PDA

View Full Version : Bible Translations Poll and Discussion



Hannah
Feb 19th 2012, 08:17 PM
Which English language translation do you use most frequently, and why?



Do you have any other translations that you use occassionally or do you stick with one version only?



Do you read the Bible in some other language - which one?



Vote for your favourite Bible Translation...!


For some reason I find this incredibly fascinating having grown up in a country where all bibles look the same and really only one translation existed. When I lived in London I was blown away when I went in to a Christian bookshop and realised that buying a bible in English was not a matter of just grabbing the standard issue from the shelf and paying. Being a real geek I have read about this online and came across the slightly bewildering "KJV only" debate which seems to be a hot potato.

As for my own purchase, I finally bought an American bible called the New Living Translation - that had tons of interesting comments. This bible reads like a book of fiction, practically. It is no effort whatsoever reading it and I feel it really brings the bible to life for me.

-SEEKING-
Feb 19th 2012, 08:24 PM
The NIV and the NASB. Had to select other as you did not have that one available.

Hannah
Feb 19th 2012, 08:26 PM
Oh no, it is not possible to change after the poll has been submitted.
But I am sure the NIV is on there. And there was something called "American Standard". Isn't that the one you mean?

Maybe the moderator if you see this, can help fix up the poll a bit to include the more common American Bibles? I was not up to date on that..

-SEEKING-
Feb 19th 2012, 08:41 PM
Oh no, it is not possible to change after the poll has been submitted.
But I am sure the NIV is on there. And there was something called "American Standard". Isn't that the one you mean?

Maybe the moderator if you see this, can help fix up the poll a bit to include the more common American Bibles? I was not up to date on that..

Yes. The NIV is there. But not the NASB (New American Standard Bible). No worries.

Hannah
Feb 19th 2012, 08:44 PM
Aha - I had it down as American Standard Bible.
Is there a difference between this and the "New" version? I am guessing that this is a popular version in the US then, since it was the first one that was mentioned. My guess was that the NIV was the most popular Bible.
We shall see!

As for Audio bibles I had a look around and discovered that there is a plethora of options in American English, but really only one British English offering, something called the "Alexander Scourby" reading.

AndrewBaptistFL
Feb 19th 2012, 08:45 PM
I really enjoy reading the Bible. :) I'm so happy that God wrote it!

-SEEKING-
Feb 19th 2012, 08:48 PM
Aha - I had it down as American Standard Bible.
Is there a difference between this and the "New" version. I am guessing that this is a popular version then, since it was the first one that was mentioned. My guess was that the NIV was the most popular Bible.
We shall see!

The main differences, that I'm aware of, between the ASV and the NASB is that in ASV it's the thee's and thou's and NASB has a more contemporary you instead.

ChristianCoffee
Feb 19th 2012, 08:48 PM
I use 3 of them:

KJV: Love the poetic flow of the language.

NIV: for the most part, it gets "right to the point"

and a new one my wife got me for Christmas, called the Archaeological Study Bible. It is an NIV Bible, but it has historical notes of the times, as well as maps. Also came with a CD.

jeffweeder
Feb 19th 2012, 08:53 PM
NASB most of the time. I like to ref others, except the message.

Indueseason
Feb 19th 2012, 08:56 PM
I like the NIV or the NASB, but I also use the ASV and the AMPLIFIED

blessings to you :hug:

Hannah
Feb 19th 2012, 09:01 PM
I like the NIV or the NASB, but I also use the ASV and the AMPLIFIED

blessings to you :hug:
Thanks! But you are British, what are you doing with the "NASB" ? :eek:Everything is misspelled, lol!! ;-)
You couldn't help me fix up this poll, could you? It seems I added the wrong options?
The NASB and the Amplified should definitely be there...

Watchman
Feb 19th 2012, 09:19 PM
I use the NKJV the most, since I wore my last NIV out; however, I use nearly a dozen different translations when I'm studying a particular point. I'm particularly curious about the NLT.

W :)

Indueseason
Feb 19th 2012, 09:31 PM
Thanks! But you are British, what are you doing with the "NASB" ? :eek:Everything is misspelled, lol!! ;-)
You couldn't help me fix up this poll, could you? It seems I added the wrong options?
The NASB and the Amplified should definitely be there...

I spend too many years living in America, now I quite often misspell things :lol:

This is not my forum so I can't help you, but the moderators for this forum are around, and will help you when they can.

blessings to you :hug:

glad4mercy
Feb 19th 2012, 09:49 PM
I spend too many years living in America, now I quite often misspell things :lol:

This is not my forum so I can't help you, but the moderators for this forum are around, and will help you when they can.

blessings to you :hug:

NKJV by far the most. I also like the ASB, ( I used to have an 1898 edition that I really liked, but I lost it in a move), NLT, and the old KJV.

Watchman
Feb 19th 2012, 09:51 PM
I have an Amplified Version and read it often...when I'm not in a hurry! :spin:

Reynolds357
Feb 20th 2012, 01:35 AM
The main differences, that I'm aware of, between the ASV and the NASB is that in ASV it's the thee's and thou's and NASB has a more contemporary you instead.If I remember correctly, the major difference is in manuscripts used for their translation.

TrustGzus
Feb 20th 2012, 12:42 PM
If I remember correctly, the major difference is in manuscripts used for their translation.

There might be minor differences due to manuscripts. The NASB being more current has had more manuscripts available. The ASV was done in 1901. The NASB being most recently updated in 1995 uses the Nestle-Aland 26th edition for its text.

In both cases Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are used. But the NASB is much more influence by papyri that has been discovered.

I think the biggest differences is just in updating the English between the near century that passed between the two.

TrustGzus
Feb 20th 2012, 12:43 PM
I didn't vote. Don't know if I will. I read a different version every year. This year I'm reading the Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB). Sometimes tongue-in-cheek called the Hard Core Southern Baptist.

Brother Mark
Feb 20th 2012, 03:16 PM
I use the NKJV the most, since I wore my last NIV out; however, I use nearly a dozen different translations when I'm studying a particular point. I'm particularly curious about the NLT.

W :)

You do what I do. I compare many translations when I am studying.

For reading purposes, either the NIV or NASB. For study, I start with the NASB.

Brother Mark
Feb 20th 2012, 03:39 PM
I forgot to mention earlier... One thing to keep in mind is how the different bibles are translated. Some are thought for thought translations while others are word for word.

For instance, if you are translating a bible for a tribe in the jungles of Brazil and you translate word for word you might say "whiter than snow". However, if you do it thought for thought, you might say "whiter than rice" or "whiter than 'this native flower'". That gets the thought across. However, when you get ready to do a word study on snow, you cannot do that with the thought for thought translation.

Also, a concern of mine, and I don't know if it's valid or not, is that a thought for thought translation seems to have room for the translator to put in his on biases more easily than a word for word translation will do.

Fenris
Feb 20th 2012, 04:13 PM
I read it in Hebrew.


I am a fan of the KJV, I think it captures the poetic flow of Hebrew the best. It does have many translation errors though.

Watchman
Feb 20th 2012, 04:48 PM
I read it in Hebrew.
Show off! :lol: :hug:

W :)

Fenris
Feb 20th 2012, 05:28 PM
Show off!
I actually have a Christian friend at work who learned Hebrew and Greek, so that he could read both bibles in their original languages.

I consider that pretty awesome.

Watchman
Feb 20th 2012, 05:33 PM
I actually have a Christian friend at work who learned Hebrew and Greek, so that he could read both bibles in their original languages.

I consider that pretty awesome.I do, too...was just jabbin' atcha a bit! :hug:

Hannah
Feb 20th 2012, 07:04 PM
For me, getting this New Living Translation bible was just magical. I will always be loyal to this version because it was so amazing to read it.
I'd previously only read the 1917 Swedish Bible which is hard work - old language, some grammar and spelling has since been changed.
I had glanced in a friends KJV believing that it was the only English language bible, because I simply was not very well informed. To me it was just as impossible as Shakespeare.

Opening up the NLT it was written in a language that was no harder to understand than an average fiction book in English, or a magazine article.
Suddenly it was possible to read the bible without making an effort to figure out what it was actually saying. It became enjoyable, not a chore.
I loved it. It meant a lot for me getting saved, I think.

keck553
Feb 20th 2012, 07:16 PM
KJV for serious study, NIV for casual reading.

TrustGzus
Feb 21st 2012, 12:33 AM
For me, getting this New Living Translation bible was just magical. I will always be loyal to this version because it was so amazing to read it.
I'd previously only read the 1917 Swedish Bible which is hard work - old language, some grammar and spelling has since been changed.
I had glanced in a friends KJV believing that it was the only English language bible, because I simply was not very well informed. To me it was just as impossible as Shakespeare.

Opening up the NLT it was written in a language that was no harder to understand than an average fiction book in English, or a magazine article.
Suddenly it was possible to read the bible without making an effort to figure out what it was actually saying. It became enjoyable, not a chore.
I loved it. It meant a lot for me getting saved, I think.

Hannah, that is awesome. Keep reading the NLT if it blesses you. Keep handy in your abode a version or two like the NASB or ESV or even the NIV so you can compare with something formal than the NLT. The NIV is more formal than the NLT, the ESV is more formal than the ESV and the NASB is even more formal yet. No translation is perfect. So for those of us that aren't proficient in the original languages, having a few good translations is a good way to safeguard. It's not a perfect method, but a decent method. If you like the reading in a particular version (such as the NLT) but no other translation reads like it, there's a good chance that it might not be the most accurate at that point.

Boo
Feb 21st 2012, 10:51 AM
Now that I have a couple years of actual study of bibles and God's Word behind me, I have developed my own study methods which give me confidence in the results. I do most of my study on computer and online. There are a few great free software programs that allow me to compare translations and they even come with Strong's references and Nave's Topical Bible. I also have a couple commercial packages that provide information that is difficult to come up with otherwise.

The really great part is in how I can get through the eventual sticking points by going to two manuscripts (TR and Codex Sinaticus) to compare the source document with the English translations and iron out those issues. So many points of confusion can be cleared up by the source manuscripts and the Hebrew and Greek biblical dictionaries.

I will never go with just one translation of the bible - too many built-in errors made by man. When I carry an actual bible, it is an ESV.

Luciano Vinci
Feb 21st 2012, 01:58 PM
I use the KJV the most, only because I am forced to because most of the word studies use KJV. I like reading the Message for daily devotions, not for any serious study. And I carry the NKJV around for church services and such. But I really have no preference. I like them all, and dislike them at various times.

Jollyrogers
Feb 27th 2012, 02:41 PM
For me, getting this New Living Translation bible was just magical. I will always be loyal to this version because it was so amazing to read it.
I'd previously only read the 1917 Swedish Bible which is hard work - old language, some grammar and spelling has since been changed.
I had glanced in a friends KJV believing that it was the only English language bible, because I simply was not very well informed. To me it was just as impossible as Shakespeare.

Opening up the NLT it was written in a language that was no harder to understand than an average fiction book in English, or a magazine article.
Suddenly it was possible to read the bible without making an effort to figure out what it was actually saying. It became enjoyable, not a chore.
I loved it. It meant a lot for me getting saved, I think.

I tend to use the ESV more in the last year. Before that it was the NASB. Have a NIV & NKJV and of course E-sword

You seem to be fascinated with the different versions, have you tried the free computer program E-Sword? It is free to install and has many free translations in English along with some other languages. As long as that version is out of copyright, it should be free. It would be a way to browse and compare them.

http://www.e-sword.net/

Brother Mark
Feb 27th 2012, 02:52 PM
I tend to use the ESV more in the last year. Before that it was the NASB. Have a NIV & NKJV and of course E-sword

You seem to be fascinated with the different versions, have you tried the free computer program E-Sword? It is free to install and has many free translations in English along with some other languages. As long as that version is out of copyright, it should be free. It would be a way to browse and compare them.

http://www.e-sword.net/

How long does a copyright last? Is the NASB still copyrighted? Do you know what versions may be available?

Youssarian
Feb 28th 2012, 03:58 AM
I use the NIV. Its contemporary wording is much easier for me to understand. It's also the version my first church used. My main Bible is an NIV study Bible. There is, however, a website out there that I frequent (www.biblos.com for those interested) that offers the Bible in tons of different translations, as well as showing the verses in their original language, with definitions for those words. Very nerdy, very fascinating.

ChristianCoffee
Feb 28th 2012, 10:00 AM
I use the NIV. Its contemporary wording is much easier for me to understand. It's also the version my first church used. My main Bible is an NIV study Bible. There is, however, a website out there that I frequent (www.biblos.com for those interested) that offers the Bible in tons of different translations, as well as showing the verses in their original language, with definitions for those words. Very nerdy, very fascinating.

I use that site: it is very good. And "nerdy".:hug:

Adstars
Feb 29th 2012, 01:22 PM
I read the NKJV and became a Christian.

I go between the KJV and the NKJV now. I mostly quote the NKJV when posting.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

NewInHim
Feb 29th 2012, 01:41 PM
In my personal study and reading I use the ESV. For my daughter's memorization we use the NKJV. Our church uses the NASB. And I love the KJV. My goal is to learn to read the bible in the original Hebrew. Then maybe someday on to Greek!

Jollyrogers
Mar 2nd 2012, 06:07 PM
I believe copyright in the U.S. is 50 years after the authors death. The ASV is out of copyright however the NASV is still in copyright. You can get it with E-Sword but I think it cost 20 dollars.

Hannah
Mar 3rd 2012, 08:31 AM
I tend to use the ESV more in the last year. Before that it was the NASB. Have a NIV & NKJV and of course E-sword

You seem to be fascinated with the different versions, have you tried the free computer program E-Sword? It is free to install and has many free translations in English along with some other languages. As long as that version is out of copyright, it should be free. It would be a way to browse and compare them.

http://www.e-sword.net/

Thanks for the tip - yes, I am fascinated with it. I'll check out that software.

Youssarian
Mar 5th 2012, 04:43 AM
I don't quite get how people can claim copyright on the Bible. Yes, they did put in effort to make a translation and whatnot but I mean, it's the words of God, not man. Trying to say "this is my handiwork" and profit off of it doesn't register with me... you didn't create anything, you just put it in a different language.

Michael1325
Mar 5th 2012, 08:20 AM
What's with the lack of the ESV?

My wife and I both adore the NLT and I personally am enjoying the ESV Study Bible.

MercyChild
Mar 5th 2012, 09:32 AM
I chose other, due to reading the 1955 Afrikaans Bible, which is my fisrt language.

Hannah
Mar 5th 2012, 06:39 PM
I chose other, due to reading the 1955 Afrikaans Bible, which is my fisrt language.
Do you sometimes read the Bible in English or do you always prefer to read it in Afrikaans? I never quite understand what the situation is like for Afrikaans speakers, but those that I have met can speak very good English and obviously you are more or less bilingual too.

I am also bilingual and I realised that there is so much more variation available in terms of Bibles in English - it's actually worth it to read the Bible in English because you can choose just the flavour you prefer! In my native tongue there are two versions available, one (the latest) is dodgy scriptually, the other is ancient and has old fashioned grammar.
There is a certain beauty in the King James version even if it's not an easy read...


I don't quite get how people can claim copyright on the Bible. Yes, they did put in effort to make a translation and whatnot but I mean, it's the words of God, not man. Trying to say "this is my handiwork" and profit off of it doesn't register with me... you didn't create anything, you just put it in a different language.

I have some electronic copies that I got on torrent sites. What would Jesus say.....?
I hate copyright and I agree that copyrighting a bible version seems wrong.
I suppose if a certain publisher puts a lot of money into organising comments, illustration or some extra content, then perhaps it's not quite right to "share" it online... but on the other hand - who would deny a fellow human being the Word of God...?

TrustGzus
Mar 5th 2012, 11:50 PM
Here's a link to the reasoning behind copyrighting Bible versions (https://support.biblegateway.com/entries/187525-why-are-modern-bible-translations-copyrighted).

Lisa Dawn
Mar 8th 2012, 03:04 AM
Which English language translation do you use most frequently, and why?



Do you have any other translations that you use occassionally or do you stick with one version only?



Do you read the Bible in some other language - which one?



Vote for your favourite Bible Translation...!


For some reason I find this incredibly fascinating having grown up in a country where all bibles look the same and really only one translation existed. When I lived in London I was blown away when I went in to a Christian bookshop and realised that buying a bible in English was not a matter of just grabbing the standard issue from the shelf and paying. Being a real geek I have read about this online and came across the slightly bewildering "KJV only" debate which seems to be a hot potato.

As for my own purchase, I finally bought an American bible called the New Living Translation - that had tons of interesting comments. This bible reads like a book of fiction, practically. It is no effort whatsoever reading it and I feel it really brings the bible to life for me.

NKJV.............

Shetangles
Mar 8th 2012, 03:23 AM
Our pastor uses the NKJV, so we have one of those, along with regular KJV's too.

I use an Everyday Bible (from Guideposts, my mil gave it to me) for church, and the Good News Bible for home study.
(but it's a soft cover, and almost falling apart, but I love it) We also have an NIV study Bible that Dh got as a Baptism gift that I'm enjoying getting into.

Wall
Mar 10th 2012, 06:44 PM
Ole King James only. The reason for this is that the newer translations seem to all follow a certain denominational slant in their translations. That being said you will the word easter in the ole king James. Everywhere else that you find the same greek word it is translated passover. The conspiracy started a while ago.

ClayInHisHands
Mar 11th 2012, 11:41 AM
I actually have a Christian friend at work who learned Hebrew and Greek, so that he could read both bibles in their original languages.

I consider that pretty awesome.



I don't understand how people say English is one of the hardest languages to learn. I see some difficulty maybe in silent letters and some others that we who are fluent might consider second nature.

I haven't really tried, but it looks difficult. Is there something online you'd recommend that I could try that is helpful in learning to read Hebrew and/or Greek?

Boo
Mar 11th 2012, 12:13 PM
Ole King James only. The reason for this is that the newer translations seem to all follow a certain denominational slant in their translations. That being said you will the word easter in the ole king James. Everywhere else that you find the same greek word it is translated passover. The conspiracy started a while ago.

May I suggest, my brother, that you realize what you just said? You already have a denominational slant of your own. What you are now disliking in other translations is that the "slant" that you see is different from the one that you have while reading the "ol King James." The reason that the other translations don't have the word "easter" is because that word is not found in the source documents. It was put there under the orders of King James - not the Holy Spirit.

little watchman
Mar 12th 2012, 11:45 PM
More than a year after discovering it, I'm still reading the VW-edition. For those who are not aware, this "version" was recently compiled from the KJV, NKJV, LITV, and perhaps others (I don't know) that translate the Textus Receptus. If I did not have this edition, I would probably use the NKJV, though I also enjoy the ESV for its readability and NET for the translators' notes and its attempt at precision. Of course the ESV and NET rely heavily upon manuscripts such as Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus (instead of the Textus Receptus) which seem to be biased toward gnosticism.

I wish I could say with confidence that the Textus Receptus is superior to the Alexandrian and Origen texts because it is closer to apostles' texts at Antioch, but I'm not entirely certain and it has taken too much effort for me to follow the debate. Textus Receptus defenders say that other biblical scholars falsify its history, which means I need to become a student of history and textual criticism to decide for myself. Choosing a Bible shouldn't be this difficult. Even if the Textus Receptus is superior, it has some recent additions, for example in favor of the trinity in 1 John 5:7-8 and Matthew 28:19, which is why I seek out textual criticism and translator's notes.

It's amazing to me how God can speak through many different translations with their different biases, which shows me that it is the Spirit of God who teaches us. Someone might use the supposedly correct KJV and self-righteously miss the kingdom of God, whereas a sinner might find Jesus and repent from reading Eugene Peterson's "The Message." If we didn't have the Holy Spirit, I'd be a lot more snobbish about getting correct information from a correct Bible.

Even so, I would like a "correct" Bible if I can get one. I've been in many protestant churches and hear many doctrines that rely upon particular translations. When I read my VW-edition or NKJV, I find so many statements that challenge what others say, and usually my version is a more accurate rendering of the Greek than theirs. There is a joy of discovery and understanding I find with these versions that I don't find with modern paraphrases.

I was reading my VW-edition in a bible study a few weeks ago and came to John 18:6-8. Everyone else's versions read, "I am He." but mine reads, "I AM." "He" is a supplied word; it doesn't actually occur in the Greek, but is implied by the context. So maybe "he" is an appropriate translation, but for years I missed the possibility that Jesus here is saying He is God, and doesn't that add a new dimension to understanding why the priests and officers were thrown to the ground? I like this version!

Also, the VW-edition is available for free for e-sword.

Yahweh1
Mar 22nd 2012, 08:07 PM
use mainly the NASB/ESV/NKJV....

Also getting back into reading the Greek bible, trying to bring back almost lost art of the Biblical Greek!

Eyelog
Mar 22nd 2012, 08:50 PM
[QUOTE=ClayInHisHands;2819740] Originally Posted by keck553
The opposite of love is fear.QUOTE]

Don 't forget, that, in relationshionsips and as with all truisms, opposites attract.

Anyhow, I thought the opposite of love was indifference, until I remembered that hate is the real opposite of love. You can actually graph these things, and say love is at coordinates (10 to infinity,10 to infinity), indifference at (0,0), fear (-1 to infinity, -1 to infinity) and hate at (-10 to infinity, -10 to infinity). From that point of view, fear is just one subspecies of hate, though we are to fear God, which is a term beyond reverance, but somehow a sub-species of love. What thinkest thou?

Galatians 2:21
Mar 22nd 2012, 10:22 PM
I use the KJV 95%+ of the time. I also have an NIV, ESV, and the Hebrew/Greek interlinears by Jay Green. All are dandies if'n you ask me.

Wall
Mar 23rd 2012, 10:39 PM
May I suggest, my brother, that you realize what you just said? You already have a denominational slant of your own.

So you say i have a denominational slant. So tell me towards what denomination do i slant

Boo
Mar 24th 2012, 09:34 AM
So you say i have a denominational slant. So tell me towards what denomination do i slant

The one that sees that everyone else has one:


Ole King James only. The reason for this is that the newer translations seem to all follow a certain denominational slant in their translations. That being said you will the word easter in the ole king James. Everywhere else that you find the same greek word it is translated passover. The conspiracy started a while ago.

If you didn't have one, you would not "recognize one" in others.

Wall
Apr 7th 2012, 12:39 AM
So tell me which denomintion i slant towards

Ceegen
Apr 7th 2012, 04:22 AM
Which English language translation do you use most frequently, and why?


Plain 'ole King James Version. Mostly because I'm familiar with it, and I bought a concordance for it. It's just easier for me to understand, as oddly as that sounds. Plus, for some reason, when I read the KJV I feel like the words are more beautiful for some reason, I can't describe it. I like the style of writing, that old English prose, I guess. It also, for some reason, sounds more believable when I read it, like I'm really there seeing it happen.

I tried using an NIV version once, when I forgot my KJV at home one time. I never made that mistake ever again, it was as if the words had less of an impact on me because of the streamlined English they used. Maybe I'm just biased though, but I didn't notice these things until after I tried reading the NIV. (It wasn't the only time I've tried reading the NIV).



Do you have any other translations that you use occassionally or do you stick with one version only?


Just the one.



Do you read the Bible in some other language - which one?


None - N/A.



Vote for your favourite Bible Translation...!


For some reason I find this incredibly fascinating having grown up in a country where all bibles look the same and really only one translation existed. When I lived in London I was blown away when I went in to a Christian bookshop and realised that buying a bible in English was not a matter of just grabbing the standard issue from the shelf and paying. Being a real geek I have read about this online and came across the slightly bewildering "KJV only" debate which seems to be a hot potato.

As for my own purchase, I finally bought an American bible called the New Living Translation - that had tons of interesting comments. This bible reads like a book of fiction, practically. It is no effort whatsoever reading it and I feel it really brings the bible to life for me.

That's what I mean. Other versions seem to "read like fiction" where as the KJV reads more like fact, like a documentary. It can be hard to read at first, but if you read it enough you'll see patterns and start to pick things out. It's also easier to pick out the parts of the bible that were badly mistranslated, which allows me to flip to my concordance and check it out. (Most of the time I could tell by the totally contrary words that were used, or a comparison of something that wasn't previously talked about).

TrustGzus
Apr 7th 2012, 03:16 PM
Which English language translation do you use most frequently, and why?

NIV is my main default. I clicked ESV also because I often carry one. Why? I think most new versions are accurate to what was the original text. I like the NIV because it's a balanced translation between formal translation (which is the closet thing to word-for-word) and free translation. Formal translating sometimes mistranslates meaning. Free translating sometimes gets further away from the actual original language wording than necessary. I think the NIV is the best middle ground between the two and speaks most like the American English people I might talk to speak.


Do you have any other translations that you use occassionally or do you stick with one version only?

Every year I read a different translation. This year I am reading through the Holman Christian Standard Bible. But I carry and NIV or ESV with me when I'm not home.


Do you read the Bible in some other language - which one?

Not really. I occasionally read chapters in the NT in Greek, but frankly, the comprehension isn't thorough enough. In other words I can audibly read it, I can't comprehend every word.

Valencia
Jun 13th 2013, 09:31 PM
I read different versions.

A question, aren't the ESV and the ASV the same Bible? Maybe that's the NASV?

Boo
Jun 14th 2013, 09:15 AM
No, the ESV and the ASV are not the same. I had never heard of the NASV, but there is an NASB.

The NASB is reported to be the most literal translation of a source manuscript. The ESV is right behind it.

Valencia
Jun 14th 2013, 01:25 PM
No, the ESV and the ASV are not the same. I had never heard of the NASV, but there is an NASB.

The NASB is reported to be the most literal translation of a source manuscript. The ESV is right behind it.

Yes, it is the NASB which I believe is the same as the ESV, I can't find any differences between the two.

Thanks, Boo!

RabbiKnife
Jun 14th 2013, 01:38 PM
Yes, it is the NASB which I believe is the same as the ESV, I can't find any differences between the two.

Thanks, Boo!

NASB and ESV are not the same, but both are excellent.

Matt25 Brother
Jun 14th 2013, 03:20 PM
NASB and ESV are not the same, but both are excellent.Right. Both are word-for-word translations, as nearly as that can be accomplished given that the tenses and the voices of both the Hebrew and the Greek cannot easily be rendered in English. The NIV, on the other hand, is thought-for-thought for the most part. That makes for a dynamic, though less literal, rendering whereas the NASB and ESV tend to run to a scholarly reading, the NASB more in the formal realm and the ESV more in the idiomatic realm. Sometimes it seems to me, though I'm sure it's not deliberate, the ESV takes a bend in its rendering that fails to completely convey the original meaning, but it isn't often enough to concern me. For that matter, the NIV is excellent even though less literal. All are solid English translations of the word of God.

RabbiKnife
Jun 14th 2013, 03:25 PM
I concur.......................

Boo
Jun 14th 2013, 09:08 PM
Me three.........

Stephie
Jun 16th 2013, 02:13 PM
Used to read mainly in the NIV but after a few years started to find that it felt inadequate - not in terms of accuracy, I just felt the langauge lacked strength in the way it felt.

After trying several versions I developed a preference for the ESV. But my eyes are quite bad now and the only large print ESV bibles I can afford are heavy bulky hardbacks that are a pain in the backside to use. So because my local christian book shop had a large print NASB that perfectly matches my needs, I've now switched to the NASB. Despite the spelling issues (I'm british haha) I really like it.

Gadgeteer
Jun 17th 2013, 06:17 AM
New American Standard. It seems closest to the Greek, and has fewer screw-ups than the others.

For instance --- the "me" (pronounced "may") construct in 1Cor12 should be translated, "All are NOT apostles, are they? All are NOT prophets, are they? All do NOT speak in tongues, do they?"

It's a negative question expecting only an answer of "no"; so why then does NASB get James2:14 wrong? It should be, "That faith (which tries to exist without causing good works) can NOT save you, CAN it!"

When I use "Blueletterbible.org", I often hafta look things up in King James (translated from Textus Receptus), it's the only one that gives verb tense links.

NASB translates from Nestle-Wescott; you can see differences like in Luke21:36:
NASB "pray that you may KATISCHUO-HAVE-STRENGTH to escape these things"
KJV "pray that you may KATAXIOO-BE-COUNTED-WORTHY to escape these things"

(both translations use the contraction "ekpheugo-flee-away-from" for "escape")

And, 2Pet2:18 NASB "they will entice those who have OLIGOS-APOPHEUGO barely escaped"
KJV has "they will entice those who have ONTOS-APOPHEUGO truly escaped"

Really don't like NIV. Had an electronic computer Bible that was NIV, imagine searching for "Jehovah" and the screen saying "Jehovah is not in the Bible" :eek:

I hacked the main ROM in it, and changed:
"New International Version Bible"
...into...
"New Int Version is SORRY!"

Every time you powered up the thing the screen proudly declared "NIV IS SORRY!"


I seem to remember there being a more egregious error in NASB, but can't recall exactly where it was; when you get old your memory goes first, and then --- uhhh, I forget!

;-)

HappyEndings
Jun 17th 2013, 04:36 PM
I use the KJV with the New Century Verison, to be sometimes that KJ is to hard to understand and with the Century I get it

Robert_1965
Sep 6th 2014, 01:20 PM
I use the KJV only because it is the only English bible that is the inerrant word of God. The newer translations are full of errors and contradictions.

shepherdsword
Sep 6th 2014, 01:27 PM
I use the KJV only because it is the only English bible that is the inerrant word of God. The newer translations are full of errors and contradictions.

I love the KJV but it is hardly inerrant. It isn't faithful to the Greek or Latin texts it's based on in many places. My position is that the original manuscripts were inerrant and the minor deviations we currently have do not dispute any orthodox Christian doctrine. It is almost cult like to claim the KJV is the inerrant word of God because that statement simply isn't true and leads other astray. I don't mean that as an insult just as a general FYI.

Peace

Robert_1965
Sep 6th 2014, 02:52 PM
I love the KJV but it is hardly inerrant. It isn't faithful to the Greek or Latin texts it's based on in many places. My position is that the original manuscripts were inerrant and the minor deviations we currently have do not dispute any orthodox Christian doctrine. It is almost cult like to claim the KJV is the inerrant word of God because that statement simply isn't true and leads other astray. I don't mean that as an insult just as a general FYI.

Peace
Oh no my friend the KJV is inerrant, you have bought into a lie. I agree the originals were inerrant also, but the originals don't exist today... but God did tell us that that his word is preserved forever. The KJV is not a translation it's a rewrite, it gives greater revelation than anything previous to it including the originals. Many "original" words were translated differently in different places and words were added to the KJV to provide better understanding of scripture. The bible says the words of the Lord are pure words, tried in a furnace of earth 7 times... the KJV is in my opinion the 7th and final word of God, the mysteries of God are revealed in the KJV. Don't let anyone fool you, no one has ever proven an error in the KJV.

jayne
Sep 6th 2014, 09:19 PM
Oh no my friend the KJV is inerrant, you have bought into a lie. I agree the originals were inerrant also, but the originals don't exist today... but God did tell us that that his word is preserved forever. The KJV is not a translation it's a rewrite, it gives greater revelation than anything previous to it including the originals. Many "original" words were translated differently in different places and words were added to the KJV to provide better understanding of scripture. The bible says the words of the Lord are pure words, tried in a furnace of earth 7 times... the KJV is in my opinion the 7th and final word of God, the mysteries of God are revealed in the KJV. Don't let anyone fool you, no one has ever proven an error in the KJV.

Hello, brother.

Just a couple of things. I’ll make two posts for clarity’s sake.

The King James Bible, which I like very much but don't use exclusively, is NOT the 7th and final word of God. There is only ONE word of God - not a first, second, seventh, or final. (see my second post) The word of God was God-breathed once in the originals, but translated a myriad of times and still is miraculously being translated today.

The King James Bible is not even the 7th translation. It isn't even the 7th English translation.

You said that the King James Bible “gives a greater revelation than the originals” because it is a “rewrite, not a translation.” In effect, what you are saying is that the King James writers – mortal, sinful men – are superior authors than God, Himself. Be careful that you do not give God’s glory away to mortal men who translated the man-made Textus Receptus (itself translated in part from the man-made Latin Vulgate) into man-made Jacobean English. That’s scary ground you are treading there. The glory of God goes to GOD for God-breathing the originals. The originals are the only superior text.

All others, including the King James are man-made but CONTAIN the word of God.

The translators of the King James said this –


“Variety of translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures…must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded.”

By the time that the King James Bible came along, the translators put a preface in it that is no longer published in modern copies. I find that sad. They explained WHY the need for yet another English translation when there were some good ones already out there. They stated that it was an opportunity to revise and correct existing Bibles. Their exact words were “nothing is begun and perfected at the same time.” They included over 8000 marginal notes because at time the King James translator’s themselves weren’t sure of how BEST to translate very single word.

Decades were spent editing the King James and making corrections to it after it was published.

It’s a very good Bible translation. I like it. It’s not my preference and hasn’t been for a long time.

The translators were convicted that they had the best translation for the time, but in no way asserted that theirs was an inspired translation (stating only the originals were) and no way asserted that their version of English would last forever - as they stated that the Word should be in the language of the common (vulgar) man. They did not condemn other translations, but claimed that only the original texts were inspired.

Here's are some of their vertabim words.

“Truly, good Christian reader, we never thought from the beginning that we should needs to make a new translation, or yet to make a bad one, a good one. But to make good ones better or out of many good ones, one principal good one.” “Variety of translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures…must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded.” "But we desire that the Scripture may speak like itself, as in the language, that it may be understood even of the very vulgar.”

Finally, they believed that other translations were also the Word of God – just like theirs.


"...the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set foorth by men of our profession (for wee have seene none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God."

jayne
Sep 6th 2014, 09:52 PM
Oh no my friend the KJV is inerrant, you have bought into a lie. I agree the originals were inerrant also, but the originals don't exist today... but God did tell us that that his word is preserved forever. The KJV is not a translation it's a rewrite, it gives greater revelation than anything previous to it including the originals. Many "original" words were translated differently in different places and words were added to the KJV to provide better understanding of scripture. The bible says the words of the Lord are pure words, tried in a furnace of earth 7 times... the KJV is in my opinion the 7th and final word of God, the mysteries of God are revealed in the KJV. Don't let anyone fool you, no one has ever proven an error in the KJV.

I can’t find anywhere in the Bible where God said His words are “pure words, tried in a furnace of the earth 7 times.” The only thing that is remotely close to what you are saying is Psalm 12 where it says that God’s words are pure LIKE silver that is smelted 7 times. But this isn’t talking about the Bible. Here is Psalm 12 in context.

"Help, Lord; for the godly man ceaseth; for the faithful fail from among the children of men.
They speak vanity every one with his neighbour: with flattering lips and with a double heart do they speak.

The Lord shall cut off all flattering lips, and the tongue that speaketh proud things: Who have said,
With our tongue will we prevail; our lips are our own: who is lord over us?

For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, now will I arise, saith the Lord; I will set him
in safety from him that puffeth at him. The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. The wicked walk on every side, when the vilest men are exalted."

This whole chapter is about the evil men do with their words, the oppression of the poor and sighing of the needy because of evil tongues. These evil people have even claimed that all power is in THEIR tongues and declared that no one is lord over them!!! God compares His words with the words of the wicked - His being as pure and as we can understand the meaning of the word pure (silver smelted 7 times).

What was to be "preserved from that evil generation forever?" What was in need of being preserved against "that evil generation"?

The King James Bible? How could the King James Bible be in need of God's preservation against those evil people in David's day if it wouldn't even be written for another 2500 or so years? The evil people of that generation weren't attacking the King James Bible. Was it God's word that needed preservation from that evil generation of people? No - this Psalm is all about comparing how God's word is totally pure and how He will "cut off" the flattering lips. God and His words need no protection or preservation from evil man. Who or what are the victims in this passage? It's the oppressed and the poor who are godly. It's the remnant of God who are attacked by the evil generation "forever" - meaning that there will always be evil people speaking evil about God and His people, but they will not prevail because God will always preserve his spiritually oppressed remnant from their evil generation.

God's word had NO NEED of purificiation!! Not one time nor seven times.

God's word is 100% pure - LIKE that smelted silver used as an analogy - from the moment He speaks it.

If Psalm 12 is talking about the King James Bible being God’s pure words and superior to the originals - then Psalm 12, from the time God supernaturally inspired David to write it until 1611 - was inferior and impure.

This passage is NOT claiming God's words to being spoken less that 100% pure and getting purer and purer as evil mankind translated it and becoming finally 100% pure in 1611.

Do you see how that makes no sense?

Dmcal57
Sep 6th 2014, 09:55 PM
Oh no my friend the KJV is inerrant, you have bought into a lie. I agree the originals were inerrant also, but the originals don't exist today... but God did tell us that that his word is preserved forever. The KJV is not a translation it's a rewrite, it gives greater revelation than anything previous to it including the originals. Many "original" words were translated differently in different places and words were added to the KJV to provide better understanding of scripture. The bible says the words of the Lord are pure words, tried in a furnace of earth 7 times... the KJV is in my opinion the 7th and final word of God, the mysteries of God are revealed in the KJV. Don't let anyone fool you, no one has ever proven an error in the KJV.

Hi Robert and shardsword,

We have much better translations today than the KJV, those translations being based on the original manuscripts, the ancient copies, early copies and the Dead Sea Scrolls, which weren't around when the KJV was translated. Personnally, I'm not concerned so much about the translations and that because I have the ability to see a parallel view of all the major translations of any given verse side by side, including the KJV. I also pay more attention to the actual Greek words that are used, looking up the definitions and how the word was used in other places within Scripture. What is also important in understanding the meaning of words is to pay attention to the context.


Don't let anyone fool you, no one has ever proven an error in the KJV

Really? I can name a number of them. For example: In the book of Matthew, regarding Jesus' encounter with the demons collectively called "Legion", Matthew records Two men who were possessed, while Mark and Lukes account has one man possessed. Another example would be the account of the blind man who was healed, where Matt.20:22 records two blind men and both Mark and Luke record one blind man whose name was Bartimaeus. Try comparing the account of the morning of Jesus' resurrection with each of the four gospels. Then there is the account where in one gospel it has the faithful centurian himself going to Jesus to ask him to heal his servant and the other accounts have him sending representatives to ask him. To be fair, this is not only true for the KJV, but for all of the translations and that because that is how they were originally written. However, those differences do not deminish the validiy of the events that took place, if anything, they confirm them.

Robert_1965
Sep 6th 2014, 11:40 PM
Hello, brother.

Just a couple of things. I’ll make two posts for clarity’s sake.

The King James Bible, which I like very much but don't use exclusively, is NOT the 7th and final word of God. There is only ONE word of God - not a first, second, seventh, or final. (see my second post) The word of God was God-breathed once in the originals, but translated a myriad of times and still is miraculously being translated today.

The King James Bible is not even the 7th translation. It isn't even the 7th English translation.

You said that the King James Bible “gives a greater revelation than the originals” because it is a “rewrite, not a translation.” In effect, what you are saying is that the King James writers – mortal, sinful men – are superior authors than God, Himself. Be careful that you do not give God’s glory away to mortal men who translated the man-made Textus Receptus (itself translated in part from the man-made Latin Vulgate) into man-made Jacobean English. That’s scary ground you are treading there. The glory of God goes to GOD for God-breathing the originals. The originals are the only superior text.

All others, including the King James are man-made but CONTAIN the word of God.

The translators of the King James said this –


“Variety of translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures…must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded.”

By the time that the King James Bible came along, the translators put a preface in it that is no longer published in modern copies. I find that sad. They explained WHY the need for yet another English translation when there were some good ones already out there. They stated that it was an opportunity to revise and correct existing Bibles. Their exact words were “nothing is begun and perfected at the same time.” They included over 8000 marginal notes because at time the King James translator’s themselves weren’t sure of how BEST to translate very single word.

Decades were spent editing the King James and making corrections to it after it was published.

It’s a very good Bible translation. I like it. It’s not my preference and hasn’t been for a long time.

The translators were convicted that they had the best translation for the time, but in no way asserted that theirs was an inspired translation (stating only the originals were) and no way asserted that their version of English would last forever - as they stated that the Word should be in the language of the common (vulgar) man. They did not condemn other translations, but claimed that only the original texts were inspired.

Here's are some of their vertabim words.

“Truly, good Christian reader, we never thought from the beginning that we should needs to make a new translation, or yet to make a bad one, a good one. But to make good ones better or out of many good ones, one principal good one.” “Variety of translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures…must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded.” "But we desire that the Scripture may speak like itself, as in the language, that it may be understood even of the very vulgar.”

Finally, they believed that other translations were also the Word of God – just like theirs.


"...the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set foorth by men of our profession (for wee have seene none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God."

Hi Jayne. Let me try to clarify a bit.The entire word of God has always existed, it's eternal. The entire word of God was given to mankind in the Old Testament scripture. The entire New Testament is also contained in the Old Testament, but it's concealed in the shadows of the stories of the Old Testament. The New Testament came along and gave greater revelation to what was already in the Old Testament, in other words, the things that were hidden in shadows of the Old Testament were openly revealed in the New Testament. Step forward to the King James bible, and honestly I don't know all the details of the translation methods used because it really doesn't matter to me because I see the divine Inspiration in the KJV. Anyway, the KJV translators used many resources to write the KJV, not just the Textus Receptus. I know they used the Bishop's bible, Septuagint and several other resources, again those things really don't matter. But even when they used the Textus Receptus, they didn't translate Greek and Hebrew words the same way each time. A good example would be pascha, I think almost every time they translated it as Passover accept in the book of Acts where it is translated as Easter, which by the way is the only correct translation for that passage. Wow... every bible that translates that a Passover is wrong.

Point is, the KJV is not a translation of the Textus Recuptus, there are quite a few differences between the two. As I said earlier, the KJV gives greater insight into the word of God, I wont go into the details here because more than likely you wont be able to understand it. One thing to keep in mind, the KJV translators didn't translate the bible, God did. God is the only one capable of handling his word, he wrote the originals through men and he translated it through men.

Could you please post all the changes that have been made to the original KJV over the years?

jayne
Sep 7th 2014, 01:45 AM
Step forward to the King James bible, and honestly I don't know all the details of the translation methods used because it really doesn't matter to me because I see the divine Inspiration in the KJV.

Why don't you see divine inspiration in the Bibles before the King James? What's wrong with the Tyndale, the Geneva, or the Coverdale? By your own admission you know little about the word of God from the original inspiration through 1611.

By-the-by, do you read the AV1611 or the King James 1769. Just curious.


Anyway, the KJV translators used many resources to write the KJV, not just the Textus Receptus. I know they used the Bishop's bible, Septuagint and several other resources, again those things really don't matter.

Yes, I am aware of all the resources they used. I state the TR via the LV in case you weren't aware that they didn't have originals. Some KJVO's teach that the King James translators had the originals.


As I said earlier, the KJV gives greater insight into the word of God, I wont go into the details here because more than likely you wont be able to understand it. One thing to keep in mind, the KJV translators didn't translate the bible, God did. God is the only one capable of handling his word, he wrote the originals through men and he translated it through men.


God divinely inspired the originals. Man translated the rest.

If God divinely inspired the translations, then which divine inspiration of 1 Corinthians 12:28 is correct?

AV1611 - "And God hath set some in the Church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healing, helpes in government, diversities of tongues." KJV 1769 - "And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues."

If God divinely inspired both the AV1611 and KJV revision of 1769, then which time did God make the error?

Did he take away a spiritual gift in the AV1611 or did he add a spiritual gift in the 1760 version of the King James?

Brother - as I said, I like the King James. But it's a translation that is man made. God has used it for great purposes and still will. And he has and will use other translations as well.


Could you please post all the changes that have been made to the original KJV over the years?

Let's deal with the one above before I list more.

Robert_1965
Sep 7th 2014, 02:39 AM
Don't let anyone fool you, no one has ever proven an error in the KJV

Really? I can name a number of them. For example: In the book of Matthew, regarding Jesus' encounter with the demons collectively called "Legion", Matthew records Two men who were possessed, while Mark and Lukes account has one man possessed.

There are no contradictions nor errors in any of the scriptures you posted. Let's take them one at a time.
We know for a fact from Matthew's account that Jesus encountered two men possessed with devils.
We know for a fact from Mark's gospel that one of the possessed men wanted to be delivered because when he saw Jesus, he ran to him and worshiped him.
Neither Matthew, Mark or Luke gave an account of what happened to the second man possessed with devils. I would assume he remained possessed and unsaved.
So where do you see an error?
[/QUOTE]

Dmcal57
Sep 7th 2014, 02:59 AM
There are no contradictions nor errors in any of the scriptures you posted. Let's take them one at a time.
We know for a fact from Matthew's account that Jesus encountered two men possessed with devils.
We know for a fact from Mark's gospel that one of the possessed men wanted to be delivered because when he saw Jesus, he ran to him and worshiped him.
Neither Matthew, Mark or Luke gave an account of what happened to the second man possessed with devils. I would assume he remained possessed and unsaved.
So where do you see an error?


Now you are reading into the Scripture what is not there. Let's look at the Scriptures themselves:

Matt.8:28 - When he arrived at the other side in the region of the Gadarenes, two demon-possessed men coming from the tombs met him. They were so violent that no one could pass that way."

Mark 5:2 - When Jesus got out of the boat, a man with an impure spirit came from the tombs to meet him. This man lived in the tombs, and no one could bind him anymore, not even with a chain."

Luke 8:27 - When Jesus stepped ashore, he was met by a demon-possessed man from the town. For a long time this man had not worn clothes or lived in a house, but had lived in the tombs"

Regarding the Scriptures above, there is absolutely no mention of two men in either Mark or Lukes account. Matthew recorded two demon possessed men and Mark and Luke recorded one demon possessed man.
Neither Mark nor Luke allude to there being a second possessed man.

Robert_1965
Sep 7th 2014, 03:21 AM
Why don't you see divine inspiration in the Bibles before the King James? What's wrong with the Tyndale, the Geneva, or the Coverdale? By your own admission you know little about the word of God from the original inspiration through 1611.

By-the-by, do you read the AV1611 or the King James 1769. Just curious.



Yes, I am aware of all the resources they used. I state the TR via the LV in case you weren't aware that they didn't have originals. Some KJVO's teach that the King James translators had the originals.



God divinely inspired the originals. Man translated the rest.

If God divinely inspired the translations, then which divine inspiration of 1 Corinthians 12:28 is correct?

AV1611 - "And God hath set some in the Church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healing, helpes in government, diversities of tongues." KJV 1769 - "And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues."

If God divinely inspired both the AV1611 and KJV revision of 1769, then which time did God make the error?

Did he take away a spiritual gift in the AV1611 or did he add a spiritual gift in the 1760 version of the King James?

Brother - as I said, I like the King James. But it's a translation that is man made. God has used it for great purposes and still will. And he has and will use other translations as well.



Let's deal with the one above before I list more.
Jayne I'm not a KJV only cultist... I acknowledge that they do exist and I am not a part of the likes of Ruckman etc, so please don't think I'm one of them. :) I just believe that God is perfect and everything to do with God is perfect especially something as important as His word.

This is the fist time I've ever seen this difference and honestly I don't know the answer to your question, I see your point... I will have to ask the Lord about it, I don't agree that it's an error or a contradiction, I just don't understand it, and I certainly can't defend it... but I've been in this situation many times in the past and then low and behold the Lord will show me the answer. Post some more differences, I'm interested to see what others you have.

AV1611 - "And God hath set some in the Church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healing, helpes in government, diversities of tongues."
KJV 1769 - "And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues."

Robert_1965
Sep 7th 2014, 03:26 AM
Now you are reading into the Scripture what is not there. Let's look at the Scriptures themselves:

Matt.8:28 - When he arrived at the other side in the region of the Gadarenes, two demon-possessed men coming from the tombs met him. They were so violent that no one could pass that way."

Mark 5:2 - When Jesus got out of the boat, a man with an impure spirit came from the tombs to meet him. This man lived in the tombs, and no one could bind him anymore, not even with a chain."

Luke 8:27 - When Jesus stepped ashore, he was met by a demon-possessed man from the town. For a long time this man had not worn clothes or lived in a house, but had lived in the tombs"

Regarding the Scriptures above, there is absolutely no mention of two men in either Mark or Lukes account. Matthew recorded two demon possessed men and Mark and Luke recorded one demon possessed man.
Neither Mark nor Luke allude to there being a second possessed man.

Matthew didn't say the man was naked.... was he or was he not? How do you know?

Robert_1965
Sep 7th 2014, 04:02 AM
I can’t find anywhere in the Bible where God said His words are “pure words, tried in a furnace of the earth 7 times.” The only thing that is remotely close to what you are saying is Psalm 12 where it says that God’s words are pure LIKE silver that is smelted 7 times. But this isn’t talking about the Bible. Here is Psalm 12 in context.

"Help, Lord; for the godly man ceaseth; for the faithful fail from among the children of men.
They speak vanity every one with his neighbour: with flattering lips and with a double heart do they speak.

The Lord shall cut off all flattering lips, and the tongue that speaketh proud things: Who have said,
With our tongue will we prevail; our lips are our own: who is lord over us?

For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, now will I arise, saith the Lord; I will set him
in safety from him that puffeth at him. The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. The wicked walk on every side, when the vilest men are exalted."


This whole chapter is about the evil men do with their words, the oppression of the poor and sighing of the needy because of evil tongues. These evil people have even claimed that all power is in THEIR tongues and declared that no one is lord over them!!!
God compares His words with the words of the wicked - His being as pure and as we can understand the meaning of the word pure (silver smelted 7 times).


What was to be "preserved from that evil generation forever?" What was in need of being preserved against "that evil generation"?


The King James Bible? How could the King James Bible be in need of God's preservation against those evil people in David's day if it wouldn't even be written for another 2500 or so years? The evil people of that generation weren't attacking the King James Bible.
Was it God's word that needed preservation from that evil generation of people? No - this Psalm is all about comparing how God's word is totally pure and how He will "cut off" the flattering lips. God and His words need no protection or preservation from evil man.
Who or what are the victims in this passage?

It's the oppressed and the poor who are godly.
It's the remnant of God who are attacked by the evil generation "forever" - meaning that there will always be evil people speaking evil about God and His people, but they will not prevail because God will always preserve his spiritually oppressed remnant from their evil generation.



God's word had NO NEED of purificiation!! Not one time nor seven times.

God's word is 100% pure - LIKE that smelted silver used as an analogy - from the moment He speaks it.

If Psalm 12 is talking about the King James Bible being God’s pure words and superior to the originals - then Psalm 12, from the time God supernaturally inspired David to write it until 1611 - was inferior and impure.

This passage is NOT claiming God's words to being spoken less that 100% pure and getting purer and purer as evil mankind translated it and becoming finally 100% pure in 1611.

Do you see how that makes no sense?
Jayne I'm not saying Psalms 12:6 is saying that God's word needs purification. This is so cool if you can see it... hang with me because I would love for you to be able to see this.
The words of the Lord are pure words. When silver has been tried 7 times in a furnace of earth, it will be pure like the words of the Lord. Does that make sense?

jayne
Sep 7th 2014, 04:16 AM
Robert, I only pointed out the 1 Corinthians passage to show why I believe all translations are man-made and contain flaws. It not only the King James, but all translations.

I do believe that God desires his word to be in the language of the people and it's miraculous that over the centuries with man's hand translating the originals from Hebrew to Greek to Latin back to Greek to English, German, Native American, Spanish and more that God's word remains supernaturally potent and does not return to him void as he promised.

I have a friend and his wife who just returned to the states after a 30-year stint in Japan translating part of the Bible into the Japanese language. It was fascinating to hear of his adventures in molding God's word into the Japanese language.

I don't want to put doubts in people's mind about God's word with the pointing out of translation flaws.

I only wanted to point out that flawed mankind cannot perfectly translate the perfect word of God.

Another example - and again, I don't want to make this into a "let's find all the flaws" discussion. I would rather exalt the Bible. But here is another.

Ezekiel 24:7 in the AV1611 says this: "For her blood is in the middest of her: she set it vpon the toppe of a rocke, she powred it vpon the ground to couer it with dust..." The KJV 1769 says: "For her blood is in the midst of her; she set it upon the top of a rock; she poured it not upon the ground, to cover it with dust..."

Did she or did she not pour anything?

Obviously the 1611 made a printer's error which made the 1611 flawed and the flaw wasn't corrected for a few years.

There's more, but the translation process is the same for all Bibles. Corrections are made over and over again.

Robert_1965
Sep 7th 2014, 04:34 AM
Robert, I only pointed out the 1 Corinthians passage to show why I believe all translations are man-made and contain flaws. It not only the King James, but all translations.

I do believe that God desires his word to be in the language of the people and it's miraculous that over the centuries with man's hand translating the originals from Hebrew to Greek to Latin back to Greek to English, German, Native American, Spanish and more that God's word remains supernaturally potent and does not return to him void as he promised.

I have a friend and his wife who just returned to the states after a 30-year stint in Japan translating part of the Bible into the Japanese language. It was fascinating to hear of his adventures in molding God's word into the Japanese language.

I don't want to put doubts in people's mind about God's word with the pointing out of translation flaws.

I only wanted to point out that flawed mankind cannot perfectly translate the perfect word of God.

Another example - and again, I don't want to make this into a "let's find all the flaws" discussion. I would rather exalt the Bible. But here is another.

Ezekiel 24:7 in the AV1611 says this: "For her blood is in the middest of her: she set it vpon the toppe of a rocke, she powred it vpon the ground to couer it with dust..." The KJV 1769 says: "For her blood is in the midst of her; she set it upon the top of a rock; she poured it not upon the ground, to cover it with dust..."

Did she or did she not pour anything?

Obviously the 1611 made a printer's error which made the 1611 flawed and the flaw wasn't corrected for a few years.

There's more, but the translation process is the same for all Bibles. Corrections are made over and over again.
I can tell by talking to you that you're a genuine Christian! :)
I agree that typos are made, but that has nothing to do with inerrancy in scripture and I think you would agree with that.

I'm curious Jayne, and this is by no means a jab at you, but do you think God is incapable of preserving his pure inerrant word, or do you think God just doesn't want his inerrant word available to people today? Or is there an option that I'm missing?

jayne
Sep 7th 2014, 12:03 PM
I believe that the message of God's word is pure and inerrant and we have that message in a variety of forms. The different translations across the centuries contain errors and flaws that need correcting and changed for better understanding. To me, the "W"ord and the "w"ords are not the same thing.

God, in divine Being, announced the "W"ord. Mankind, in his flawed state, uses "w"ords to carry that message. I don't know if that makes any sense, but it does to me.

That's why the King James translators said, "Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is no so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded."

No one can perfectly and without error translate the Words of God. That's why bibles have marginal notes by the translators where 100% understanding of word meaning is not clear. The AV1611 has 8,000 marginal notes. And many words in the AV1611 - even the 1769 have changed in meaning.

The word "conversation" is better translated as "conduct" today. That completely alters the meaning of Philippians 1:27. Paul was asking them to "behave" in a manner that was worthy of the gospel, not "talk" that way.

God has preserved his "W"ord (although that's not what Psalm 12 is talking about) through the centuries in many languages and "w"ords.

Robert_1965
Sep 7th 2014, 12:48 PM
I believe that the message of God's word is pure and inerrant and we have that message in a variety of forms. The different translations across the centuries contain errors and flaws that need correcting and changed for better understanding. To me, the "W"ord and the "w"ords are not the same thing.

God, in divine Being, announced the "W"ord. Mankind, in his flawed state, uses "w"ords to carry that message. I don't know if that makes any sense, but it does to me.

That's why the King James translators said, "Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is no so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded."

No one can perfectly and without error translate the Words of God. That's why bibles have marginal notes by the translators where 100% understanding of word meaning is not clear. The AV1611 has 8,000 marginal notes. And many words in the AV1611 - even the 1769 have changed in meaning.

The word "conversation" is better translated as "conduct" today. That completely alters the meaning of Philippians 1:27. Paul was asking them to "behave" in a manner that was worthy of the gospel, not "talk" that way.

God has preserved his "W"ord (although that's not what Psalm 12 is talking about) through the centuries in many languages and "w"ords.
Where do we find God's message when translations disagree? For example in the book of Acts, how do we know if the KJV is right when it uses the word Easter or if the other translations are right that translated it as Passover? It can't be both, so how are we to discern which is right?

Dmcal57
Sep 7th 2014, 03:24 PM
Where do we find God's message when translations disagree? For example in the book of Acts, how do we know if the KJV is right when it uses the word Easter or if the other translations are right that translated it as Passover? It can't be both, so how are we to discern which is right?

Morning Robert,

The answer is to go look at the actual Greek word being used. In this case the word used is "pascha", which is defined as "the Passover, the Passover supper or lamb".

1. the paschal sacrifice (which was accustomed to be offered for the people's deliverance of old from Egypt), or

2. the paschal lamb, i. e. the lamb which the Israelites were accustomed to slay and eat on the fourteenth day of the month Nisan (the first month of their year) in memory of that day on which their fathers, preparing to depart from Egypt, were bidden by God to slay and eat a lamb, and to sprinkle their door-posts with its blood, that the destroying angel, seeing the blood, might pass over their dwellings (Exodus 12; Numbers 9; Deuteronomy 16): θύειν τό πάσχα (הַפֶסַח שָׁחַט), Mark 14:12; Luke 22:7, (Exodus 12:21); Christ crucified is likened to the slain paschal lamb, 1 Corinthians 5:7; φαγεῖν τό πάσχα, Matthew 26:17; Mark 14:12, 14; Luke 22:11, 15; John 18:28; הָפֶסַח אָכַל, 2 Chronicles 30:17.

Hope this helps

Yours in Christ

Robert_1965
Sep 7th 2014, 04:58 PM
Morning Robert,

The answer is to go look at the actual Greek word being used. In this case the word used is "pascha", which is defined as "the Passover, the Passover supper or lamb".

1. the paschal sacrifice (which was accustomed to be offered for the people's deliverance of old from Egypt), or

2. the paschal lamb, i. e. the lamb which the Israelites were accustomed to slay and eat on the fourteenth day of the month Nisan (the first month of their year) in memory of that day on which their fathers, preparing to depart from Egypt, were bidden by God to slay and eat a lamb, and to sprinkle their door-posts with its blood, that the destroying angel, seeing the blood, might pass over their dwellings (Exodus 12; Numbers 9; Deuteronomy 16): θύειν τό πάσχα (הַפֶסַח שָׁחַט), Mark 14:12; Luke 22:7, (Exodus 12:21); Christ crucified is likened to the slain paschal lamb, 1 Corinthians 5:7; φαγεῖν τό πάσχα, Matthew 26:17; Mark 14:12, 14; Luke 22:11, 15; John 18:28; הָפֶסַח אָכַל, 2 Chronicles 30:17.

Hope this helps

Yours in Christ
Thanks Dmcal57 but either the copies of the originals are wrong or we don't really understand how paschal was used back in the day. Acts 2 can not possibly be translated as Passover because they took Peter in the days of unleavened bread... Passover had already come and gone.

Act 12:3 And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.)
Act 12:4 And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.

Dmcal57
Sep 7th 2014, 06:11 PM
Thanks Dmcal57 but either the copies of the originals are wrong or we don't really understand how paschal was used back in the day. Acts 2 can not possibly be translated as Passover because they took Peter in the days of unleavened bread... Passover had already come and gone.

Act 12:3 And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.)
Act 12:4 And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.

Well, I gave you the actual Greek word that is used in the Scrpture, so if you can't believe that, then it's your guess. Personally, I'll go with the word that God provided.

Robert_1965
Sep 7th 2014, 06:38 PM
Well, I gave you the actual Greek word that is used in the Scrpture, so if you can't believe that, then it's your guess. Personally, I'll go with the word that God provided.

So you think the copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of long defunct original manuscripts are inerrant???? That's insane man, especially after I have clearly shown that Passover can not possibly be the correct word.
Remember, Passover is the 14th day of the month, then on the evening of the 15th day the feast of unleavened bread starts. They took Peter in the days of unleavened bread. Are you suggesting that they were intending kill Peter on Passover of the next year?

jayne
Sep 7th 2014, 06:56 PM
I'm not sure that I see a problem with Acts 12 using the word Passover.

Yes, Passover was technically one day beginnign of the Festival days, but other passages in the Bible use the phrases Feast of Unleavened Bread and Passover interchangeably.


Luke 22:1 - "Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover."
Mark 14:1 - "Now the Passover and the Festival of Unleavened Bread were only two days away..."
John 13:1 - "It was just before the Passover Festival.


It's like calling New Year's Eve part of the "Christmas" break for school children.

Christmas was over on 12/25, but until they go back to school, they are on their Christmas break. So the King James uses the word "Easter". It's not a deal breaker for me. I still read the King James some of the time and appreciate it highly.

Herod was calling the whole festival "Passover". He wasn't the only one in the Bible who did, apparently.

Dmcal57
Sep 7th 2014, 07:22 PM
So you think the copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of long defunct original manuscripts are inerrant???? That's insane man, especially after I have clearly shown that Passover can not possibly be the correct word. Remember, Passover is the 14th day of the month, then on the evening of the 15th day the feast of unleavened bread starts. They took Peter in the days of unleavened bread. Are you suggesting that they were intending kill Peter on Passover of the next year?

Robert, why do you think the information is coming from "copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of long defunct original manuscripts? We have the original texts. Here's someting else to consider, 19 out of 22 of the major tranlsations uses the word "Passover" translated from the transliterated word "pascha". The other 2 translations come from the KJV. If you want to believe that the correct translation is Easter, then you are free to do so. I'm sure that if I go look in the Codex Sinaiticus, I will find the word Pascha transliterated from the Greek, which comes from the Aramaic "pesach" defined as "From pacach; a pretermission, i.e. Exemption; used only techically of the Jewish Passover (the festival or the victim) -- passover (offering)."

The same word "pascha" is used in the following verse, as I am sure it is everywhere else the word "Passover" is translated.

"As you know, the Passover is two days away--and the Son of Man will be handed over to be crucified." (pascha)

"Josiah celebrated the Passover to the LORD in Jerusalem, and the Passover lamb was slaughtered on the fourteenth day of the first month." From the Hebrew "pasach"

"On the first day of the Festival of Unleavened Bread, when it was customary to sacrifice the Passover lamb, Jesus' disciples asked him, "Where do you want us to go and
make preparations for you to eat the Passover?" (pascha)

"When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, many went up from the country to Jerusalem for their ceremonial cleansing before the Passover." (pascha)

"But it is your custom for me to release to you one prisoner at the time of the Passover. Do you want me to release 'the king of the Jews'?" (pascha)

"Now while he was in Jerusalem at the Passover Festival, many people saw the signs he was performing and believed in his name." (pascha)

I could go on and on, but the fact is that the same word "pascha" is used pretty much everywhere tranlated as "Passover," which is the same word that the KJV translated as "Easter" in Acts 12:4
and by the way, is the only place it is translated as such.



Yours in Christ

percho
Sep 9th 2014, 02:52 PM
Thanks Dmcal57 but either the copies of the originals are wrong or we don't really understand how paschal was used back in the day. Acts 2 can not possibly be translated as Passover because they took Peter in the days of unleavened bread... Passover had already come and gone.

Act 12:3 And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.)
Act 12:4 And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.

He took Peter on the 13th of Nisan and was going bring him before the people after the 14th (when they began to remove all the leaven) was passed and probably on the 16 following the 15th which would have been a high day Sabbath. Even could have taken him morning of the 14th and still would have fit with the scripture.

TrustGzus
Sep 9th 2014, 09:51 PM
Where do we find God's message when translations disagree? For example in the book of Acts, how do we know if the KJV is right when it uses the word Easter or if the other translations are right that translated it as Passover? It can't be both, so how are we to discern which is right?

While I haven't agreed with all Dmcal57 has written in this thread, his approach to the Easter issue in Acts 12:4 is spot on. Check out the Greek. The word is πάσχα. It's used 29 times. 28 times the KJV translators translated it as passover. Easter is not correct.

The KJV is wonderful. I love it. It is not inerrant. No English Bible is. The autographs, i.e. the original documents hand written by the apostles and prophets were inerrant. That being said, our Bibles, including the KJV, are reliable. They are useful for doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness. Simply because translations aren't inerrant doesn't mean we jump to the ultimate other extremely and think we cannot trust them at all. That is also fallacious.

HJVR23
Sep 10th 2014, 10:06 PM
Do you sometimes read the Bible in English or do you always prefer to read it in Afrikaans? I never quite understand what the situation is like for Afrikaans speakers, but those that I have met can speak very good English and obviously you are more or less bilingual too.

It's like this. We only have three Afrikaans Bible Translations.

1st - 1933 Translation, virtually phased out. Not in use anymore.

2nd - 1953 Translation, Revision of the 1933 Translation. less common but still very much available.

3rd - 1983 Translation, whole new translation based off new Greek sources. UBS Greek New Testament 3rd Edition is used as groundtext for the NT. Most common Bible.


As for English Bibles in South Africa, it's the same like anywhere else. Leading Bibles would be the KJV, ESV, NIV, The Message, Good News Bible.

I've recently started using the KJV myself. I also consult older translations like the Geneva, Bishops, Coverdale, Tyndale Translations. I do consult new translations also, but only if I can get that translation for free, like with theWord Bible Software. It's excellent.

Robert_1965
Sep 10th 2014, 10:15 PM
I'm not sure that I see a problem with Acts 12 using the word Passover.

Yes, Passover was technically one day beginnign of the Festival days, but other passages in the Bible use the phrases Feast of Unleavened Bread and Passover interchangeably.


Luke 22:1 - "Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover."
Mark 14:1 - "Now the Passover and the Festival of Unleavened Bread were only two days away..."
John 13:1 - "It was just before the Passover Festival.


It's like calling New Year's Eve part of the "Christmas" break for school children.

Christmas was over on 12/25, but until they go back to school, they are on their Christmas break. So the King James uses the word "Easter". It's not a deal breaker for me. I still read the King James some of the time and appreciate it highly.

Herod was calling the whole festival "Passover". He wasn't the only one in the Bible who did, apparently.
I agree that the word Easter really can't be debated as correct or incorrect, as you pointed out, the feast of unleavened bread is sometimes called the Passover. At the same time, it can't be argued that the KJV's use of Easter is wrong, only God and those who know the KJV is the inerrant word of God know for sure that Easter was the intended word there. :)

I'm not sure why people would believe that Easter is not right... Easter and Passover are not the same holidays, one is Jewish/Christian and the other Pagan.

Robert_1965
Sep 10th 2014, 10:27 PM
Robert, why do you think the information is coming from "copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of long defunct original manuscripts? We have the original texts. Here's someting else to consider, 19 out of 22 of the major tranlsations uses the word "Passover" translated from the transliterated word "pascha". The other 2 translations come from the KJV. If you want to believe that the correct translation is Easter, then you are free to do so. I'm sure that if I go look in the Codex Sinaiticus, I will find the word Pascha transliterated from the Greek, which comes from the Aramaic "pesach" defined as "From pacach; a pretermission, i.e. Exemption; used only techically of the Jewish Passover (the festival or the victim) -- passover (offering)."

The same word "pascha" is used in the following verse, as I am sure it is everywhere else the word "Passover" is translated.

"As you know, the Passover is two days away--and the Son of Man will be handed over to be crucified." (pascha)

"Josiah celebrated the Passover to the LORD in Jerusalem, and the Passover lamb was slaughtered on the fourteenth day of the first month." From the Hebrew "pasach"

"On the first day of the Festival of Unleavened Bread, when it was customary to sacrifice the Passover lamb, Jesus' disciples asked him, "Where do you want us to go and
make preparations for you to eat the Passover?" (pascha)

"When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, many went up from the country to Jerusalem for their ceremonial cleansing before the Passover." (pascha)

"But it is your custom for me to release to you one prisoner at the time of the Passover. Do you want me to release 'the king of the Jews'?" (pascha)

"Now while he was in Jerusalem at the Passover Festival, many people saw the signs he was performing and believed in his name." (pascha)

I could go on and on, but the fact is that the same word "pascha" is used pretty much everywhere tranlated as "Passover," which is the same word that the KJV translated as "Easter" in Acts 12:4
and by the way, is the only place it is translated as such.



Yours in Christ
Dmcal57, I appreciate your kindness in dealing with me on this... many are not so kind when it comes to my belief in the inerrant word of God.
I'm not sure why you think we have the originals, in fact, I think you're the only person I've ever debated that believes the originals are still around. I would appreciate if you could post a source for that, I would like to see it.

Robert_1965
Sep 10th 2014, 10:31 PM
He took Peter on the 13th of Nisan and was going bring him before the people after the 14th (when they began to remove all the leaven) was passed and probably on the 16 following the 15th which would have been a high day Sabbath. Even could have taken him morning of the 14th and still would have fit with the scripture.
Hi Percho. How do you know which of the seven days they took Peter?

Robert_1965
Sep 10th 2014, 10:55 PM
While I haven't agreed with all Dmcal57 has written in this thread, his approach to the Easter issue in Acts 12:4 is spot on. Check out the Greek. The word is πάσχα. It's used 29 times. 28 times the KJV translators translated it as passover. Easter is not correct.

The KJV is wonderful. I love it. It is not inerrant. No English Bible is. The autographs, i.e. the original documents hand written by the apostles and prophets were inerrant. That being said, our Bibles, including the KJV, are reliable. They are useful for doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness. Simply because translations aren't inerrant doesn't mean we jump to the ultimate other extremely and think we cannot trust them at all. That is also fallacious.
No need to go the Greek TrustGzus, God gave gave his word to all people in their own languages. Do you know what pascha meant 2000 years ago? Language changes over time, and so do word meanings. For example Christians today call the observance of the Resurrection, Easter. In Old English, Easter was the celebration of Ishtar the fertility goddess. Two polar opposites 400 years ago are now used synonymously. My point is perhaps pascha was the same way 2000 years ago... we don't know. God's word is important enough and God is powerful enough to preserve his inerrant word for me to read today.

My personal opinion on this is... it's a stumbling block verse for naysayers. Christ is the stumbling block and the rock of offence... Christ is the word of God. Not many people get to the point of realizing this, but if you ever do get to that point, the scriptures truly come alive... You will have no problem understanding that the word of God and the Word of God are the same thing.

HJVR23
Sep 11th 2014, 01:02 AM
I tend to stay out of textual criticism but...
Easter is not a mistranslation (http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/easter_is_not_a_mistranslation.htm)

Robert_1965
Sep 11th 2014, 01:51 AM
I would like to show you guys if possible, that the KJV is the inerrant word of God. There are no mistakes in it, and my only motivation for this is for you to be blessed as I have been blessed by what God has shown me in his word. If you would like to follow along that would be great and if not that's ok too. If you're going to follow along though, there are a couple of things you have to do.


You have come to the bible with the mindset that every word written was divinely put there or not put there by God.
You have to let the bible say what it says and don't take away from it nor add to it.
You have to forget about what the "originals" say. The KJV is not a direct translation of the originals, words were changed and added (by inspiration of the Holy Spirit) to help us understand God's word better.


Dmcal57 posted some excellent examples of perceived errors in an earlier post. The first was about the supposed contradictory accounts of the Legion. The stories are different, but they do not contradict each of other if you don't add to the accounts.

Mat 8:28 And when he was come to the other side into the country of the Gergesenes, there met him two possessed with devils, coming out of the tombs, exceeding fierce, so that no man might pass by that way.

Mar 5:2 And when he was come out of the ship, immediately there met him out of the tombs a man with an unclean spirit,

Luk 8:27 And when he went forth to land, there met him out of the city a certain man, which had devils long time, and ware no clothes, neither abode in any house, but in the tombs.

Difference 1:
In Matthew we are told that 2 men met Jesus.
In Mark and Luke we are told that one man met Jesus.
Is this a contradiction? No! Omission of information is not contradiction. Remember, you have to believe that every word in the bible or not in the bible is right... According to Matthew there were 2 men that met Jesus, just believe the bible. Although Mark does not mention 2 men, he certainly doesn't say there was only one man, his account only covers one man.


Difference 2:
Matthew and Mark tells us that the man came out of the tombs.
Luke doesn't mention anything about the man or men coming out of a tomb.
Is this a contradiction? No, for the same reasons as above.

Difference 3:
Mark and Luke mentions the man was naked.
Matthew says nothing about his clothes.
Again no contradiction just different accounts, some with more detail and some with less detail.

TrustGzus
Sep 11th 2014, 03:28 AM
No need to go the Greek TrustGzus, God gave gave his word to all people in their own languages. Do you know what pascha meant 2000 years ago? Language changes over time, and so do word meanings. For example Christians today call the observance of the Resurrection, Easter. In Old English, Easter was the celebration of Ishtar the fertility goddess. Two polar opposites 400 years ago are now used synonymously. My point is perhaps pascha was the same way 2000 years ago... we don't know. God's word is important enough and God is powerful enough to preserve his inerrant word for me to read today.

My personal opinion on this is... it's a stumbling block verse for naysayers. Christ is the stumbling block and the rock of offence... Christ is the word of God. Not many people get to the point of realizing this, but if you ever do get to that point, the scriptures truly come alive... You will have no problem understanding that the word of God and the Word of God are the same thing.

Robert, No passage of Scripture promises an inerrant English translation. I think you need to call a ball, a ball and call a strike, a strike. You appear to have a blind faith in the KJV translation. It's an anti-rational, anti-reasoning faith that you cannot base on any passage of Scripture. You believe something about the KJV that its own translators would not support you on.

You didn't address what is probably my most important point. πασχα is used 29 times in the NT. The KJV translators chose 28 other times to translate it Passover. Wycliffe didn't do this. He translated it the same way in Acts 12:4 as he did other times. The Geneva Bible, which the KJV tranlsators were supposed to make only minor changes to in their translation, has passover in Acts 12:4. The burden is upon anyone who holds to the KJV rendition of Act 12:4 to demonstrate why this one time it should be translated in a way (Easter) that no other English version has it.

God didn't provide a God-breathed version in every language. He only did that in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. All others are translations that God never promises inerrancy in translation. Now I think our English Bibles are extremely reliable, including the KJV, but not inerrant. Again, you have no passage of Scripture promising a perfect English translation.

As to the paragraph in which you state "your personal opinion", yep, it's just your personal opinion. Unless you speak God-breathed there's no reason to take it as more than that. And you are highly mistaken. The written "word of God", i.e. the Bible, is not the living Word of God, i.e. Jesus. If what you say is true, then we should worship the Bible since the Bible is Jesus. That is wretched theology. We worship Jesus, not the book that tells us about him.


I would like to show you guys if possible, that the KJV is the inerrant word of God. There are no mistakes in it, and my only motivation for this is for you to be blessed as I have been blessed by what God has shown me in his word. If you would like to follow along that would be great and if not that's ok too. If you're going to follow along though, there are a couple of things you have to do.


You have come to the bible with the mindset that every word written was divinely put there or not put there by God.
You have to let the bible say what it says and don't take away from it nor add to it.
You have to forget about what the "originals" say. The KJV is not a direct translation of the originals, words were changed and added (by inspiration of the Holy Spirit) to help us understand God's word better.



I believe your first two points. Your third point is categorically false. The KJV translators translated the NT from Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek and they got some help from Latin. It is true that the KJV is not a direct translation of the originals in the sense that no one has the originals. However, it is a translation of copies of the originals several generations removed. The idea that God continued to change words under Holy Spirit inspiration, once again, has not a single verse to substantiate such an idea.

The translators themselves state in the intro to the KJV . . .

For when Your Highness had once out of deep judgment apprehended how convenient it was, that out of the Original Sacred Tongues, together with comparing of the labors, both in our own, and other foreign Languages of many worthy men who went before us, there should be one more exact Translation of the holy Scriptures into the English Tongue; Your MAJESTY did never desist to urge and to excite those to whom it was commended, that the work might be hastened, and that the business might be expedited in so decent a manner, as a matter of such importance might justly require.

Your view would make the KJV translators into liars.


Dmcal57 posted some excellent examples of perceived errors in an earlier post. The first was about the supposed contradictory accounts of the Legion. The stories are different, but they do not contradict each of other if you don't add to the accounts.
Mat 8:28 And when he was come to the other side into the country of the Gergesenes, there met him two possessed with devils, coming out of the tombs, exceeding fierce, so that no man might pass by that way.

Mar 5:2 And when he was come out of the ship, immediately there met him out of the tombs a man with an unclean spirit,

Luk 8:27 And when he went forth to land, there met him out of the city a certain man, which had devils long time, and ware no clothes, neither abode in any house, but in the tombs.

Difference 1:
In Matthew we are told that 2 men met Jesus.
In Mark and Luke we are told that one man met Jesus.
Is this a contradiction? No! Omission of information is not contradiction. Remember, you have to believe that every word in the bible or not in the bible is right... According to Matthew there were 2 men that met Jesus, just believe the bible. Although Mark does not mention 2 men, he certainly doesn't say there was only one man, his account only covers one man.


Difference 2:
Matthew and Mark tells us that the man came out of the tombs.
Luke doesn't mention anything about the man or men coming out of a tomb.
Is this a contradiction? No, for the same reasons as above.

Difference 3:
Mark and Luke mentions the man was naked.
Matthew says nothing about his clothes.
Again no contradiction just different accounts, some with more detail and some with less detail.


I think you correctly deal with the differences between Matthew's account and that of Mark and Luke. However, this is not KJV issue. This issue is true no matter what version a person picks up. It's a Bible issue regardless of translation or language. I can pick up a KJV, NIV, NASB or even the Greek NT and the issue is the same in all of them. So this issue has nothing to do with translation issues. This also does nothing to prove your point of an inerrant KJV. You did a great job at proving Matthew does not contradict Mark and Luke, but if this proves an inerrant KJV, it also would prove and inerrant NIV, NASB, ESV, HCSB, etc. It does nothing of the sort.

The KJV has other translations that are errors. I'll give a couple. The KJV renders Mark 6:20 . . .

Mark 6:20 (AV)
20 For Herod feared John, knowing that he was a just man and an holy, and observed him; and when he heard him, he did many things, and heard him gladly.

The NASB reads . . .

Mark 6:20 (NASB95)
20* for Herod was afraid of John, knowing that he was a righteous and holy man, and he kept him safe. And when he heard him, he was very perplexed; but he used to enjoy listening to him.

The Greek word is συνετηρει and the KJV simply mistranslates this term. The KJV got it right in Matthew 9:17 and Luke 5:38 where it translates it as preserved. However, Mark 6:20 is mistaken in the KJV. Preserve, or keep, and observe are not the same thing.

Acts 5:30 in the KJV reads . . .

Acts 5:30 (AV)
30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.

There is no word and in the Greek at this point. The result is it sounds like they killed Jesus and then threw him up on a tree (or the cross).

Others could be given. Many times the KJV rendering is easily misunderstood and a modern version puts it in a way that is much clearer.

Jayne said Easter in Acts 12:4 wasn't a deal breaker for her. I agree with her on that and personally in regard to all of these I pointed out. If I required a perfect English Bible, I'd still be waiting.

I applaud that you have a high view of the Bible. I do not applaud your overly high view equating the written word with the living Word, Jesus. That is bibliolatry. I also cannot applaud your ideas about the KJV that do not correspond with historical reality as I demonstrated from the KJV translators themselves.

You can easily discard all I've said by your earlier claim that we don't need to go to the Greek. However, as I demonstrated from quoting the KJV translators, they relied on the Greek for their translation and there are no passages of Scripture that teach your view of the Bible getting into other languages without translating.

HJVR23
Sep 11th 2014, 06:14 AM
Note: Those added words was marked in italics by the KJV translators. If the KJV or any other translation based off the Antioch stream isn't inerrant, then what is? None of the translators of modern versions would agree that their respective attempts is the inerrant word of God cause there is always a new piece papyri to be found that is apparently "older" and "more reliable." Besides, Nestle-Aland text is on it's 28th revision alone. The fact is that NO ONE knows who the author were of Codex Sinaiticus. This author-less Codex is worked in together with Vaticanus to produce texts like Westcott-Hort and Nestle-Aland. The author of Vaticanus was mainly Eusebius, but he weren't a believer. He rejected many traditional Christian teachings including the deity of Christ. The University of Valencia posted an article regarding Majority Text vs Critical Text. They quote the following:


And CT proponents readily admit the Byzantine text-type is predominate in the manuscript evidence. For instance, in reference to the minuscules manuscripts, Aland writes, "... more than 80 percent of the manuscripts contain exclusively the Majority text." But the Alexandrian is represented in only "almost 10 percent" (Aland, pp.102, 128).

http://www.uv.es/~fores/programa/majorityvscritical.html

Only 10 percent? In my opinion, a very bad place to go look for an inerrant Bible.

If anyone really would debate true textual criticism they would debate old and new translations based on the Majority Text, ignoring the Critical Text for it's weak evidence and reliability.

Robert_1965
Sep 11th 2014, 11:53 AM
Robert, No passage of Scripture promises an inerrant English translation. I think you need to call a ball, a ball and call a strike, a strike. You appear to have a blind faith in the KJV translation. It's an anti-rational, anti-reasoning faith that you cannot base on any passage of Scripture. You believe something about the KJV that its own translators would not support you on.

TrustGzus there are scriptures that promise God's word would be given to all people of all languages. The left side of our bible is a picture book that draws a picture of the right side of the bible. It is impossible to understand the New Testament without the Old Testament shadows. I will show you one of those pictures...


Est 1:20 And when the king's decree which he shall make shall be published throughout all his empire, (for it is great,) all the wives shall give to their husbands honour, both to great and small.
Est 1:21 And the saying pleased the king and the princes; and the king did according to the word of Memucan:
Est 1:22 For he sent letters into all the king's provinces, into every province according to the writing thereof, and to every people after their language, that every man should bear rule in his own house, and that it should be published according to the language of every people.

This is a picture of the word of God being given to the church in their own language. The decree that was publish throughout the empire was that the women (the church) should give honor to her husband (Christ). That is exactly what the bible is... it is a book to teach us how to give honor to our Lord. I don't expect you to believe this, these things can't be taught, God has to show you.




You didn't address what is probably my most important point. πασχα is used 29 times in the NT. The KJV translators chose 28 other times to translate it Passover. Wycliffe didn't do this. He translated it the same way in Acts 12:4 as he did other times. The Geneva Bible, which the KJV tranlsators were supposed to make only minor changes to in their translation, has passover in Acts 12:4. The burden is upon anyone who holds to the KJV rendition of Act 12:4 to demonstrate why this one time it should be translated in a way (Easter) that no other English version has it.

Have you considered that both may be right? Maybe Easter fell on the last day of unleavened bread that year. I know from years of reading the KJV that it is right 100% of the time. I can't explain why God does what he does, like I said before, I believe God used Easter as a stumbling block for those who don't believe God preserved his word. This is just one of many places in the KJV where the same original word was translated differently in different places.




God didn't provide a God-breathed version in every language. He only did that in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. All others are translations that God never promises inerrancy in translation. Now I think our English Bibles are extremely reliable, including the KJV, but not inerrant. Again, you have no passage of Scripture promising a perfect English translation.

As to the paragraph in which you state "your personal opinion", yep, it's just your personal opinion. Unless you speak God-breathed there's no reason to take it as more than that. And you are highly mistaken. The written "word of God", i.e. the Bible, is not the living Word of God, i.e. Jesus. If what you say is true, then we should worship the Bible since the Bible is Jesus. That is wretched theology. We worship Jesus, not the book that tells us about him.

The bible says that Jesus sanctifies and cleanses his church by washing us with the word of God. Is Christ cleansing you with dirty corrupt water? Of course not, everything that comes from God is pure. Everything we can possibly know about God comes from one place... the bible. You can't know anything about God that doesn't come from the bible. Our entire faith is based on what we read in the bible.

The Old Testament saints had the inerrant word of God and the early church had the inerrant word of God... are they special, are they better than us? Do we not need the same pure scriptures today? Why on earth would you believe that God would allow error to mixed with truth? That's contrary to every doctrine in the bible. God is not the author of confusion, he doesn't want his church confused.

Jas_3:12 Can the fig tree, my brethren, bear olive berries? either a vine, figs? so can no fountain both yield salt water and fresh.


I'm out of time for now, I will address the rest later.

HJVR23
Sep 11th 2014, 05:36 PM
You didn't address what is probably my most important point. πασχα is used 29 times in the NT. The KJV translators chose 28 other times to translate it Passover. Wycliffe didn't do this. He translated it the same way in Acts 12:4 as he did other times. The Geneva Bible, which the KJV tranlsators were supposed to make only minor changes to in their translation, has passover in Acts 12:4. The burden is upon anyone who holds to the KJV rendition of Act 12:4 to demonstrate why this one time it should be translated in a way (Easter) that no other English version has it.


(Acts 12:4 [Tyndale Bible of 1526])
And when he had caught him he put him in preson and delyvered him to .iiii. quaternios of soudiers to be kepte entendynge after ester to brynge him forth to the people.

(Acts 12:4 [Coverdale Bible of 1535])
Now whan he had taken him, he put him in preson, and delyuered him vnto foure quaternions of soudyers, to kepe him: and thought after Easter to bringe him forth to the people.

(Acts 12:4 [Bishops Bible of 1568])
And when he had caught hym, he put hym in pryson also, and delyuered hym to foure quaternions of souldiers to be kept, intendyng after Easter to bryng hym foorth to the people.

Robert_1965
Sep 11th 2014, 05:55 PM
(Acts 12:4 [Tyndale Bible of 1526])
And when he had caught him he put him in preson and delyvered him to .iiii. quaternios of soudiers to be kepte entendynge after ester to brynge him forth to the people.

(Acts 12:4 [Coverdale Bible of 1535])
Now whan he had taken him, he put him in preson, and delyuered him vnto foure quaternions of soudyers, to kepe him: and thought after Easter to bringe him forth to the people.

(Acts 12:4 [Bishops Bible of 1568])
And when he had caught hym, he put hym in pryson also, and delyuered hym to foure quaternions of souldiers to be kept, intendyng after Easter to bryng hym foorth to the people.
Nice! I've never looked into that before, I just know from experience that my kjv is right... Nice info you presented.

percho
Sep 11th 2014, 07:11 PM
Hi Percho. How do you know which of the seven days they took Peter?

I don't know for sure the reason for adding my last sentence. I actually think they probably took him sometime on the 14th which began in the evening. On the evening beginning the the 14th they began to remove leaven preparing for the feast of unleavened bread which begin on the evening of the 15th, thus the Passover being a preparation day for a holy day. The Passover then being killed around 3 PM prepared and eaten for the evening meal eaten with unleavened bread.

As I said I think they would have waited until the 16th which would be after Passover to bring him before the people because the 15th was a holy day, a high day Sabbath.

TrustGzus
Sep 12th 2014, 05:21 AM
Nice! I've never looked into that before, I just know from experience that my kjv is right... Nice info you presented.


(Acts 12:4 [Tyndale Bible of 1526])
And when he had caught him he put him in preson and delyvered him to .iiii. quaternios of soudiers to be kepte entendynge after ester to brynge him forth to the people.

(Acts 12:4 [Coverdale Bible of 1535])
Now whan he had taken him, he put him in preson, and delyuered him vnto foure quaternions of soudyers, to kepe him: and thought after Easter to bringe him forth to the people.

(Acts 12:4 [Bishops Bible of 1568])
And when he had caught hym, he put hym in pryson also, and delyuered hym to foure quaternions of souldiers to be kept, intendyng after Easter to bryng hym foorth to the people.

HJVR23, thank you for digging that up. I stand corrected. So three English translations prior to the KJV for some reason translate πασχα as Easter. Where does leave us? Does this prove the KJV correct? Robert, you seem to think so. Why does the fact that Coverdale, Bishops and Tyndale's have Easter suddenly make the KJV correct here? What about the Wycliffe and Geneva Bible and every other English Bible that translate πασχα as passover just like the KJV did 28 other times?

How are you not committing the logical fallacy of special pleading and just picking the stuff that supports your view and ignoring the more weighty stuff that goes against it?

HJVR23 picked out an error in my statement but it's like the Amalekites picking off the old and the injured off the back lines of Israel in the wilderness. HJVR23 attacked my weakest point, i.e. the number of English versions using passover instead of Easter. So he found three more out of hundreds of English versions. Perhaps the KJV translators just used one of these versions which make this mistake and then the KJV translators didn't fix it in this verse?

Let's get back to the main point. The KJV is based on the Greek. The KJV translators said so, as I quoted in my previous post, and the Greek word πασχα is translated passover all 28 other times in the KJV.

I have a KJV that even has a footnote that states the Greek is passover. Should I believe my KJV text or footnote? I own a Bible called the King James Version Study Bible. It has a note that reads . . .


12:2–4. James’s death is the first and only apostolic martyrdom recorded in Scripture. Herod intended to make Peter the second martyr and took extreme measures to secure his imprisonment, leaving four soldiers to guard him at all times. Though Easter does communicate correctly the time of year, the Greek word must be translated “Passover.”

King James Version study Bible . (1997). (Ac 12:2). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

Let's elaborate even more on that point. Acts only uses πασχα once and that is in the passage we are discussing. The author of Acts is Luke. While Luke only uses πασχα once in Acts, this isn't the only time Luke uses πασχα. Luke uses πασχα seven more times. He uses it in the gospel he wrote at Luke 2:41; 22:1; 22:7; 22:8; 22:11; 22:13 and 22:15. All seven times the KJV translators translated πασχα as passover. If Luke uses πασχα again in Acts, why shouldn't we think Luke meant passover if that's how he used it the other seven times and if that's how the other biblical authors used it that way the remaining 21 times? If Luke meant something different, then why didn't he use a different word than the word Luke always uses for passover?

I really think you guys are grasping to hold onto your inerrant English version theory instead of simply excepting what the church has historically held to - inerrant originals. Because you seem interested in preserving your inerrant English version view, I'm not expecting you to change your mind. I'm simply hoping that I'm putting a stone in your shoe to think about.

Why should I believe the KJV is correct at Acts 12:4 when I have the Greek in front of me and see how the KJV handles πασχα the other 28 times always making it passover and when that's how Luke uses that word seven other times? The only reason I see is wishful thinking. I haven't seen any good reason think all the other English versions didn't do better at this point.

TrustGzus
Sep 12th 2014, 05:43 AM
Note: Those added words was marked in italics by the KJV translators. If the KJV or any other translation based off the Antioch stream isn't inerrant, then what is? None of the translators of modern versions would agree that their respective attempts is the inerrant word of God cause there is always a new piece papyri to be found that is apparently "older" and "more reliable." Besides, Nestle-Aland text is on it's 28th revision alone. The fact is that NO ONE knows who the author were of Codex Sinaiticus. This author-less Codex is worked in together with Vaticanus to produce texts like Westcott-Hort and Nestle-Aland. The author of Vaticanus was mainly Eusebius, but he weren't a believer. He rejected many traditional Christian teachings including the deity of Christ. The University of Valencia posted an article regarding Majority Text vs Critical Text. They quote the following:


And CT proponents readily admit the Byzantine text-type is predominate in the manuscript evidence. For instance, in reference to the minuscules manuscripts, Aland writes, "... more than 80 percent of the manuscripts contain exclusively the Majority text." But the Alexandrian is represented in only "almost 10 percent" (Aland, pp.102, 128).

http://www.uv.es/~fores/programa/majorityvscritical.html

Only 10 percent? In my opinion, a very bad place to go look for an inerrant Bible.

If anyone really would debate true textual criticism they would debate old and new translations based on the Majority Text, ignoring the Critical Text for it's weak evidence and reliability.

HJVR, good and fair questions. Why the KJV? There have been hundreds of English translations. They all differ from one another. Why the KJV? Why not the first English version - Wycliffe? Why not the others you quoted with Easter? Why not Coverdale? Why not Bishops? Why not Tyndale? Why the KJV? Which KJV? Most people that claim the KJV is inerrant use the 1769 edition? Why 1769?

This is where I think the burden of proof is really on folks like you. You and I think both agree about every other English version in that we think they are errant in some points. I don't think they err in major ways. I think they are minor ways. I also think the same about the KJV. Why should I accept your view that the 1769 KJV is specially unique?

As I said in another post, simply because I think the KJV is not inerrant and this is clearly demonstrable, this does not mean we shouldn't trust it at all. We are having a good discussion on Acts 12:4. It's not as if we don't know what Acts 12:4 says. We do know! And we know for good reason why the KJV is mistaken at this verse. This doesn't ruin the reliability of the KJV entirely. The KJV is extremely reliable in most places. So I'm not bothered by a few spots where the KJV translators missed the mark. I don't need an inerrant English version. I simply need a reliable one. And we have that in the KJV. We have it in the NKJV, the NASB, the ESV, the HCSB and yes, even translations like the NIV.

They don't dig up older manuscripts every day. In fact, the major ones that caused some of the updates since the KJV have been around for over 150 years now. This isn't changing every other week.

Yes, the Nesle-Aland is in its 28th edition. However, Erasmus had five editions. Which one should you trust? The KJV translators used Stephanus too. He had multiple editions of his Greek. The problem doesn't go away if you reject the Nestle-Aland.

You asked about newer versions going with minority of texts. The KJV goes with minorities also several times. The KJV differs from the Majority in over 1800 places.

Generally speaking the newer versions go with minority manuscripts when they are older. This make sense. If we have a manuscript that is 1000 years removed from a text and one that is 250 years removed, which should we lean more likely towards? Also, which are most likely to have - manuscripts from 1000 years ago or manuscripts from 2000 years ago? If a mistake is made by a scribe - either unintentionally or intentionally - that mistake will be with us forever. Other scribes will copy that mistake. If a scribe makes a mistake and it gets copied hundreds of times, does the more copies make the mistake suddenly correct? No, of course not. That's why generally speaking, translators go with older manuscripts. Yes, there are fewer, they are much older and many of them most likely perished. Later ones have survived having much less time to disintegrate or get damaged or what have you. Counting copies never proves what's correct. And if it does, then the KJV has some explaining to do where sometimes it goes with less than 10 copies in a few places.

TrustGzus
Sep 12th 2014, 05:52 AM
TrustGzus there are scriptures that promise God's word would be given to all people of all languages. The left side of our bible is a picture book that draws a picture of the right side of the bible. It is impossible to understand the New Testament without the Old Testament shadows. I will show you one of those pictures...
Est 1:20 And when the king's decree which he shall make shall be published throughout all his empire, (for it is great,) all the wives shall give to their husbands honour, both to great and small.
Est 1:21 And the saying pleased the king and the princes; and the king did according to the word of Memucan:
Est 1:22 For he sent letters into all the king's provinces, into every province according to the writing thereof, and to every people after their language, that every man should bear rule in his own house, and that it should be published according to the language of every people.

This is a picture of the word of God being given to the church in their own language. The decree that was publish throughout the empire was that the women (the church) should give honor to her husband (Christ). That is exactly what the bible is... it is a book to teach us how to give honor to our Lord. I don't expect you to believe this, these things can't be taught, God has to show you.

I'm amazed with what you claim here. If you interpret Scripture this way, then you have no way to ever correct a Mormon, for example, when they claim the two sticks in Ezekiel 37 are the Bible and the Book of Mormon. They completely rip the text out of context and make a crazy allegory out of it and you are doing the same kind of thing in Esther.

Robert, who else in history teaches this from Esther?



Have you considered that both may be right? Maybe Easter fell on the last day of unleavened bread that year. I know from years of reading the KJV that it is right 100% of the time. I can't explain why God does what he does, like I said before, I believe God used Easter as a stumbling block for those who don't believe God preserved his word. This is just one of many places in the KJV where the same original word was translated differently in different places.

I know from years of study and demonstrations I've already offered that the KJV is a great, reliable Bible, but like all translations has mistakes the translators made. Now what? You claim one thing. I claim another. How do we prove it? I go to the original languages and give examples of how the KJV handles X here and X there. You give allegorical interpretations of Esther. Why should I buy into your allegory?


The bible says that Jesus sanctifies and cleanses his church by washing us with the word of God. Is Christ cleansing you with dirty corrupt water? Of course not, everything that comes from God is pure. Everything we can possibly know about God comes from one place... the bible. You can't know anything about God that doesn't come from the bible. Our entire faith is based on what we read in the bible.

The Old Testament saints had the inerrant word of God and the early church had the inerrant word of God... are they special, are they better than us? Do we not need the same pure scriptures today? Why on earth would you believe that God would allow error to mixed with truth? That's contrary to every doctrine in the bible. God is not the author of confusion, he doesn't want his church confused.

Jas_3:12 Can the fig tree, my brethren, bear olive berries? either a vine, figs? so can no fountain both yield salt water and fresh.


I'm out of time for now, I will address the rest later.

So God can use a donkey but not a translation with mistakes? So sad. What about the poor people who lived before the KJV? When Wycliffe was the only English version and he had passover in Acts 12:4, what did the poor English people do with that "corrupt water" since they didn't have the KJV yet?

What is James 3 talking about? Is the context about translating into foreign languages? What is the subject of James 3?

God truly did preserve his word. He just didn't do it the way you think he did it.

Robert_1965
Sep 12th 2014, 11:59 AM
I'm amazed with what you claim here. If you interpret Scripture this way, then you have no way to ever correct a Mormon, for example, when they claim the two sticks in Ezekiel 37 are the Bible and the Book of Mormon. They completely rip the text out of context and make a crazy allegory out of it and you are doing the same kind of thing in Esther.

Robert, who else in history teaches this from Esther?

TrustGzus the bible is not just a book, it's alive, it is the manifestation of Jesus Christ to the world today. Did not Jesus say in the Psalms that he made sackcloth his covering and became a Proverb to them... How interesting! Sackcloth is the apparel of death and the word of God is a proverb and would you believe Jesus is even called the Word of God.

Listen, I didn't interpret anything, I just recognize Old Testament shadows for what they are. Surely you are able to see at least some of the myriad of Old Testament shadows. The book of Esther is no different. As I said earlier, the Old Testament is the picture book that paints a picture of New Testament doctrines. Let's take a look at the book of Esther, and you can show me where the story is not a foreshadowing of the word of God in all languages.


Ahasuerus issued a command for Vashti to appear before him so that he could show the whole world her beauty, but she rejected him. Because Vashti rejected Ahasuerus, Ahasuerus issued another command that she should no longer come before the king and her royal estate should be given to another that is better than her.

God issued a command for Israel to come to Christ, but Israel rejected him. Because Israel rejected God, God issued another command that Israel should no longer come before him and the kingdom was to be taken from Israel and given to another that is better than Israel to bring forth the fruits thereof.


Mat 21:42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?
Mat 21:43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

Shortly thereafter, Ahasuerus sent out letters that the wives shall give honor to their husbands and that the man should bear rule in this house. These letters were sent out to all the provinces after their own language.
Shortly after Israel rejected Jesus, the apostles wrote letters and these letters were published to the entire world. The New Testament is about how the church (the wife) is to honor her husband (Christ) and how the husband (Christ) is to bear rule over the wife (church).

This foreshadow goes on and on revealing all kinds of neat things about "the fair young virgins" and Mordecai and Hamen, but I will stop here because this is the part about our discussion.

TrustGzus the details of the New Testament are found in these Old Testament shadows... you can not understand the New Testament without them. The New Testament in Acts 2 also tells us that the word of God was to be given to all people in all languages.

Robert_1965
Sep 12th 2014, 04:05 PM
Quote Originally Posted by Robert_1965 View Post
Have you considered that both may be right? Maybe Easter fell on the last day of unleavened bread that year. I know from years of reading the KJV that it is right 100% of the time. I can't explain why God does what he does, like I said before, I believe God used Easter as a stumbling block for those who don't believe God preserved his word. This is just one of many places in the KJV where the same original word was translated differently in different places.
I know from years of study and demonstrations I've already offered that the KJV is a great, reliable Bible, but like all translations has mistakes the translators made. Now what? You claim one thing. I claim another. How do we prove it? I go to the original languages and give examples of how the KJV handles X here and X there. You give allegorical interpretations of Esther. Why should I buy into your allegory?

TrustGzus with all due respect, going to the original languages does nothing for you. You state that as if you are reading the original documents... you're not. The original documents don't exist today. It all boils down to this, and I mean no disrespect to you, but you are putting all your faith into man's ability to accurately copy and interpret scripture. You don't know Greek nor Hebrew, you are relying on SOMEONE ELSE'S interpretation of what those words mean.

God never intended for us to rely on other men to understand God's word. And this is what wicked men have taken from people throughout history. Look at the Roman Catholic church, years ago they wouldn't allow their members to even look at a bible plus it was written in a language that no one could understand. The church today has been duped into the same thing... willingly! Christians have been told that their bibles are wrong and the only way to truly understand what God meant is to go to the Greek and Hebrew. NOBODY understands ancient Greek and Hebrew today! The only thing we understand about Greek and Hebrew today is what James Strong and other scholars TELL US those words mean. Christians today act is if James Strong and other scholars are God. James Strong was a man just like you and I!



So God can use a donkey but not a translation with mistakes? So sad. What about the poor people who lived before the KJV? When Wycliffe was the only English version and he had passover in Acts 12:4, what did the poor English people do with that "corrupt water" since they didn't have the KJV yet?

What is James 3 talking about? Is the context about translating into foreign languages? What is the subject of James 3?

God truly did preserve his word. He just didn't do it the way you think he did it.
God can use anything he wants, I never said a person could not be saved through reading other translations... for crying out loud, people were saved listening to the heretic Billy Graham. Yes he is a heretic, he runs around telling people they can be saved without knowing Jesus Christ.

James 3:11 applies to all things, not just the things that come out of peoples mouths. Living water flows out of my bible... there is no bitterness in it. Man I'm out of time again.

Boo
Sep 13th 2014, 11:30 AM
I see here a real danger to understanding what God would have us know from reading the Bible.


And let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, to which indeed you were called in one body. And be thankful. Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God. And whatever you do, in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.
Colossians 3:15-17 (ESV)

The Bible letters and books were written by those who had a different culture and worldview than we do. They wrote in terms that they understood to those who would also understand because of the sameness of culture and worldview.

We do not have that culture nor that worldview. Those words do not mean the same to us when put together. We cannot understand on our own how many things can be seen in those verses because we can see only with our own eyes. We need to study the words with others who are not just like us. That, of course, means that there is a danger in reading the Bible alone and then believing that we have a firm grip on what the writer actually meant.

Our beliefs in what the Bible says has changed over time because the culture of the readers has changed over time. The Bible in not alive and changing; we are. The Bible is firm and unmoving - and we bend it to suit our desires rather than how the original writers intended for the audience that they wrote the letters to.

People who believed the Bible burned witches, owned black slaves, killed Protestants, killed Ana-Baptists, conquered countries, and stole lands from others; all in the name of God. Each group read the Bible from the view of their culture and with their worldview.

If we truly want to understand it, we need to try to get into the minds of those who wrote it and see things from their view. At least, if we do not read alone or with people who see the world exactly like we do; we stand a better chance of seeing the larger picture. Any other method lets us bend the Bible to fit ourselves.

Robert_1965
Sep 13th 2014, 12:24 PM
I see here a real danger to understanding what God would have us know from reading the Bible.


Colossians 3:15-17 (ESV)

The Bible letters and books were written by those who had a different culture and worldview than we do. They wrote in terms that they understood to those who would also understand because of the sameness of culture and worldview.

We do not have that culture nor that worldview. Those words do not mean the same to us when put together. We cannot understand on our own how many things can be seen in those verses because we can see only with our own eyes. We need to study the words with others who are not just like us. That, of course, means that there is a danger in reading the Bible alone and then believing that we have a firm grip on what the writer actually meant.

Our beliefs in what the Bible says has changed over time because the culture of the readers has changed over time. The Bible in not alive and changing; we are. The Bible is firm and unmoving - and we bend it to suit our desires rather than how the original writers intended for the audience that they wrote the letters to.

People who believed the Bible burned witches, owned black slaves, killed Protestants, killed Ana-Baptists, conquered countries, and stole lands from others; all in the name of God. Each group read the Bible from the view of their culture and with their worldview.

If we truly want to understand it, we need to try to get into the minds of those who wrote it and see things from their view. At least, if we do not read alone or with people who see the world exactly like we do; we stand a better chance of seeing the larger picture. Any other method lets us bend the Bible to fit ourselves.
Boo... God wrote the bible, not the men who penned it.
I hear the "cultural" argument all the time, but I have never had anyone give me an example of how knowing the ancient culture helps anyone understand the bible better.... that's nonsense, the bible is the only thing we need to understand scripture. The bible defines itself, we don't need to study Greek and Hebrew customs and we don't need to study Greek and Hebrew languages, we don't even need a dictionary. The bible is the dictionary, if we want to know what a word means, we just search the scriptures and see how it's used.

There is a division in "Christianity", there are sheep and there are goats. Sheep didn't burn witches nor own slaves. Goats give Christianity a bad name but it's always been that way, the carnal has always hated and persecuted the spiritual. Why did Cain kill Abel? Abel was a real Christian and Cain was a fake. I'm sure Cain ran around preaching the Hebrews Roots Kabbalah or speaking gibberish and calling it speaking in tongues. Of course I'm being facetious here but the point is there is nothing new under the sun, there have always been sheep and goats. The sheep hear his voice and understand, the goats just don't get it.

If we truly want to understand the bible we have to have faith... the one and only thing God requires from mankind. We have to have the faith to believe every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. When we get to that point, the bible comes alive. When we get to that point we see that the word of God is the Word of God. The bible is alive Boo, it's not just a book.

HJVR23
Sep 13th 2014, 06:20 PM
James’s death is the first and only apostolic martyrdom recorded in Scripture. Herod intended to make Peter the second martyr and took extreme measures to secure his imprisonment, leaving four soldiers to guard him at all times. Though Easter does communicate correctly the time of year, the Greek word must be translated “Passover.”

King James Version study Bible . (1997). (Ac 12:2). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

Any of the two is correct, but the more correct word is Passover.


Why the KJV? There have been hundreds of English translations. They all differ from one another. Why the KJV? Why not the first English version - Wycliffe? Why not the others you quoted with Easter? Why not Coverdale? Why not Bishops? Why not Tyndale? Why the KJV? Which KJV? Most people that claim the KJV is inerrant use the 1769 edition? Why 1769?

There weren't hundreds of English translations, there were only 10 up to the KJV. The 1769 KJV is the oldest yet closes to contemporary English Bible which uses the Textus Receptus if you don't count in the Quaker Bible. Quaker wasn't a commercial success. I also believe that the KJV was the last Bible authorized by the Church of England. The KJV was also the last major Bible version to use the Textus Receptus. Other Bible translations like Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, Great Bible, Geneva Bible and Bishops all use Textus Receptus. So they are very much similar to the KJV, they do differ but still very similar. The KJV is also very widely available, other older Bibles are also available but they tend to be way more expensive. Everyone here and outside of this forum agrees that the KJV is extremely reliable and a excellent, but when the same people question whether it is inerrant they try to correct it by using modern translations, translations which doesn't even use the same source text. This source text (known as the Critical Text) comprises of only 10% of total manuscript evidence. Two of these out of the 10% is Codices Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. These two doesn't even agree with each other with a total of 3,036 textual variations in just the Gospels alone, that means there can be and most likely are other places where it variates. Is it just me or is the KJV just too good? Older translations are also just as good. (Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, Great Bible, Geneva Bible and Bishops)

teddyv
Sep 13th 2014, 07:04 PM
Boo... God wrote the bible, not the men who penned it.
I hear the "cultural" argument all the time, but I have never had anyone give me an example of how knowing the ancient culture helps anyone understand the bible better.... that's nonsense, the bible is the only thing we need to understand scripture. The bible defines itself, we don't need to study Greek and Hebrew customs and we don't need to study Greek and Hebrew languages, we don't even need a dictionary. The bible is the dictionary, if we want to know what a word means, we just search the scriptures and see how it's used.
The knowledge of historical, geographical and cultural context has been extremely enlightening in the understanding of Revelation 3:14-18.

Boo
Sep 14th 2014, 11:30 AM
Boo... God wrote the bible, not the men who penned it.
I hear the "cultural" argument all the time, but I have never had anyone give me an example of how knowing the ancient culture helps anyone understand the bible better.... that's nonsense, the bible is the only thing we need to understand scripture. The bible defines itself, we don't need to study Greek and Hebrew customs and we don't need to study Greek and Hebrew languages, we don't even need a dictionary. The bible is the dictionary, if we want to know what a word means, we just search the scriptures and see how it's used.

There is a division in "Christianity", there are sheep and there are goats. Sheep didn't burn witches nor own slaves. Goats give Christianity a bad name but it's always been that way, the carnal has always hated and persecuted the spiritual. Why did Cain kill Abel? Abel was a real Christian and Cain was a fake. I'm sure Cain ran around preaching the Hebrews Roots Kabbalah or speaking gibberish and calling it speaking in tongues. Of course I'm being facetious here but the point is there is nothing new under the sun, there have always been sheep and goats. The sheep hear his voice and understand, the goats just don't get it.

If we truly want to understand the bible we have to have faith... the one and only thing God requires from mankind. We have to have the faith to believe every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. When we get to that point, the bible comes alive. When we get to that point we see that the word of God is the Word of God. The bible is alive Boo, it's not just a book.

As I said, that is where the danger lies. Each person who does not see his own fallibility in understanding the intent of the things written by man and included in the Bible is no different than any other person who claims to be an authority on "what God meant." Just think, all these "authorities" are going around telling others what God means - because they know the Bible says so.

Yet, they must be reading different Bibles, because God is apparently saying different things.

Each of them is seeing the text as something different, but it is announced that their view is the correct one. Everyone else is a goat, right?

There are many places in the Bible that have different meanings if we ignore the culture of that time. To ignore it is to misunderstand the point. To teach others what the Bible means without understanding the culture that existed during the time it was written it to err. It is up to us to learn and share what we learn.

We in North America see all the stories in the Bible from our jaded concepts and we understand the significance from our culture. When we do that, we are very prone not to "get it." In our society, there is too much "me" in every story, every promise, and every point. That drives a great deal of our misunderstanding.

I am aware that none of this will be accepted by the infallible Bible readers among us, but I really felt that someone else might benefit from considering all of this.

TrustGzus
Sep 16th 2014, 03:17 AM
Any of the two is correct, but the more correct word is Passover.



There weren't hundreds of English translations, there were only 10 up to the KJV. The 1769 KJV is the oldest yet closes to contemporary English Bible which uses the Textus Receptus if you don't count in the Quaker Bible. Quaker wasn't a commercial success. I also believe that the KJV was the last Bible authorized by the Church of England. The KJV was also the last major Bible version to use the Textus Receptus. Other Bible translations like Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, Great Bible, Geneva Bible and Bishops all use Textus Receptus. So they are very much similar to the KJV, they do differ but still very similar. The KJV is also very widely available, other older Bibles are also available but they tend to be way more expensive. Everyone here and outside of this forum agrees that the KJV is extremely reliable and a excellent, but when the same people question whether it is inerrant they try to correct it by using modern translations, translations which doesn't even use the same source text. This source text (known as the Critical Text) comprises of only 10% of total manuscript evidence. Two of these out of the 10% is Codices Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. These two doesn't even agree with each other with a total of 3,036 textual variations in just the Gospels alone, that means there can be and most likely are other places where it variates. Is it just me or is the KJV just too good? Older translations are also just as good. (Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, Great Bible, Geneva Bible and Bishops)

I like that you don't see the KJV as the only Bible or inerrant English translation. There some things you should consider. You seem to place a lot of stock in quantity of manuscripts. This is faulty for multiple reasons.

1. The TR isn't the majority. The TR differs from the majority of manuscripts in over 1,800 locations. TR is a branch of the Byzantine family. The majority is Byzantine, but not TR.

2. What you refer to as the 10% was the majority until you get past the 9th or 10th century. Byzantine readings are later generally speaking. If we count third century, or fourth, or fifth, etc., newer translations match up with those more. So if we go by counting copies, would the Alexandrian type readings have been correct and then in the 9th century or so the Byzantine suddenly became correct?

3. You must consider Islam's influence. As manuscripts are copied, errors stay in the text if they aren't nonsensical errors. So each family of texts probably has quirks. Islam started militarily taking over areas. As they did, the Greek language lost prominence except for one area - Byzantium. So, guess what kept getting copied? Byzantine type manuscripts. For better and/or for worse. What was good got copied, what was erroroneous got copied.

Those are some things to consider that make sense of why older manuscripts differ from more recent ones, why Byzantine became dominant yet why just because it may dominate in number of copies, it may not always represent what an apostle actually wrote.

All that said, 85% of the NT text is identical. Most differences are minor. If we exposit any of them, the message is the same. The only position that is really bad is the single inerrant translation theory. Exposit a KJV, NKJV, NIV, NASB, HCSB, ESV, etc., the message is the same.

IAmOneWeAreThree
Sep 16th 2014, 03:40 AM
Which English language translation do you use most frequently, and why? I use the KJV, to me it is the only TRUE Bible.


Do you have any other translations that you use occasionally or do you stick with one version only?When I first got saved I was NIV ( I must admit) But I am ONLY KJV now.


Do you read the Bible in some other language - which one?No

Dmcal57
Sep 16th 2014, 04:06 AM
I like that you don't see the KJV as the only Bible or inerrant English translation. There some things you should consider. You seem to place a lot of stock in quantity of manuscripts. This is faulty for multiple reasons.

1. The TR isn't the majority. The TR differs from the majority of manuscripts in over 1,800 locations. TR is a branch of the Byzantine family. The majority is Byzantine, but not TR.

2. What you refer to as the 10% was the majority until you get past the 9th or 10th century. Byzantine readings are later generally speaking. If we count third century, or fourth, or fifth, etc., newer translations match up with those more. So if we go by counting copies, would the Alexandrian type readings have been correct and then in the 9th century or so the Byzantine suddenly became correct?

3. You must consider Islam's influence. As manuscripts are copied, errors stay in the text if they aren't nonsensical errors. So each family of texts probably has quirks. Islam started militarily taking over areas. As they did, the Greek language lost prominence except for one area - Byzantium. So, guess what kept getting copied? Byzantine type manuscripts. For better and/or for worse. What was good got copied, what was erroroneous got copied.

Those are some things to consider that make sense of why older manuscripts differ from more recent ones, why Byzantine became dominant yet why just because it may dominate in number of copies, it may not always represent what an apostle actually wrote.

All that said, 85% of the NT text is identical. Most differences are minor. If we exposit any of them, the message is the same. The only position that is really bad is the single inerrant translation theory. Exposit a KJV, NKJV, NIV, NASB, HCSB, ESV, etc., the message is the same.

Hello TrustGzus,

Personally, I have an NIV and KJV, but I study the original Greek and Hebrew words which is where all translations are derived from. I prefer to go to the original source.
I also like to examine all of the major translations side by side at a glance. Here is an example:

New International Version
The revelation from Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John,

New Living Translation
This is a revelation from Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants the events that must soon take place. He sent an angel to present this revelation to his servant John,

English Standard Version
The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things that must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John,

New American Standard Bible
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must soon take place; and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John,

King James Bible
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

Holman Christian Standard Bible
The revelation of Jesus Christ that God gave Him to show His slaves what must quickly take place. He sent it and signified it through His angel to His slave John,

International Standard Version
This is the revelation of Jesus the Messiah, which God gave him to show his servants the things that must happen soon. He made it known by sending his messenger to his servant John,

NET Bible
The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must happen very soon. He made it clear by sending his angel to his servant John,

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
The Revelation of Yeshua The Messiah, which God gave to him, to show his Servants what had been given to soon occur, and he symbolized it when he sent by his Angel to his Servant Yohannan,

GOD'S WORD® Translation
This is the revelation of Jesus Christ. God gave it to him to show his servants the things that must happen soon. He sent this revelation through his angel to his servant John.

Jubilee Bible 2000
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to show unto his slaves things which are convenient to do quickly, and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his slave John,

King James 2000 Bible
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to show unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and revealed it by his angel unto his servant John:

American King James Version
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave to him, to show to his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel to his servant John:

American Standard Version
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show unto his servants, even the things which must shortly come to pass: and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John;

Douay-Rheims Bible
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to make known to his servants the things which must shortly come to pass: and signified, sending by his angel to his servant John,

Darby Bible Translation
Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave to him, to shew to his bondmen what must shortly take place; and he signified [it], sending by his angel, to his bondman John,

English Revised Version
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to shew unto his servants, even the things which must shortly come to pass: and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John;

Webster's Bible Translation
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave to him, to show to his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel to his servant John:

Weymouth New Testament
The revelation given by Jesus Christ, which God granted Him, that He might make known to His servants certain events which must shortly come to pass: and He sent His angel and communicated it to His servant John.

HJVR23
Sep 16th 2014, 07:53 AM
I like that you don't see the KJV as the only Bible or inerrant English translation. There some things you should consider. You seem to place a lot of stock in quantity of manuscripts. This is faulty for multiple reasons.

1. The TR isn't the majority. The TR differs from the majority of manuscripts in over 1,800 locations. TR is a branch of the Byzantine family. The majority is Byzantine, but not TR.

2. What you refer to as the 10% was the majority until you get past the 9th or 10th century. Byzantine readings are later generally speaking. If we count third century, or fourth, or fifth, etc., newer translations match up with those more. So if we go by counting copies, would the Alexandrian type readings have been correct and then in the 9th century or so the Byzantine suddenly became correct?

3. You must consider Islam's influence. As manuscripts are copied, errors stay in the text if they aren't nonsensical errors. So each family of texts probably has quirks. Islam started militarily taking over areas. As they did, the Greek language lost prominence except for one area - Byzantium. So, guess what kept getting copied? Byzantine type manuscripts. For better and/or for worse. What was good got copied, what was erroroneous got copied.

Those are some things to consider that make sense of why older manuscripts differ from more recent ones, why Byzantine became dominant yet why just because it may dominate in number of copies, it may not always represent what an apostle actually wrote.

All that said, 85% of the NT text is identical. Most differences are minor. If we exposit any of them, the message is the same. The only position that is really bad is the single inerrant translation theory. Exposit a KJV, NKJV, NIV, NASB, HCSB, ESV, etc., the message is the same.

If the message is the same then why is it such an issue about versions when it comes to using the KJV only. Jesus used the Septuagint when he quoted verses from the Old Testament, the Septuagint itself was translation and he didn't use many translations to find God's word somewhere in the middle. I don't think that that the KJV is inerrant but I also do not believe newer translations are inerrant.

Dmcal57
Sep 16th 2014, 07:55 AM
If the message is the same then why is it such an issue about versions when it comes to using the KJV only. Jesus used the Septuagint when he quoted verses from the Old Testament, the Septuagint itself was translation and he didn't use many translations to find God's word somewhere in the middle. I don't think that that the KJV is inerrant but I also do not believe newer translations are inerrant.

I'll stick with the original Hebrew and Greek myself.

Boo
Sep 16th 2014, 08:21 AM
For those who come to bible studies, I will use the one that communicates to them in their language. We were expected to learn about God and Jesus across the nations, not to go to Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic school and cultural studies to know the differences in how one understands those languages at the time they were written.

None of those in my small groups was raised in Victorian England, and they are not all rocket-surgeons. However, we have Bibles that they can read and understand; so we have great discussions about what we read. The one we read and understand is the best one.

TrustGzus
Sep 16th 2014, 02:50 PM
If the message is the same then why is it such an issue about versions when it comes to using the KJV only. Jesus used the Septuagint when he quoted verses from the Old Testament, the Septuagint itself was translation and he didn't use many translations to find God's word somewhere in the middle. I don't think that that the KJV is inerrant but I also do not believe newer translations are inerrant.

I'm with you more than less in what you say here. This thread was started with honest intent simply asking what people read. Those who have a strict KJV view jump on these. They generally see newer versions as being compromised - even the NKJV. Those who use newer translations don't usually get bothered about what a person reads. They get in these threads to counter attacks on new versions.

There are no NASB, NIV, ESV, HCSB, NKJV only folk. People that use these don't claim any of them are inerrant.

percho
Sep 16th 2014, 04:22 PM
Hello TrustGzus,

Personally, I have an NIV and KJV, but I study the original Greek and Hebrew words which is where all translations are derived from. I prefer to go to the original source.
I also like to examine all of the major translations side by side at a glance. Here is an example:

New International Version
The revelation from Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John,

New Living Translation
This is a revelation from Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants the events that must soon take place. He sent an angel to present this revelation to his servant John,

English Standard Version
The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things that must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John,

New American Standard Bible
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must soon take place; and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John,

King James Bible
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

Holman Christian Standard Bible
The revelation of Jesus Christ that God gave Him to show His slaves what must quickly take place. He sent it and signified it through His angel to His slave John,

International Standard Version
This is the revelation of Jesus the Messiah, which God gave him to show his servants the things that must happen soon. He made it known by sending his messenger to his servant John,

NET Bible
The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must happen very soon. He made it clear by sending his angel to his servant John,

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
The Revelation of Yeshua The Messiah, which God gave to him, to show his Servants what had been given to soon occur, and he symbolized it when he sent by his Angel to his Servant Yohannan,

GOD'S WORD® Translation
This is the revelation of Jesus Christ. God gave it to him to show his servants the things that must happen soon. He sent this revelation through his angel to his servant John.

Jubilee Bible 2000
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to show unto his slaves things which are convenient to do quickly, and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his slave John,

King James 2000 Bible
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to show unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and revealed it by his angel unto his servant John:

American King James Version
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave to him, to show to his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel to his servant John:

American Standard Version
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show unto his servants, even the things which must shortly come to pass: and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John;

Douay-Rheims Bible
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to make known to his servants the things which must shortly come to pass: and signified, sending by his angel to his servant John,

Darby Bible Translation
Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave to him, to shew to his bondmen what must shortly take place; and he signified [it], sending by his angel, to his bondman John,

English Revised Version
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to shew unto his servants, even the things which must shortly come to pass: and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John;

Webster's Bible Translation
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave to him, to show to his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel to his servant John:

Weymouth New Testament
The revelation given by Jesus Christ, which God granted Him, that He might make known to His servants certain events which must shortly come to pass: and He sent His angel and communicated it to His servant John.


???original source?

HJVR23
Sep 21st 2014, 12:14 PM
I'm with you more than less in what you say here. This thread was started with honest intent simply asking what people read. Those who have a strict KJV view jump on these. They generally see newer versions as being compromised - even the NKJV. Those who use newer translations don't usually get bothered about what a person reads. They get in these threads to counter attacks on new versions.

There are no NASB, NIV, ESV, HCSB, NKJV only folk. People that use these don't claim any of them are inerrant.

Well, as a KJV believer I'm tired of textual criticism regardless from which camp it comes from. I also believe that it diverts people from what we're actually suppose to be doing, giving glory to God and Jesus Christ.

Boo
Sep 22nd 2014, 09:16 AM
Well, as a KJV believer I'm tired of textual criticism regardless from which camp it comes from. I also believe that it diverts people from what we're actually suppose to be doing, giving glory to God and Jesus Christ.

Tired of textual criticism? OK, I can see that it is a difficult subject for those who don't like the effort that is required for it. However, many many manuscripts have been corrupted in one way or another. Some wish to know as closely as possible what the autographs actually said. It cannot be done without comparing the source documents we have - over 5,700 of them. I am grateful that there were people who were willing and people that ARE willing to do that.

I really don't care to memorize verses that were never actually in the original documents.

JustinMT
Sep 23rd 2014, 03:29 AM
When I first started to study the Bible, the NLT version was very easy to read and understand. The thought-for-thought translation is helpful for beginners, especially beginners like I was who are not literary geniuses. I grew a lot as a Christian while studying the NLT.

Now I read the ESV. I like the flow of the language, quite poetic. I also like that it is very close to being a word-for-word translation. I do not necessarily believe that a word-for-word translation is a requirement of a perfect translation...I just simply like the concept (for several reasons).

I think it is helpful & good to compare a word-for-word translation with a thought-for-thought translation in order to obtain a thorough understanding of the scripture.

If I'm particularly interested in a piece of scripture I'll look at several translations online.

If any translation was translated by an expert team of godly folks and those folks prayed for the Holy Spirit to guide their work, then I believe the translation to be a good & acceptable piece of work.

Boo
Oct 4th 2014, 08:53 AM
When I first started to study the Bible, the NLT version was very easy to read and understand. The thought-for-thought translation is helpful for beginners, especially beginners like I was who are not literary geniuses. I grew a lot as a Christian while studying the NLT.

Now I read the ESV. I like the flow of the language, quite poetic. I also like that it is very close to being a word-for-word translation. I do not necessarily believe that a word-for-word translation is a requirement of a perfect translation...I just simply like the concept (for several reasons).

I think it is helpful & good to compare a word-for-word translation with a thought-for-thought translation in order to obtain a thorough understanding of the scripture.

If I'm particularly interested in a piece of scripture I'll look at several translations online.

If any translation was translated by an expert team of godly folks and those folks prayed for the Holy Spirit to guide their work, then I believe the translation to be a good & acceptable piece of work.

It may seem odd to some, but I'd like to add a note to your post for consideration.

Those of us who have been raised in North America have learned how to think like a person raised in North America. The people who wrote the letters that have become our Bible were raised in the Mid-East thousands of years ago. The way that their minds worked is different from how our minds work. (We are a mixed batch of people in how our minds work, as well.)

If we read a thought-for-thought translation, please consider the mind of the people who produced it. While everyone supposedly is honest and forthright in their work, their view of the thought of the source document may well miss the mark when discerning the author's meaning. It may seem silly to say, but even when we read a word-for-word translation, we may miss the mark ourselves because we don't naturally think the same way as the original writer.

I do not condemn a thought-for-thought translation. I do suggest that those, who have the capacity, learn to use a more word-for-word edition and attempt to remove the "western mind" from our understanding and look at what was being said without preconceived notions. Sometimes, it can be seen that something different was being said than what we used to think.

That is why we should pray for understanding. I fear that too many see the words only in the fleshly eye and determine "truth" that was not intended.

glad4mercy
Apr 7th 2015, 08:03 PM
Which English language translation do you use most frequently, and why?



Do you have any other translations that you use occassionally or do you stick with one version only?



Do you read the Bible in some other language - which one?



Vote for your favourite Bible Translation...!


For some reason I find this incredibly fascinating having grown up in a country where all bibles look the same and really only one translation existed. When I lived in London I was blown away when I went in to a Christian bookshop and realised that buying a bible in English was not a matter of just grabbing the standard issue from the shelf and paying. Being a real geek I have read about this online and came across the slightly bewildering "KJV only" debate which seems to be a hot potato.

As for my own purchase, I finally bought an American bible called the New Living Translation - that had tons of interesting comments. This bible reads like a book of fiction, practically. It is no effort whatsoever reading it and I feel it really brings the bible to life for me.

a. New King James version
b. New American Standard, New Living Translation
c. Yes, Koine Greek New Testament.
d. NKJV

vic66
Apr 8th 2015, 11:14 AM
king james version (AV)

ChangedByHim
Apr 8th 2015, 09:44 PM
I read from KJV for the first 20 years of my walk. The past 12 I have used NKJV. Recently I have also enjoyed listening to the Historical Books on the NLT.

dan
Apr 13th 2015, 12:31 PM
Which English language translation do you use most frequently, and why?



Do you have any other translations that you use occassionally or do you stick with one version only?



Vote for your favourite Bible Translation...!


For some reason I find this incredibly fascinating having grown up in a country where all bibles look the same and really only one translation existed. When I lived in London I was blown away when I went in to a Christian bookshop and realised that buying a bible in English was not a matter of just grabbing the standard issue from the shelf and paying. Being a real geek I have read about this online and came across the slightly bewildering "KJV only" debate which seems to be a hot potato.

As for my own purchase, I finally bought an American bible called the New Living Translation - that had tons of interesting comments. This bible reads like a book of fiction, practically. It is no effort whatsoever reading it and I feel it really brings the bible to life for me.

KJV- because I believe that it is the most accurate when it comes to prophecy and I know it's faults.

NKJV- because it was free from a church that changed Bibles and is convenient when dealing with my kids.

BBE- because it's free from Bibleforums and actually has a verse or two that it states with better clarity than any other Bible.

ASV 1901- because it's free from Bibleforums and has at least one verse that it states with better clarity than other Bibles.

Jewish Publication Society's 1911 Old Testament- To compare with other Bibles OT's to make sure they're telling it straight. Free from Bibleforums.

Thank you Bibleforums for all the great reference material.

Samuel Owen
Apr 13th 2015, 12:47 PM
I use the KJV as my primary Bible, it's text comes from the most reliable text group. It was not changed by any government, all one has to do is look at the Geneva to see the really close similarities in the translations, which came from the same text group as the KJV. The only difference is the use of common English in the Geneva, not the William Tyndale poetry of the KJV.
The Geneva was also a translation made by the reformers, not the same men who translated the KJV. Nor was it done in the same country, and also some half century earlier. So it proves!, there was no government meddling in the KJV.

All the other translations came from a not so reliable text group. I own many of them, a person who teaches Bible needs to know what is coming down in the scripture world. In fact I have a NET Bible coming today, that should be interesting. As its many notes are supposed to explain how they came by the words, and phrases used in their translation, which should shed a little light on some of the others.

Samuel Owen
Apr 13th 2015, 09:42 PM
Well since this is a Bible discussion, that NET Bible came in. One of the reviews I read by a lady, said she would not recommend it to a new believer, and neither would I.

It claims to be a new translation, from the same text group as the KJV, that I cannot say. But I can say it is different. I haven't had time to look it over thoroughly yet, and it will probably be a rather slow process.

But I can say that it reads a lot like a commentary on the Bible, with Vines word study thrown in for the notes, rather than an actual Bible version.

I checked some of my favorite passages, and could not say I would totally reject it, but I think it needs a well grounded person to be the reader. The notes explain the Greek words in the NT, and the various ways in which they can be translated. And then their best choice in doing so.

I have realized for a long time, there is no such thing as a word for word translation Languages just do not work that way, but some new believers could have some problems with being told so.

But all in all, I think it will be interesting to read. As long as one considers it as I said earlier, a commentary, with Vines notes included. :)

Jollyrogers
Oct 20th 2016, 02:26 AM
???original source?

Rev 1:1 ᾿Αποκάλυψις ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ἣν ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ ὁ Θεός, δεῖξαι τοῖς δούλοις αὐτοῦ ἃ δεῖ γενέσθαι ἐν τάχει, καὶ ἐσήμανεν ἀποστείλας διὰ τοῦ ἀγγέλου αὐτοῦ τῷ δούλῳ αὐτοῦ ᾿Ιωάννῃ,

keck553
Oct 20th 2016, 03:41 PM
I use the KJV as my primary Bible, it's text comes from the most reliable text group. It was not changed by any government, all one has to do is look at the Geneva to see the really close similarities in the translations, which came from the same text group as the KJV. The only difference is the use of common English in the Geneva, not the William Tyndale poetry of the KJV.
The Geneva was also a translation made by the reformers, not the same men who translated the KJV. Nor was it done in the same country, and also some half century earlier. So it proves!, there was no government meddling in the KJV.

All the other translations came from a not so reliable text group. I own many of them, a person who teaches Bible needs to know what is coming down in the scripture world. In fact I have a NET Bible coming today, that should be interesting. As its many notes are supposed to explain how they came by the words, and phrases used in their translation, which should shed a little light on some of the others.

What? The KJV was commissioned by the government in an effort to do away with Geneva's margin notes which were not to the King's liking and to boost King James as a God-anointed king of England, and therefore garner ultimate power in his hands. Yes, it has a few inaccuracies, but some of those are attributable to archaic old English where some nouns have changed meanings (e.g. "meat" is not considered grain these days). There are some other errors due to the word-for-word nature of the translation which alters context of some passages, but these are all discoverable. What isn't discoverable easily is the bias that is used by corrupt "authorities" and other power mongers to maintain their control over the population, and it continues to this day.

vinceteal
Oct 22nd 2016, 12:21 AM
I have read "Holy Bible".. "The Open Bible EXPANDED EDITION". I signed my Bible in 1990. Through the years I have riddled it with book marks.

Is this Bible in the list?

TrustGzus
Oct 24th 2016, 04:11 AM
I have read "Holy Bible".. "The Open Bible EXPANDED EDITION". I signed my Bible in 1990. Through the years I have riddled it with book marks.

Is this Bible in the list?

Hi vinceteal, "The Open Bible" is a type of study Bible. That title applies to the notes in the Bible, not the translation itself. Your Open Bible will be either King James Version (KJV), New King James Version (NKJV) or a New American Standard Bible (NASB). It will say one of those three on the side binding and on the inside cover page.

randyk
Oct 24th 2016, 11:05 PM
Which English language translation do you use most frequently, and why?



Do you have any other translations that you use occassionally or do you stick with one version only?



Do you read the Bible in some other language - which one?



Vote for your favourite Bible Translation...!


For some reason I find this incredibly fascinating having grown up in a country where all bibles look the same and really only one translation existed. When I lived in London I was blown away when I went in to a Christian bookshop and realised that buying a bible in English was not a matter of just grabbing the standard issue from the shelf and paying. Being a real geek I have read about this online and came across the slightly bewildering "KJV only" debate which seems to be a hot potato.

As for my own purchase, I finally bought an American bible called the New Living Translation - that had tons of interesting comments. This bible reads like a book of fiction, practically. It is no effort whatsoever reading it and I feel it really brings the bible to life for me.

I read the NIV because it came out at a time in my life when I began to get more seriously engaged in theology. It is an attempt to speak in our own contemporary language without sacrificing too much the literal translation. I wasn't initially into translation, but into understanding what was being said.

The NIV was a shared effort, utilizing scholars as well as those skilled at communicating, I believe. I think there were different translators from one book to another, if I'm not mistaken. There were a few novel translations that I didn't like--"the Kingdom advances forcefully," for example. I like "the Kingdom *suffers* violence." I don't like the "placing of abominations on a wing of the temple" in Dan 9 either. I prefer "the abomination comes on the *wing of abominations." But overall, I liked the update to current language use in English. I liked a more updated inclusion of "notes" in my version as well.

mailmandan
Oct 26th 2016, 11:45 PM
I really like the NASB because it's a literal word for word translation that is not hard to understand. :bible:

CadyandZoe
Oct 29th 2016, 08:55 PM
I really like the NASB because it's a literal word for word translation that is not hard to understand. :bible:

I agree. It's kinda clunky, but the Greek behind the English shows through.

Athanasius
Oct 29th 2016, 09:34 PM
Well, necro thread but:

New International Version
English Standard Version
King James (Authorised Version)
New King James Version
Other (Explain!)
New American Standard Bible

Other being Greek, Hebrew, and Finnish (though I'm particularly garbage with Finnish). Reason? Comparison.

randyk
Oct 31st 2016, 02:13 AM
Well, necro thread but:

New International Version
English Standard Version
King James (Authorised Version)
New King James Version
Other (Explain!)
New American Standard Bible

Other being Greek, Hebrew, and Finnish (though I'm particularly garbage with Finnish). Reason? Comparison.

That's pretty good--a favorite version, and checking with other versions as well. And original languages. But Finnish? Why not Swede-Finnish? I guess I'm a little biased because both my grandparents on one side were Swedish speakers from Finland! ;) No, I don't speak it...

Athanasius
Oct 31st 2016, 10:35 AM
That's pretty good--a favorite version, and checking with other versions as well. And original languages. But Finnish? Why not Swede-Finnish? I guess I'm a little biased because both my grandparents on one side were Swedish speakers from Finland! ;) No, I don't speak it...

Because I'm Finnish ;)

TrustGzus
Jan 18th 2018, 01:02 PM
This thread is 6 years old. Wonder how I voted. It might be different now.

jesusinmylife
Jan 20th 2018, 09:59 PM
This thread is 6 years old. Wonder how I voted. It might be different now.

What would you vote now?

TrustGzus
Jan 20th 2018, 10:08 PM
What would you vote now?

That’s not easy to answer. This week alone I used the KJV, TNIV, ESV and CSB. Two of which aren’t listed. Fair enough to the poll creator. The 2011 NIV was released by this time and so TNIV was out of print. And CSB wasn’t in existence. HCSB was and it’s not listed.

Follower1977
Apr 7th 2019, 03:08 AM
Which English language translation do you use most frequently, and why?



Do you have any other translations that you use occassionally or do you stick with one version only?



Do you read the Bible in some other language - which one?



Vote for your favourite Bible Translation...!


For some reason I find this incredibly fascinating having grown up in a country where all bibles look the same and really only one translation existed. When I lived in London I was blown away when I went in to a Christian bookshop and realised that buying a bible in English was not a matter of just grabbing the standard issue from the shelf and paying. Being a real geek I have read about this online and came across the slightly bewildering "KJV only" debate which seems to be a hot potato.

As for my own purchase, I finally bought an American bible called the New Living Translation - that had tons of interesting comments. This bible reads like a book of fiction, practically. It is no effort whatsoever reading it and I feel it really brings the bible to life for me.

I prefer the kjv authorized, just based on what I know of how it's translation came about , the time and care that was taken , and the fact that it was translated in a time where things like the bible, were much more an important part of people's lives. The fact that they separated the different groups of translators and then would come together and compare, I love the safeguards they took regarding accuracy....and prefer the old English language.

also sometimes read the original n.i.v. I've come to not trust as much the n.i.v. Because I learned a few years ago, it's constantly revised and changed. The original n.i.v. I find to be very close to the k.j.v.

also read the Greek and Hebrew texts, just for the matter of comparison of an issue comes up in my mind , I find it helpful and reassuring, though the k.j.v. Is my favorite personally.

all that being said , I believe almost any translation of the bible is good if someone reads and understands it, some I find to be less than perfectly translated, but the message of Jesus Christ is present in all of them I've ever looked into.