Bible Versions

[KJV]

Are you aware there are many different "Bible" versions today claiming to be the Word of God. Each one tells us that it is the most reliable, most accurate, etc. etc.. But which of them is God’s Word? Since they all disagree with one another, we can’t possibly say that they all are. Can we? Are we to suppose that God has written more than one Bible and that he makes statements in one and then disagrees with himself in another? No, of course not. God only wrote one Bible. How, then, do we go about determining which "Bible" is the Bible? If we look to human opinion for the answer, we will find nearly as many opinions as we find people. One person will like one. Another person will prefer another. Yet a third person will assure us that it really doesn’t matter, telling us that any of them will do just fine. Since we aren’t interested in human opinion here, we need to look to scripture for help in resolving this issue. There are two questions that we will need to consider. (1) Which are the correct manuscripts?
(2) Which is the proper translation of those (the correct) manuscripts?

 

[Bishka]

God only wrote one Bible

Acutally God didn't write a single thing. It was men who penned the words with inspiration from God.

 

[Todd]

(1) Which are the correct manuscripts?
(2) Which is the proper translation of those (the correct) manuscripts?

I've always heard that the King James is one of the better translations. However, I usually loose so much information because I have problem with the wording (I usually just use the NIV). However, there are earlier manuscripts that should probably be more important than even the King James. Although most of them are in languages that I do not know. What are your thoughts on the best translation?

BTW, welcome to the forum.

 

[robtex]

(1) Which are the correct manuscripts?
(2) Which is the proper translation of those (the correct) manuscripts?

being as they are predicated upon belief that would be contingent to the emotional (spritual) needs of the indivdual readers.

 

[Mister Emu]

KJ onlyist?

 

[SoyLeche]

I've always heard that the King James is one of the better translations. However, I usually loose so much information because I have problem with the wording (I usually just use the NIV). However, there are earlier manuscripts that should probably be more important than even the King James. Although most of them are in languages that I do not know. What are your thoughts on the best translation?

BTW, welcome to the forum.

Haven't there been multiple "King James Versions" that differ slightly from each other? Seems like I read that somewhere...

 

[Scott1]

Each one tells us that it is the most reliable, most accurate, etc. etc..

No... most claim to be what they are: translations... and most are honest with their intentions and style.

But which of them is God’s Word? Since they all disagree with one another, we can’t possibly say that they all are. Can we?

I do.

If we look to human opinion for the answer, we will find nearly as many opinions as we find people.

A beautiful thing: free will.... a God given grace.

Since we aren’t interested in human opinion here, we need to look to scripture for help in resolving this issue.

Which "scripture" are you talking about?

You just made it clear to me that every Bible will "disagree with one another".... seems kinda stupid to look then to a Bible for the answer to your questions.

It seems there may be more than two questions needed....

 

[KJV]

[Questions that Modern Version Advocates are afraid you will ask ]​

1. Have you done research on the KJV/Other Versions controversies yourself ?
By that we do not mean that you are taking someone else’s word for it, or that you like what your best friend said, but rather that you did actual reading, actual looking into historical records, actual research - yourself ?
We have found that most people who express concern about the KJV-Preference position have several mistaken presumptions that they are not fully aware of, usually because they have not done the research on this issue themselves. Often, they have relied on the word of others (who despite their good intentions have also not done their own research personally)
2. If you are not in favor of using the KJV, and if you are in favor instead of using Modern Bible Versions, are you sure that you understand the major points about the philosophical/theological position you are advocating ?
3. have you thought through the premise that - if you insist on using Modern Versions only - you must accept to go against 95% of the Bible Manuscripts that have been used by the Christian Church throughout the centuries (until 1904) ?
4. Are you aware that the KJV is still supported by 95% of the Bible Parchments and Manuscripts which exist all over the world ?
5. It is true that the KJV translators relied on the manuscripts that were available in their own day and time. And it is also true that more Bible manuscripts were found since the early 1900s, than in all of the other centuries combined. Here is the key question: Are you aware that almost all these ancient manuscripts - those found in the 1900s - have accomplished, is to support, authenticate and validate the King James Version of the Bible ?
6. In other words, despite finding many more manuscripts of the Bible since the KJV was translated, more than 95% the new manuscripts found in the 1900s continue to support the King James Version, and disagree with the Modern Versions. Are you aware of this ?
7. Are you aware that Modern Versions Reject the Greek Text which underlies the English King James Version, and that this is really what the crux of the matter is - about the King James Version Debate ?
8. Do you realize that the Protestant Greek New Testament Textus Receptus, was used not only by the English speaking world in the KJV, but also by almost all other countries in the spread and propagation of the Bible - until 1904 ?
9. Do you therefore understand that to disagree with the Textus Receptus, is to place yourself against the true history of Protestant Historical Teachings (in the choice of the Bible Versions that they recommended) ???
10. Have you really stopped to think about the Motives WHY someone might [from a spiritual point of view] have an interest in getting modern Christians to reject the Bibles that upheld their Churches and their Doctrines for nearly 2000 years ?
11. Are you aware that if you reject the Greek Text which underlies the King James Version, that you are rejecting the Bible and the Validity of the Bibles, and undermining the credibility and witness not only of the historic christian martyrs who were English, but also those from Spain, and From Holland, and from France, and from Germany and from Switzerland, and from Italy, since they all also rely on the Greek Textus Receptus that the King James uses ?
To get to the point, do you really know which foreign versions of the Bible - in each language - that are supported and rely on the same Textus Receptus used by the King James Translators ? Can you name these other versions ? Here are some of them: The Geneva Bible in English used the same Textus Receptus as the King James and this has been good enough for the American Founding Fathers, that is the Puritans and the Pilgrims in resisting false teachings and building a strong vibrant well-grounded Christian Church for hundreds of years. If it was good enough for them as they risked their life to defend it and live by it, then why is it not good enough for you ?
The Reina Valera Bible in Spanish used the same Textus Receptus as the King James and this has been good enough for the Spaniards & Spanish in resisting false teachings and building a strong vibrant well-grounded Christian Church for hundreds of years. If it was good enough for them, why is it not good enough for you ??
The Diodatti Bible in Italian used the same Textus Receptus as the King James and this has been good enough for the Italians in resisting false teachings and building a strong vibrant well-grounded Christian Church for hundreds of years. If it was good enough for them, then why is it not good enough for you ???
The Luther Bible in German used the same Textus Receptus as the King James and this has been good enough for the Germans in resisting false teachings and building a strong vibrant well-grounded Christian Church for hundreds of years. If it was good enough for them, why is it not good enough for you ????
The Olivetain & Martin versions in French (as well as Louis Second/1st Edition) used the same Textus Receptus as the King James and this has been good enough for the French in resisting false teachings and building a strong vibrant well-grounded Christian Church for hundreds of years. If it was good enough for them, why is it not good enough for you ?????
12. Do you know (a) the life, (b) the character, and (c) the teachings & (d) beliefs of the Bible translators of the Modern Versions that you are defending ? Do you know - for example - what they believed about Jesus Christ ?
13. Do you know - for a fact -what they believed about the Deity of Jesus Christ ?
14. Do you know - for a fact -whether or not they believed that Mary should be worshiped ?
15. Do you know - for a fact - what they believed about the Trinity ?
[how would you prove or demonstrate your answers to others...like us ?]
16. Do you know - for a fact -WHY they rejected the Textus Receptus, that underlies the King James ?
17. Do you know who their professors were in their colleges & universities were, and how those college professors influenced them ?
18. Do you know who their professors were in their colleges & universities were, and what the Biases of those college professors was - in terms of being in favor of (a) God, (b) Christianity, and (c) the Bible ?
19. Do you know - for a fact - whether or not those translators even believed that the real and true Word of God (the Bible) could be found within the manuscripts either (a) that they used or (b) that the Historic Christian Church has used for 1900 years ?
20. Do you know - for a fact - whether or not those translators - of the modern versions you rely on for your spiritual growth and communion with God - believe in the fall of mankind (Genesis 1-3) and the Biblical Doctrine of Original Sin ?
21. Do you know - for a fact - whether or not those translators - of the modern versions you rely on for your spiritual growth and communion with God - believe in the same historic Christian teachings that you believe in ? Do they even claim to believe in the historic Christian teachings ?
22. Do you know - for a fact - what the requirements of the American Bible Society are, for a person to participate as a translator - in a Modern Version ?
23. Do you know - for a fact - what the requirements of the German Bible Society are, for a person to participate as a translator - in a Modern Version ? Do you know that the United Bible Societies, the UBS Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament - used in 95% of seminaries today - is essentially the product of the German Bible Society, and that they retain the Copyright on the Nestle-Aland Greek Text ? Do you realize that the Beliefs, Teachings, Ideology and Methods of Translation of the German Bible Society will therefore be evident on every page of the Greek Text that Modern Versions use (since modern versions rely almost exclusively on the Nestle-Aland bad Greek Text ) ?
24. Have you ever stopped to ask yourself, if the German Bible Society was around in the Time of Hitler, (which it was), and if the German Bible Society operated during the time of Hitler’s Third Reich in Germany (which it did), and if it needed a Nazi "certificate of good standing" (which it did), then what would this mean...for your modern Bible Version ? God Bless

 

[sparkyluv]

I own a KJV, a NKJV, and an NIV. I use NIV for study along with the NKJV, not because they're the most accurate but because they're easier to read. As far as studying the Word, KJV does nothing for my own personal understanding, but I do read it on occasion. If I don't understand a verse in the NIV then I go to the other two and then I go to a concordance.

The only version of the Bible I do not care for is "The Message". I can't stand it.

 

[FFH]

I use the most inspired version on the planet.

JST (Joseph Smith Translation) Inspired version

 

[Bishka]

[Questions that Modern Version Advocates are afraid you will ask ]​

The only question you should be afraid of is why you plagarized this site:

http://www.exorthodoxforchrist.com/doing_your_own_research.htm

Without giving proper credit.

 

[FFH]

There are two questions that we will need to consider. (1) Which are the correct manuscripts?
(2) Which is the proper translation of those (the correct) manuscripts?

The King James is mostly intact, but is missing about 10-15 pages of Genesis, with smaller portions missing, or changed, throughout the text. There are also many grammatical errors.

Joseph Smith received revelation from the Lord concerning these errors and missing portions.

The missing portions of Genesis are found in the Pearl of Great Price of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Here is the audio version of the Pearl of Great Price: Pearl of Great Price Audio

 

[FFH]

Here are some selections from the Joseph Smith Translation or Inspired Version of the Bible.

Compare King james and Joseph Smith Translation or Inspired Version side by side.

Seletions from the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible

BIBLE

B- Basic
I- Instructions
B- Before
L- Leaving
E- Earth

 

[McBell]

Until such time as KJV decides to actually respond intead of plagerizing....
I shall use this post to add this thread to me subscription list.

 

[Comprehend]

Which "scripture" are you talking about?

You just made it clear to me that every Bible will "disagree with one another".... seems kinda stupid to look then to a Bible for the answer to your questions.

I agree. that is circular logic.

 

[James the Persian]

The only question you should be afraid of is why you plagarized this site:

http://www.exorthodoxforchrist.com/doing_your_own_research.htm

Without giving proper credit.

No. He also needs to explain why he'd stoop so low as to use something from a group so deceitful as to pretend to have once been Orthodox when in actual fact they were nothing of the kind and, rather, are a Protestant group set up in an attempt to sheep steal from us. One of the huge giveaways (and there are many) is the insistance on the KJV, particularly as argued in that piece, as any Orthodox Christian worth his salt would be aware that the KJV OT is based on the post-Christian Masoretic Text rather than the pre-Christian Septuagint, which was always the Church's OT. We, then, would never argue that the KJV is accurate (it's not bad, though the NKJV is better). In fact most of us English speaking Orthodox are waiting for the Orthodox Study Bible to be completed about Easter time. That will be far more accurate than the KJV, will overcome every objection of the earlier post (as it will be based on the Byzantine majority text) and it's OT will be that of the LXX rather than the MT.

James

 

[may]

[Questions that Modern Version Advocates are afraid you will ask ]​

1. Have you done research on the KJV/Other Versions controversies yourself ?
By that we do not mean that you are taking someone else’s word for it, or that you like what your best friend said, but rather that you did actual reading, actual looking into historical records, actual research - yourself ?
We have found that most people who express concern about the KJV-Preference 9

yes , and i feel that the NWT is the best because it retains the name of the most high just as a good translation should ,

That people may know that you, whose name is Jehovah,​

You alone are the Most High over all the earth. psalm 83;18
יהוה

(Je·ho´vah) [the causative form, the imperfect state, of the Heb. verb ha·wah´ (become); meaning "He Causes to Become"].​

The personal name of God. (Isa 42:8; 54:5) Though Scripturally designated by such descriptive titles as "God," "Sovereign Lord," "Creator," "Father," "the Almighty," and "the Most High," his personality and attributes—who and what he is—are fully summed up and expressed only in this personal name.—Ps 83:18.

 

[SoyLeche]

Haven't there been multiple "King James Versions" that differ slightly from each other? Seems like I read that somewhere...

This hasn't been answered yet....

Anyone????

 

[James the Persian]

This hasn't been answered yet....

Anyone????

Well, I'm no expert on the history of the KJV, but the original one contained the 'Apocrypha' (according to the RC canon, not all of them) and at some point later these were dropped. Interestingly, even amongst the extremist 'KJV was inspired by God' crowd, I rarely come across someone who advocates KJV only views who will give the deuterocanonical texts the time of day. Strange attitude to hold when it's essentially, 'This text is inspired by God and infallible... except for the parts we disagree with'. Strange, but hardly an unusual position for those who espouse sola scriptura. Anyway, that means that there are at least two differing versions of the KJV, quite possibly more.

James

 

[McBell]

This hasn't been answered yet....

Anyone????

The very first year the “Authorized” Version (KJV) was printed, it went through several quick changes due to errors. A careful review KJV Bibles with the date 1611 on them revealed they were not all identical. One 1611 printing contained “and he went into the city” in Ruth 3:15 while another 1611 had “and she went into the city.” Another 1611 printing had “Judas” for “Jesus” in Mat. 26:36. It came to be known as the “Judas Bible.” Many other such errors occurred throughout the printing of the King James Version over the centuries. Below is a list of some of the more humorous blunders contained in KJV printings.
(1) 1611, Great "He" Bible, (Ruth 3:15, "and he went into the city.")
(2) 1611, Great "She" Bible, (Ruth 3:15), "and she went into the city.")
(3) 1611, "Judas" Bible, (Mat. 26:36, "Judas" for "Jesus.")
(4) 1631, "Wicked" Bible, (Ex. 20:14, omits the "not.")
(5) 1638, "Forgotten Sins" Bible, (Luke 7:47).
(6) 1641, "More Sea" Bible, (Rev. 21:1, "There was more sea.")
(7) 1653, "Unrighteous" or Field's Bible, (1 Cor. 6:9, "unrighteous shall inherit.")
(8) 1702, "Printers" Bible, (Ps. 119:161, "Printers have persecuted.")
(9) 1711, "Profit" Bible, (Isa. 57:12, "shall profit" instead of "shall not profit.")
(10) 1716, "Sin On" Bible, (John 5:14, "sin on more" for "sin no more.")
(11) 1717, "Vinegar" Bible, (Luke 20, "parable of the Vinegar" instead of "Vineyard."
(12) 1746, "Sting" Bible, (Mark 7:37, "sting of his tongue" not "string."
(13) 1792, "Denial" Bible, (Lk. 22:34, Philip denies Jesus instead of Peter.
(14) 1801, "Murderers" Bible, (Jude 1:16, "murderers" used instead of "murmurers."
(15) 1802, "Discharge" Bible, (1 Tim. 5:21, "I discharge" instead of "I charge."
(16) 1804, "Lions" Bible, (1 Kings 7:19, "out of thy lions" instead of "loins."
(17) 1805, "To-Remain" Bible, (Gal. 4:29, "to remain" inserted instead of a comma.
(18) 1806, "Standing Fishes" Bible, (Ezek. 47:10, "the fishes shall stand" instead of "fishers."
(19) 1807, "Ears to ear" Bible, (Mat. 13:43, "ears to ear" instead of "to hear."
(20) 1810, "Wife-Hater" Bible, (Lk. 14:26, "hate not . . . and his own wife" instead of "life.")
(21) 1823, "Camels" Bible, (Gen. 24:61, "Rebekah arose, and her camels" instead of "damsels."
(22) 1829, "Large Family" Bible, (Isa. 66:9, "not cease to bring to birth" instead of "not cause to bring forth."
(23) undated, "Fool" Bible, Psalm 14:1, "The fool hath said in his heart there is a God" instead of "there is no God."

Many people do not realize how many times the King James Bible has been changed in some form or another. There have been changes made in the KJV in the following years: 1613, 1616, 1617, 1618, 1629, 1630, 1633, 1634, 1637, 1638, 1640, 1642, 1653, 1659, 1675, 1679, 1833, 1896, 1904.

Source