facts based upon our opinions. My belief in the King James 1611 as the perfect, inspired and preserved Word of God is based upon historical research I've done, my opinion and information from those wiser than I. It is also based upon the fruit I've seen it produce in my life and the lives of others.


For the person who asked me about Doctrines that have been corrupted by the new translations, Here's a good article about doctrines changed by the NIV (the old NIV, not the TNIV or the new NIV about to come out).

You've got a lot of nerve coming here and spouting off verses that imply that another poster is a fool for making jokes about your ignorant and needlessly divisive beliefs, and then going on to suggest that you are somehow above this argument. If you really wanted to place yourself on that particular pedestal you shouldn't have tried to sneak in some last choice words in the same breath.

Concerning the supremacy of the KJV you're definitely right about selecting the facts one wants; it's easy to research up an opinion that is in line with what you wanted to believe in the first place. No doubt you had little difficulty finding an abundance of biased and ignorant sources who were only too happy to impart their wisdom-in-their-own-eyes on whoever was willing to listen. If you're so serious about adhering to the one true gospel, stop relying on others to do the translation for you, go learn Greek and Hebrew and read the original sources yourself.

As regards that article, I'm with Patriot on this one. That is not in fact a "good article", rather it is a pile of rubbish that fails in nearly every regard to actually prove its point, relying on meaningless nitpicking and gross exaggeration of inferred meanings behind negligibly slight differences. This all from some author who, as far as I can tell, hasn't even completed seminary. The only thing I am getting out of this article is that the author has wrapped too much of his ego around the idea of of the KJV as the only true translation, and that he is all too willing to resort to resort to inane babbling in an effort to prop up this asinine idea.

For the record I only take issue with the whole "KJV is only true English translation of the Bible" idea, and not with the with the version itself. In spite of some of its failings I generally enjoy the KJV's style and many of the verses I've memorized come hence.

 

[Abba San]

Thanks, Patriot and shadetaker - now I don't have to go read the article.

I, too, use the KJV in every Bible study and most sermon prep because so many people use it. I like the KJV for many passages - especially the Psalms. No other version matches the beauty of the KJV for Psalm 23.

I do get tired of having to re-translate archaic English for today's readers. That is just one reason I use a variety of translations and paraphrases.

It is for freedom that Christ has set us free (Gal. 5:1), was written to people with no Bible at all. We are so blessed to have God's word - in our own tongue - so we can know the truth of God's love more fully. But, clearly, it can be done without a Bible.

It is interesting that one of the most powerful verses related to the Bible, All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. (2 Timothy 3:16). Yes, the KJV - makes no mention of it being profitable for salvation. Not that it isn't - if you have one, use it. But - first, teach someone to love God and love others - Jesus said that is what it all boils down to. Show them how - lead them to a decision to accept Christ. Teach them to love and worship God - then - then the Bible becomes useful to them.

It amazes me how so many people worship a particular translation of the Bible, instead of the one who inspired it.

 

[ursen]

It is interesting that one of the most powerful verses related to the Bible, All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. (2 Timothy 3:16). Yes, the KJV - makes no mention of it being profitable for salvation. Not that it isn't - if you have one, use it.

Thank you for using that verse Abba, but 17 should follow that quote because it gives a reason for that, "17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." (II Timothy 3:17 NKJV). And good works are important in showing our love for others.

 

[Patriot]

However, I am curious. If the 1611 was the Word of God for the last 400 years, why does it need to be corrected now? Did they not have the correct Words for the last 400 years?

I missed this comment before.

I'm sure you are aware that we don't use "thee", "thou", and "thy" in everyday conversations anymore. Yet, 400 years ago they did. The KJV was written in the common tongue (for the British Isles) of the time. Obviously, in 400 years the English language has changed a bit from what it was. Words that meant something then, now mean something totally different now. Languages inevitably evolve over time and over geographic locations. This is why Latin is used in science, because it is a "dead" language that is not changing anymore. So 400 years after the KJV was translated it is no longer "common" English. Therefore, it only makes sense to translate again in current "common" English to once again make the Word of God accessible to everyday English speakers. If Christ has not called us all home in the next 400 years I expect it will be necessary to create another translation as the English language will have evolved more. Although, given the ease of printing and what have you, I anticipate regular translations into the current tongue. Thank God we don't have to wait 400 years between each adaptation to the current tongue.

Please note, I only explained the English language above. Ongoing translation projects would ideally be occurring in each of the languages on Earth as all these languages are evolving as well.

I guess this could all be summed up in the following:
If the Greek and Hebrew text was the Word of God for ~1600 years, why did it need to be corrected with the 1611 KJV?

 

[Neirai the Forgiven]

In an attempt to give a real, serious, example, and not be a troll, I will now appear to be a troll.

^^Only real version of the Ford.
All other Fords are corruptions of the real thing.

 

[Neirai the Forgiven]

Let me unpack: The 1611 KJV was a great version of the Bible, for its time. Like the Model T.

Since then, we've found more and better copies of the original Hebrew and Greek texts.. like the Dead Sea Scrolls. Our Bibles have been refined by comparing the 1611 with the earlier copies.

If you've ever seen a real "original copy" of the OT or NT, you know what I mean. The original copies are in no way complete... they look like old, often burnt, potpourri or confetti that spent the last four to eight hundred years in someone's pockets. Or washer and dryer.

Every word in the Bible is based on these highly fallible documents, plus careful research. Every time we discover new scrolls, we check the old documents to see if the assumed current texts need to be altered.

In the last 400 years, we've discovered more scrolls and learned better research and contextual extrapolation techniques.

Just like your brand new Ford F150 has better brakes, engines, and transmissions than the ol' Model T.

It's alright if you like your KJV, but at least grab the newest version you can.

 

[Wolfeman]

You've got a lot of nerve coming here and spouting off verses that imply that another poster is a fool for making jokes about your ignorant and needlessly divisive beliefs, and then going on to suggest that you are somehow above this argument. If you really wanted to place yourself on that particular pedestal you shouldn't have tried to sneak in some last choice words in the same breath.

Let me deeply and humbly apologizes. My intentions have been mistaken and misinterpreted. My intentions were not to anger, offend or cause division within the family of Christ. I was attempting to point out that those things had started and I wanted to back out of this discussion before they went any further. I can see where what I wrote could be viewed in a manner other than what I intended.

I believe my point of view is correct. The same as each person here who has joined this discussion feels their point of view is correct. We have all chosen to give more or less weight to particular beliefs, historical facts and theories as well as others opinions to support our point of view. Things I view as irrefutable proof for my position have been dismissed without discussion and some points presented to support every other new bible I see as not holding water.

I was hoping to discuss these differences of opinion without emotions getting in the way. Unfortunately, when childish comments were made, instead of ignoring them and trying to continue the discussion, I let my flesh get the better of me. I again, offer my humblest apologies.

I'm not going to change my belief and I doubt any one here will change theirs. I was hoping to have a great discussion on this because a discussion on hell in another thread has given me a very interesting view of the rock the church is founded upon. Instead, I've stirred up anger, wrath, envy and strife within the family. I am terribly sorry.

 

[Patriot]

Things I view as irrefutable proof for my position have been dismissed without discussion and some points presented to support every other new bible I see as not holding water.

Which things you view as irrefutable proof were dismissed without discussion? I'd love to discuss them. I'd also love to continue this discussion while avoiding ad hominen fallacies.

I'm not going to change my belief and I doubt any one here will change theirs.

Why not? I changed mine. I used to be an avid defender of the KJV many years ago. That is why I find this discussion so fascinating. It's like discussing this subject with my younger self.

 

[Wolfeman]

Which things you view as irrefutable proof were dismissed without discussion? I'd love to discuss them. I'd also love to continue this discussion while avoiding ad hominen fallacies.

Because as I've already demonstrated, I seem unable to entirely approach this subject without offending. I'm not looking for more of the juvenile comments I've received for my stance nor am I looking to anger or offend others. It's easier to just walk away and let the subject rest.

Why not? I changed mine. I used to be an avid defender of the KJV many years ago. That is why I find this discussion so fascinating. It's like discussing this subject with my younger self.

Except I'm quite probably older than you. I started with a very large focus throwing out things that didn't work, didn't fit or couldn't possibly be until I've ended up where I am now. I'm not a younger version of you, I'm a reverse version of you.

 

[Lloren]

I didn't read any juvenile responses. I read some thoughtful, albeit humorous and borderline sarcastic, responses. Honestly those responses are likely elicited from the "you-can't-be-serious" file that is expecting you to say "yeah, i'm joking". apparently you aren't.

Now.... this is juvenile....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxkOW0a_xAY

 

[Patriot]

Because as I've already demonstrated, I seem unable to entirely approach this subject without offending. I'm not looking for more of the juvenile comments I've received for my stance nor am I looking to anger or offend others. It's easier to just walk away and let the subject rest.

That's certainly your prerogative.

Except I'm quite probably older than you. I started with a very large focus throwing out things that didn't work, didn't fit or couldn't possibly be until I've ended up where I am now. I'm not a younger version of you, I'm a reverse version of you.

Age is irrelevant. The stance was what I was talking about. When I was younger I held that stance - hence the younger version of me. We could swap age numbers if you want, but it won't prove anything as far as the discussion goes.

I didn't grow up with the KJV only view, I adopted it when I was convinced by some of my research. It took me several years before I changed my position again.

 

[RyanB]

To Wolfeman - the comment on Elizabethian English was meant as light-hearted jest, and I am sorry that it did not come off that way. Please do not think that I mean to offend.

Since you've been roped back into the discussion, I had a few questions.

For you (or any of the KJV-only crowd):
1) Can you provide any biblical evidence as to why KJV is the only good bible?

2) What argument can you provide to say that KJV is the only "true" bible that could not be applied equally to every other bible

3) You seem to have dodged my comment about known translation errors in the KJV. They are very easy to google; and it's very easy to look at the greek/etc words and see where mistranslations happen.

4)

If you have the one who is and wrote the Word of God in your heart, why can't you understand His Word? But that's a whole nother discussion.

I get asked this by every KJV-only person I talk to, and it's a shame because it not only implies that I am not saved or cannot "hear" God for some reason...it also is very easy to answer.

Here's how I always answer: open an Aramaic/Greek/etc untranslated bible, straight from the original scrolls. What do you get out of reading that? Nothing? Should I imply that you do not have the one who is and wrote the Word of God in your heart? Why can't you understand His Word?

It doesn't mean you're unsaved. It simply means you can't read those languages. In the case of Ye Olde English, I simply have difficulty reading a sentence and comprehending what in the world it says in modern English. I spend more time trying to comprehend sentence/verb structure than I do meditating on it and letting the holy spirit teach me; it's a hindrance. And let's not forget that some worlds simply mean completely different things then than they do in our language today, which adds even more to the confusion. These are things that have become "incorrect" over time.

There's no need to imply there is a spiritual problem, especially if you can't answer the other questions listed above. I certainly don't feel it would be fair to imply you had a spiritual problem if you can't understand Greek.

5) I guess the biggest thing I can't understand with the KJV-only mentality is this:
do you believe that the original scrolls are less God's word than the KJV?

Because if you believe those to be perfect (and I really, really hope that you do), why would somebody not want to read a translation that brings God's ORIGINAL word to them in the clearest, easiest-to-understand method?

Thanks in advance for any answers you can provide.

 

[Sassamo]

I think when this thread was originally started, it prompted me to really find out what is the difference. Based on my beliefs and preferred worship style, I alway tend to run with the KJV-only crowd, and though that's what I always used, I never felt like it was an absolute necessity. I ran across this book:
Differences Between Bible Versions, and at $3 for the kindle version, I definately think it was worth it(It also hase a few chapters on his responses to KJV-Onlyists). I'd like to sum up my understanding of the background of the scriptures as best as I can remember for those who are interested.

Of course all we have are manuscripts, no original autographs. We have over 5000 manuscripts, no 2 of which are the same. Some are nearly the entire NT, some are just a few verses. The are overall similar in their content, but can be divided up into 2 categories, in which the remain very similar within their respective categories. These are the Alexandrian and the Byzantine manuscripts. There are far more Byzantine, but the Alexandrians tend to be dated older. This is beause of the papyrus medium used so early on, and the dry environment in Egypt causing them to have a longer shelf life. There is speculation as to why the Alexandrian texts tend to differ from the majority of the manuscripts, such as the heavy population of Gnostics living in Egypt, ... I guess there's no real proof, but looking at what the majority of the differences are, the Alexandrian texts do tend to take away from the power of God(in my opinion anyway).

From these manuscripts, we've derived 3 texts. The Majority Text(MT), Received Text(TR), and the Critical Text(CT). The TR is basically the MT, and is very similar, however, it was created when there were only a handful of manuscripts available, and in fact, almost none were available containing Revelations, so that book was actually reverse translated out of Latin. The MT and TR derived from the Byzentine based manuscripts, while the CT derived from the Alexandrian manuscripts.

Translating these texts into different languages can be done in a variety of ways. Literal, formal equivelance, dynamic equivelence, nuance, and paraphrase(listed in order of what I believe to be the best to worst methods). Combining a particular text with a particular translation style provides us with the variety of bibles we have today.

As you can probably tell by what I've outline my preferences to be, I tend to shy away from CT based translations, as well as anything with dynamic equivelence or lower. This for me rules out many of the mainstream bibles such as the NIV, NLT, etc... Not that I shun anyone for using them, but I personally would use or recommend them, especially for deeper bible studies.

As of now, my translation of choice is the NKJV, which contrary to popular KJV-Only belief, is translated from the TR(and I use a KJV-NKJV parallel so I can follow along with the crowd). I like the NKJV because it has updated language, and includes any scripture differences in the MT and CT in marginal notes, so I can compare what all the versions say.

 

[RyanB]

Thanks for that Eric, very informative! I have heard good things about the NKJV, had just yet to pick one up. I have all the translations on my phone now, though, so I'll have to start taking a look at that more often; maybe I'll shift and be a NKJV-Only guy.

With any translation, I just try to take the attitude of "it's pretty accurate". I don't expect every nuance to be there - some things simply don't translate from one language to the next. I do trust that God is giving us what we need, with the holy spirit directing and teaching.

 

[Abba San]

One thing I haven't seen mentioned here - when you go to seminary and study Hebrew and Greek - everyone (and I mean EVERYONE) goes out and gets a NASB Bible. It is the best translation of the most accurate manuscripts.

 

[Brydon]

Yeah, I work with students in youth ministry and in general I like to default to the NLT because it's just easier to read. But if I want to be picky about what an actual word actually meant to the people who wrote it (like we were studying the images of "fire" in the Bible last night), it's easier and more accurate to use the NASB.