Bible Versions

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

Name one doctrine that is alive today that is non-Christian to come from the KJV. Name something in the KJV or taken away that tampers with Christian Doctrine.

Removal of the atoning blood, the trinity, Lordship, Sonship are all great errors.

I am not a KJV only person either.

Doctrine comes from the application of reason to scripture. It does not come from scripture, but the human mind inquiring into it and making sense of the experience as recorded by its authors.

The KJV does not take away doctrine, but it does have doctrinue inscribed into it by copyist errors. In other words, the KJV was based on manuscripts written long after many of the basic orthodox Christian doctrines had already been established. So much so that when copyist smade references to said doctrine, they had a number of times, their doctrines written into scripture, albeit unintentionally.

The Trinity was not understood for hundreds of years. It was not fully messed out until the 7th Century.

 

[busdriver72]

Doctrine comes from the application of reason to scripture. It does not come from scripture, but the human mind inquiring into it and making sense of the experience as recorded by its authors.

The KJV does not take away doctrine, but it does have doctrinue inscribed into it by copyist errors. In other words, the KJV was based on manuscripts written long after many of the basic orthodox Christian doctrines had already been established. So much so that when copyist smade references to said doctrine, they had a number of times, their doctrines written into scripture, albeit unintentionally.

The Trinity was not understood for hundreds of years. It was not fully messed out until the 7th Century.

Well, sort of...but not exactly. The KJV was derived from translators working with the works of Tyndale, Coverdale, the Bishops Bible, the Geneva Bible, and the Hebrew and Greek texts that they had at the time. About 90% of it remained true to Tyndale's renderings, and Tyndales' doctrinal stance was not always in line with the established church doctrine when he wrote it. The same can be said for the Geneva Bible as well. The translators of it were not interjecting the doctrine of the establish church at the time (which is why they had to do it in Geneva.)

NKJV, ESV, ASV, NIV

Will attack the Sonship of Jesus also

Really?
NKJV Matt 3:17, 8:29, 14:33, 16:16, Mark 1:1, 3:11, Luke 1:35, 4:41, John 1:34, 3:16, 3:18, 5:25, 9:35, 11:4, 11:27, 20:31, Acts 8:37, 9:20, Romans 1:4, 2nd Corinthians 1:19, Gal 2:20, Eph 4:13, Hebrews 4:14, 6:6, 10:29, 1srt John 3:8, 4:15, 5:5, 5:10, 5:12-13, 5:20, Rev 2:18.

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

I'm partial to the ESV myself, as the most literal translation with elegant and readable modern English, and from a conservative or fundamentalist but non-KJVO PoV, it's impeccable though perhaps with a bit of Calvinist bias.

The same would also be true of the popular ESV Study Bible, which I'm also fond of. I'm not myself a Calvinist, but a little bias in that direction doesn't bother me. It's familiar to me, easily recognizable, and easy to mentally compensate for.

The NASB is one of my favorites for study but not so much for general use, because its extreme literalism often makes for bad English.

The NKJV is based on the same older family of manuscripts as the KJV, and if you want that without the KJV archaisms, is a fine choice.

 

[OldStudent]

There has always been motives and agendas behind translations and updates of the Bible.
I would even say it is less nowadays because it is more easily exposed.

You are right about the agendas. Hopefully we are intent on finding a version where the translators are prayerfully serious about trying to convey the intent of the source language - not what they think it means or should mean. While I am not a qualified Biblical scholar I have a few tools that allow me to compare Greek sources (I have no Hebrew skills) and English receiver versions. While agendas may be more easily exposed we must be both willing and able to find and employ what is most favorable to God's agenda.

I would disagree that translation to an agenda is less of a problem today. First, the money motive. The Bible is still a highly popular and profitable book. Making it palatable is profitable. To many profit trumps truth. Second, Satan pushed Adam by insinuation and outright alteration of God's word. He is still active today and his abilities of insinuation and alteration are much refined after all these years and his incentives are keener than any other time in history. A gullible, careless audience suits him fine. Those who are thoughtful, careful, prayerful give him Vicodin grade headaches. Give him a G-O-O-D one.

 

[samcarternx]

I agree with the opinions of the others concerning the various translations having read them myself. Today's English Version is good too. I have concluded the translations are not responsible for people not agreeing with God. Rather, it is people who do not do what it tells us to do. "It is not enough to call me Lord, you must do what I say." "Deny yourself, pick up your cross, and follow me, and you will know if My words come from the
father or not." I have, and they do.

 

[Faith.Man]

I'm partial to the ESV myself, as the most literal translation with elegant and readable modern English, and from a conservative or fundamentalist but non-KJVO PoV, it's impeccable though perhaps with a bit of Calvinist bias.

I would say the Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB) is equal to, if not better than the ESV for a readable literal Bible translation. Both are good and I use both. But for reading (not studying), I would probably choose the NIV. I've just never found a translation that I like more for readability.

The same would also be true of the popular ESV Study Bible, which I'm also fond of. I'm not myself a Calvinist, but a little bias in that direction doesn't bother me. It's familiar to me, easily recognizable, and easy to mentally compensate for.

Being a Calvinist myself, I have no problem with that leaning in the study notes. I do, however, have some problems with other study notes. Before one purchases the ESV Study Bible, you owe it to yourself to check out some of the notes on Biblical areas that are especially important to you.

The NASB is one of my favorites for study but not so much for general use, because its extreme literalism often makes for bad English.

I agree. I wouldn't say the English is bad, but it is sometimes clumsy.

The NKJV is based on the same older family of manuscripts as the KJV, and if you want that without the KJV archaisms, is a fine choice.

The KJV is not based on the oldest manuscripts available. The NKJV is a compromise version to correct some of the glaring errors in the KJV by referring to manuscripts not available to KJV translators at the time they were working on it. The translations based on the oldest manuscripts are the NASB, ESV, HCSB and NIV. The NRSV is heavily influenced by denominations who want to make the Bible male/female neutral. I believe that was already understood and did not need to be dummed down.

 

[FundamentalistJohn]

I'm pretty sure the original poster didn't really care about an answer but I'll chip in my thoughts. First of all, of the serious attempts at translation my opinion for any new Christian is that you should read whatever Bible you will read. Even a paraphrase is better than not reading Scripture at all. For me everyday reading is either the HCSB or the KJV. For academic study I will use the NASB along with the KJV.

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

Faith Man, I agree with all your comments. And I also like the HCSB.

FundamentalistJohn, likewise agreed. The best translation is the one that you'll read.

I have a new one, just acquired, The New Interpreter's Study Bible with Apocrypha, in NRSV. Bought used through Amazon. I like so far!

 

[kspchemist]

I grew up using the KJV. I tend to use no other.

 

[Faith.Man]

Faith Man, I agree with all your comments. And I also like the HCSB.

FundamentalistJohn, likewise agreed. The best translation is the one that you'll read.

I have a new one, just acquired, The New Interpreter's Study Bible with Apocrypha, in NRSV. Bought used through Amazon. I like so far!

Thank you for the thumbs up and I also agree with FundamentalistJohn.

I hope you'll share your thoughts on the NRSV after you've had a few months to get a feel for the scholarship. I have the NRSV and NRSVA in e-Sword but I haven't spent enough time with the translation to make an informed opinion, relying instead on what others have said.

 

[MeirDavid]

hi friend

Here a thread posted will be unknown to me , so i cant give any ideas

 

[JamieRedhead]

Jesus Our Lord??

Anyway for the sake of participation I always use the ESV and the NIV.

 

[classicalhero]

Well the best translations are based on those that use the majority text. Those that use the Wescott-Hort Greek should be avoided. Also use one that predominately does formal equivalence, since that is the best way to get the words across. Considering that we are translating from 3 different languages, it is always good to have at least a concordance to get the nuance fo the words used in the original language, because English is quite limited in expressing itself and thus we lose some understanding.

 

[Charlie_]

ESV, NASB, NKJV AND KJV are all fine choices imo. The NKJV and KJV has better flowing english of all of them. For studying, I feel the NASB is better for the OT and ESV for the NT. But the ESV is adequate for OT. For scripture on marital matters, I feel the KJV is more accurate.

 

[Cachook]

...The NKJV is based on the same older family of manuscripts as the KJV...

Nope. It was translated using the Alexandrian manuscripts. It is a very wicked perversion. It is also rather elaborate.

Even from the 1982 original, the NKJV has changed. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5_50wNml40
Here is a shorter and more direct video on the subject.

 

[Cachook]

Some more great videos on the subject. Listen objectively. The Alexandrian Cult - Unmasking the Liars (With Dr. Peter Ruckman) - YouTube

Peter Ruckman - Why I Believe the King James Bible is the Word of God - YouTube

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

Really?
NKJV Matt 3:17, 8:29, 14:33, 16:16, Mark 1:1, 3:11, Luke 1:35, 4:41, John 1:34, 3:16, 3:18, 5:25, 9:35, 11:4, 11:27, 20:31, Acts 8:37, 9:20, Romans 1:4, 2nd Corinthians 1:19, Gal 2:20, Eph 4:13, Hebrews 4:14, 6:6, 10:29, 1srt John 3:8, 4:15, 5:5, 5:10, 5:12-13, 5:20, Rev 2:18.

Don't use my name in one quote and then quote someone else's post below it. It makes it appear as though I said that.

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

Some more great videos on the subject. Listen objectively. The Alexandrian Cult - Unmasking the Liars (With Dr. Peter Ruckman) - YouTube

Peter Ruckman - Why I Believe the King James Bible is the Word of God - YouTube

LOL.

You shouldn't call yourself a doctor unless you actually have a real doctorate.

 

[Cachook]

LOL.

You shouldn't call yourself a doctor unless you actually have a real doctorate.

The sign of an immature person is to ridicule the messenger, and ignore the message, because the reality is he cannot be objective. You need to further research Dr. Ruckman before you speak ignorantly.

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

I was referring to the first guy. Nevertheless, same goes for any KJV-onkly 'doctor'. He has no education, calls himself a doctor... and...

"Ruckman believes a fetus does not become a living soul until it is born and takes its first breath.[20] He believes in Unidentified Flying Objects and aliens, specifically blue aliens with blue blood, black aliens with green blood, and gray aliens with clear blood.[21] Ruckman believes the Central Intelligence Agency has implanted brain transmitters in children, old people, and African-Americans and that the agency operates underground alien breeding facilities.[22]"

lulz