What version of the bible do you find most accurate?

[Oberon]

The same way that the Canon ws established, The Holy Spirit gives guidance.

Wait a minute. Are you saying the holy spirit gives you guidence to determine which translation is a more accurate rendering of the greek original?

 

[Muffled]

Wait a minute. Are you saying the holy spirit gives you guidence to determine which translation is a more accurate rendering of the greek original?

Yes. He is also a great help in understanding the Bible as well.

 

[Humanistheart]

Yes. He is also a great help in understanding the Bible as well.

If the holy spirit guided the bible then why do different denominations include different books in their bibles? Are you saying some denominations aren't inspired by god?

 

[LuisDantas]

There is no good reason to assume that the Bible must be one and the same for everyone, particularly if guidance by the Holy Spirit is considered an important factor.

Actually, there is no particular reason to assume that the Bible is needed at all... but then again I am no Christian. But of the Bibles I have seen, the NIV is probably one of the best, because it is particularly easy to understand.

 

[Humanistheart]

Actually, there is no particular reason to assume that the Bible is needed at all... .

How do you mean?

I have a friend who had a type of outer body experience at her church when she was reading the bible. She's convinced it was a religious experience. She doesn't put much stock in the bible per say, but is perhaps forever convinced of her god now. Is that anything like what you meant?

 

[Oberon]

I was (am?) invovled in a debate on a different thread on a particular passage of the NT (see here if interested). It is just one more example on the countless nuances and subtleties which are lost in translation. If you aren't willing to learn greek, I would recommend getting a biblical lexicon (a good one) as well as e-Sword (free download) with the KJV+ (which will give you the greek words every english word was translated from) as well as several translations. This is probably the next best thing to understanding the greek NT.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

I was (am?) invovled in a debate on a different thread on a particular passage of the NT (see here if interested). It is just one more example on the countless nuances and subtleties which are lost in translation. If you aren't willing to learn greek, I would recommend getting a biblical lexicon (a good one) as well as e-Sword (free download) with the KJV+ (which will give you the greek words every english word was translated from) as well as several translations. This is probably the next best thing to understanding the greek NT.

I am glad you posted this.
It seems that there are many (and for good reasons) bash KJV. I understand the reasons, but it is a very accurate book, and with a little effort and assistance through concordances, it is about as good as it gets for now.

I personally think the life of King James is used as an excuse for some to stay away from it.

 

[led by the spirit]

I would say it is more important that the message got through to the reader than word usage.Jude wrote many scrolls and at some time we interpreted these scrolls to our present day understanding.
Im personally fond of the NKJV .Now it is important that we let the Bible interpret itself to us afterall God inspired man to write it,plus it was good enough for Jesus back then.

 

[Tonal]

The NIV is perhaps the smoothest translation into current idiomatic English, but its glosses from the Greek, and the choices that it makes with respect to which text to follow, is biased at best and intellectually contemptible at worst. It doesn't even read like a translation -- because of the smoothness of the reading, it seems like it was written in English to begin with.

The English Standard Version is by far the best translation.

:yes:
I agree. The ESV is the main version that I use. It's based on similar ancient texts to the RSV.

The NET (New English Translation) Bible has loads of excellent notes and references which make it a very useful resource for Bible students, but it does have an evangelical bias.

 

[Tonal]

If the holy spirit guided the bible then why do different denominations include different books in their bibles? Are you saying some denominations aren't inspired by god?

Not all Christian denominations believe that they are inspired by God. Instead, they let the Bible be the first and last and only reliable source of God's will.

 

[Humanistheart]

Not all Christian denominations believe that they are inspired by God. Instead, they let the Bible be the first and last and only reliable source of God's will.

Then why is a document claimed to be god's will filled with so many errors? Is your god imperfect?

 

[Oberon]

Then why is a document claimed to be god's will filled with so many errors? Is your god imperfect?

I think the standard answer to this question is that the christian god is not imperfect, but humans are, and humans are responsible for the NT.

It all depends on which christian denomination we are talking about as well. Some, particularly the Catholic church (which relies just as much on apostolic succesion as it does on the bible, i.e. the Church as an institution is at least as authoritative as the bible), would say that the bible is "inspired" by God, but written by man. In this sense, it is prone to human errors.

Other groups maintain that the bible is the inerrantly inspired by God, and the contradictions are either explained away (often through great feats of imagination) or other explanations are sought (e.g. the original versions of the texts did not contain errors, but the copies we possess do). One interesting argument I have encountered from the KJV-only crowd is that all the copies of original texts contain errors, so the KJV itself was divinely inspired. Of course, this still leaves us with the contradictions in the KJV.

Interestinly enough, that this is one of the big differences between Islam and Christianity. The vast majority of muslims, per Islamic tradition, believe that the Koran was dictated to Muhammed by God via an angel, and therefore is not just "inspired" by God but is the absolute word of God, and therefore cannot contain errors.

 

[Humanistheart]

I think the standard answer to this question is that the christian god is not imperfect, but humans are, and humans are responsible for the NT.

.

I'm familiar with some of the standard rationalizations for this, although the example you gave regaurding the KJV was news to me. It's quite interesting, although not all that surprising really.

My specific question was for muffled in this case, inspired by his claim that he knows which bible to use "The same way that the Canon ws established, The Holy Spirit gives guidance." Although I'm sure if he answers his responce will echo one of the justifications you've listed.

 

[te_lanus]

Mine is 1894 Scrivener Textus Receptus (e-sword)

Me don't really like the KJV. :faint:More to do with personnel beliefs, than anything major. After studying The Bible in college, me found that there is some verses in the KJV that the RCC translated to suit their needs EG: 1 Jhn 5:7

But it is likely this verse is not genuine. It is wanting in every MS. of this epistle written before the invention of printing, one excepted, the Codex Montfortii, in Trinity College, Dublin: the others which omit this verse amount to one hundred and twelve. - Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible

Only found here: codex 61, written by one Roy or Froy at Oxford in c. 1520 - The Textual Problem in 1 John 5:7-8 | Bible.org

 

[Muffled]

Then why is a document claimed to be god's will filled with so many errors? Is your god imperfect?

God is not imperfect but He isn't formulating a book to take His place. God doesn't sweat the small stuff although there are plenty of people inside and outside of the church who do. Actually it is those very flaws that give the text credence. A text carefully crafted by men wouldn't have the errors.

 

[Muffled]

Not all Christian denominations believe that they are inspired by God. Instead, they let the Bible be the first and last and only reliable source of God's will.

How can you put faith in a book as God's will if it isn't inspired?

For my part The Bible gives me a basis for testing the spirit to see if it is of God and the Spirit gives me a basis for knowing whether text is all that God intended it to be.

As far as denominations go, there are times when people do things out of their mind without inspiration and times when a false spirit leads them.

 

[Muffled]

:yes:
I agree. The ESV is the main version that I use. It's based on similar ancient texts to the RSV.

The NET (New English Translation) Bible has loads of excellent notes and references which make it a very useful resource for Bible students, but it does have an evangelical bias.

That makes sense for a New Zealander whose English is probably closer to British but even with that there have to be differences which means that a worlwide standard English found in the NIV might suit language needs better.

 

[McBell]

How can you put faith in a book as God's will if it isn't inspired?

What does it being inspired have to do with anything?
Especially when you are dealing with faith?

 

[blackout]

What version(s) of the bible do you find most accurate?

The ones that are not literalized.
ie... the metaphorical, allegorical, symbolic, esoteric 'versions'.
(which is far more dependent on the reader than the book itself)

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

What does it being inspired have to do with anything? Especially when you are dealing with faith?

I would think everything.