Recommend a bible version.

[Tiredknight]

I watched Video 1, and I've heard those arguments before. Basically, the argument boils down to this: "compare everything to the KJV because it's perfect. It's perfect because it's the KJV. It is the golden standard that all things are to be measured against."

"It's perfect because it's the KJV." That is not what he said and you just projecting your own opinions and misconceptions on to what he did say.

There is also 3 other videos...

 

[ananda]

"It's perfect because it's the KJV." That is not what he said and you just projecting your own opinions and misconceptions on to what he did say. There is also 3 other videos...

I never said that's what he said. That was my summary of the fundamental Baptist position (of which I was a part of for many years, so I can say I have some qualifications to speak on it).

I do not generally debate other people's videos and articles. If you would like to debate and highlight certain points, please present it here yourself, and I'd be glad to address them.

 

[shturt678]

The Textus Receptus is based on only a small handful of late texts. Yes, it is closer to the Majority Text than the Alexandrian Text/CT, but the TR itself is not the Majority Text.

Yes, I've read your post I previously responded to, and I am aware of the controversy over the KJV. I was previously a conservative-independent-fundamental Baptist myself, and I am aware of their (faulty) arguments.

After studying Greek, I can more assuredly say that the KJV is itself, at most, a fair translation from prominent scholars of its day. I can also say that there is indeed a lot of information (tenses, moods, etc.) lost from the original Hebrew & Greek, not because of inherent inaccuracies in the translation, but in the nature of translation itself and the vast differences which exists between the source and destination languages. This loss of translation detail/information is the source of many erroneous beliefs held by many within Christianity today. I believe that, to elevate any translation as the "end-all" is the same as slapping Elohim in the face by despising the original languages which He decided to give us the Scriptures in.

I thought I was the only one, out of 7 billion, that thought the same as you.

your doing an excellent job going from the ancient languages FORWARD to the English ... I couldn't encourage you more. Most of those academically schooled in the ancient languages, I found to be true anyway, still go from the English BACKWARDS to the ancient languages due to being a little on the lazy side. I wasn't the only one due to there were two of us. Thank you, sorry little sarcasm.

 

[Keachian]

Tired Knight I see your Gipp video and raise you a White one;
What's the Big Deal with King James Onlyism? Part 1 - YouTube

 

[Tiredknight]

I never said that's what he said. That was my summary of the fundamental Baptist position (of which I was a part of for many years, so I can say I have some qualifications to speak on it).

I do not generally debate other people's videos and articles. If you would like to debate and highlight certain points, please present it here yourself, and I'd be glad to address them.

Actually that is what you are saying he is saying. You are saying that his argument boils down into your summery and that is not true. You are projecting your own assumptions on to him. You also do not have all of the info because you obviously did not watch the other 3 videos.

"I do not generally debate other people's videos and articles. If you would like to debate and highlight certain points, please present it here yourself, and I'd be glad to address them." this is also just a cop-out.

 

[ananda]

I thought I was the only one, out of 7 billion, that thought the same as you.

your doing an excellent job going from the ancient languages FORWARD to the English ... I couldn't encourage you more. Most of those academically schooled in the ancient languages, I found to be true anyway, still go from the English BACKWARDS to the ancient languages due to being a little on the lazy side. I wasn't the only one due to there were two of us. Thank you, sorry little sarcasm.

I've no doubt that there are some out there who think like us.

 

[ananda]

Actually that is what you are saying he is saying. You are saying that his argument boils down into your summery and that is not true. You are projecting your own assumptions on to him.

You are projecting your assumption to my statement. I actually said "I've heard those arguments before. Basically, the argument boils down to this". I was not specifically referring to Sam Gipp's arguments, but the fundamental Baptist position in general.

You also do not have all of the info because you obviously did not watch the other 3 videos. "I do not generally debate other people's videos and articles. If you would like to debate and highlight certain points, please present it here yourself, and I'd be glad to address them." this is also just a cop-out.

No it's not a cop out on my part.

If you cannot defend your own position, and instead resort to other people's writings and videos to do so, then are you really standing on solid ground? Are you sure you really know and truly believe what you claim to believe? Can you one day stand before YHWH and say "I believe this because Sam Gipp told me to believe this"? Will He accept that defense?

Make the arguments your own, and defend what you truly believe in your own words. Then we'll have a discussion

 

[Lady Bug]

what does anyone think about this? I found this commentary on the internet, so it's not my own words.
------------------------------------------

I am in the market for a new bible, and have been trying to figure out which version I'd like to buy. In the past I always used a KJV, but in recent years have been using a NKJV. I owned an ESV for a day, but took it back after reading it for a while.

I have read convincing arguments both for and against a KJV-Only point of view, and this is what I've concluded:

It is true that certain bibles, both in translation and in original text, omit/change words that are found in the KJV or TR. However, I have not yet read a version of the Bible that does not tell me that Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life and that noone goeth unto the Father but by Him. I have not read a Bible version that doesn't say that God so loved the world that he sent his only Son, begotten or otherwise, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Do any of the versions change where Jesus tells us "I AM"? Do any of them leave doubt as to whether Jesus is the Word that was present in the beginning, through whom all things are created? That the Word is God?

My point is simply this: No Bible is perfect, not even the KJV, but all of the Bibles I've read say that Jesus Christ is God, that He died on the cross as a sacrifice for our sins and ressurected Himself. All of these Bibles teach that Jesus is the only way to the Father, don't they? If I'm wrong, sorry, but that's what I've seen.

I even read a website last night that listed all the OT quotes Jesus used in the KJV and then showed the actual KJV verses from where the quotes were taken. Guess what? There were differences between what Jesus said and the quotes in the KJV, so we know that even Jesus is not a KJV-Only adherent... here is the link to that if any of you are interested.

http://www.kjv-only.com/jesusnotkjvonly.html

I have KJV Bibles and NKJV Bibles, and a Strongest Strong's Concordance. I have a small(really small) library of Christian literature, study aids, apologetics stuff, etc. So, even if there is a word that is incorrect in the NKJV, or in an NIV or ESV, I still have a KJV to compare with. And if a KJV word leaves me confused, I can consult other versions or the Hebrew/Greek word/definition to help clarify.

The idea that reading one version over another will leave us without the knowledge necessary for salvation, or for a relationship with Jesus Christ is absurd, especially today when there are so many different resources.

It makes me sad to see so many Christians caught up in these arguments about which version of the Bible is best, which demonination is best, which pastors are best, which doctrine is best, etc. Christians can disagree with each other on issues and still love each other. The important thing is that the core doctrines are agreed upon. Jesus' divinity, the Trinity, Christ's death for our salvation and the following resurrection, etc.

 

[peterlindner]

Have a contest...
Use whichever version you like.
List examples where angels were useful. Explain why God used the angel instead of talking directly with the people involved with the angels.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

 

[MoreCoffee]

After much rading and much study I hereby infallibly declare that the KJV is more or less safe to use, if read in communion with the Church.


Avoid reading alone. It can be harmful to truth and faith.


Always, again I say always, read in the company of the Holy Spirit.


That is all

 

[Tiredknight]

Have a contest...
Use whichever version you like.
List examples where angels were useful. Explain why God used the angel instead of talking directly with the people involved with the angels.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

This proves nothing...

 

[truthislight]

One thing that comes to mind is why the KJV is so popular, supposedly the KJV used manuscripts which were taken from places in the world close to where the apostles actually taught, and while some other newer versions boast of using older manuscripts than the KJV used they are not necessarily better, the claim is that those older manuscripts were flawed and not as reliable as what KJV used. And none are actually original anyway, they all have been copied since they were originally penned, but supposedly some were changed on purpose. Maybe NKJV is better. I don't know

I do know that the NJKB is not even a new version its just called that

 

[Tiredknight]

Tired Knight I see your Gipp video and raise you a White one;
What's the Big Deal with King James Onlyism? Part 1 - YouTube

So I watched this video... This guy is kind of a Jerk. He personally attackes people's character and is a slanderer. I.E. Ergun Canner and Norm Geisler.

Also for someone who says that he is proving historically that he is right he sure has some history issues. He says this his main man who defends the deity of Christ,Athanasius of Alexandria? and that he defended against Arianists that were mostly from Antioch of Syria. Which is not really true. First of Athanasius of Alexandria while yes defended the deity of Christ it was not against Arianists it was against Arius himself. The man responsible for the belief system. The other problem is that Arius is not from Antioch or Syria, he was Egyptian. He carried a system of doctrine that came out of a Gnostic philosophy. Athanasius of Alexandria was a very rare man from that area.

There was also the controversy about the legitimacy of his succession to being the bishop of Alexandria.

So to pin this man up a poster boy for the correct translation is not the best option.


Athanasius of Alexandria was also exiled 4 times...

 

[Keachian]

So I watched this video... This guy is kind of a Jerk.

He is a bit abrasive.

He personally attackes people's character and is a slanderer. I.E. Ergun Canner and Norm Geisler.

Calling Canner and Geisler to account for their misrepresentation of the facts is not slanderous.

Also for someone who says that he is proving historically that he is right he sure has some history issues. He says this his main man who defends the deity of Christ,Athanasius of Alexandria? and that he defended against Arianists that were mostly from Antioch of Syria. Which is not really true. First of Athanasius of Alexandria while yes defended the deity of Christ it was not against Arianists it was against Arius himself. The man responsible for the belief system. The other problem is that Arius is not from Antioch or Syria, he was Egyptian. He carried a system of doctrine that came out of a Gnostic philosophy. Athanasius of Alexandria was a very rare man from that area.

Oh, except for Athanasius' mentor Alexander, his successor Peter II who was also driven from his see, Augustine and I can probably go on.

There was also the controversy about the legitimacy of his succession to being the bishop of Alexandria.

far less controversial than either of the two anti-patriarchs in Athanasius and Peter II's times

So to pin this man up a poster boy for the correct translation is not the best option.

You've missed the point, you can find heretics anywhere at anytime.

Athanasius of Alexandria was also exiled 4 times...

Why was he exiled? For defending the Trinity against the rest of Christendom which was at that point in time Arian. Athanasius Contra Mundum is a wonderful phrase coined later in reference to this defiance to the magesterium to hold on to the true faith delivered once-for-all to the saints.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Many apologists are abrasive. Many are a little loose with the truth. Many take shortcuts for the sake of scoring a point.

This man, James White, debates frequently, he seeks controversy.

However, saint Athanasius heroically fought against Arius and Arius' party in the court of the emperor in Constantinople (Byzantium).

Cheers.

 

[stevenfrancis]

Wow there's a lot of argument on this stuff. The very best bible is the one that is read. Prayerfully, and frequently. People may want to use different bibles for different purposes too. If I'm just reading for inspiration, then a paraphrase translation might be okay. If I'm discussing scripture with someone, such as in a bible study, or for an essay, or as a reference when talking with both protestants and Catholics, I really like to use the Revised Standard Version (CE2). (NKJV would serve the same purpose, so long as it is a printing which contains deuterocanonical texts, and the apocrypha, so that all NT references can be found in the OT.

But for my own deep bible study. When I'm alone, and prayerfully trying to learn something, find guidance, etc.. I am just personally partial to a bible which is as close to St. Jerome's Vulgate, or the Novum Testamum Graece as I can find. For me, thus far, this has been the Douay-Rheims bible edition with the Haydock commentaries.

But I'll work with anyone, in whatever bible environment they're most comfortable with when in discussions, with the one exception of the "New World Translation". I just personally avoid this one, because of it's extensive rewrites, which effect the very Christology of the work. And I don't usually recommend paraphrase types for anyone doing studies, unless they are already familiar enough with one of the classical texts, (KJV/D-R), that they won't be drawn into a possible misunderstanding of what they are reading. Modern word by words and thought by thoughts are all okay for youth, and those who just can't get past classical English.

Just some random thoughts. I've seen much conflict on this thread. I am not trying to inspire more. I'm just posting my thoughts on scripture.

Are there any other readers of the RSV or the D-R on this thread?

 

[ananda]

Are there any other readers of the RSV ... on this thread?

I enjoy the smooth cadence of the RSV's readings from time to time

 

[MoreCoffee]

...

Are there any other readers of the RSV or the D-R on this thread?

I often read the RSV-CE, sometimes the RSV-CE 2nd ed, and rarely the DRB.

 

[Eseven]

I have all the recommendations i need, thank you all.