Which "BIBLE" is best ? Why it REALLY Matters !

[Strong in Him]

I use the NIV a great deal but I sometimes also use the Amplified, or a parallel NT - 6 different translations. I also have an interlinear Greek NT.

 

[Heavenhome]

King James Bible only for me.

 

[faroukfarouk]

King James Bible only for me.

Yes, I do love and use the King James.

 

[DW1980]

https://bible.org/article/why-so-many-versions

Where have all the verses gone? The modern translations seem to have cut out many of the most precious lines of Scripture. They end Mark's gospel at the 8th verse of chapter 16; they omit the reference of the angel of the Lord stirring the waters at the pool of Bethesda (verse 4 of John 5); and, most notably, they excise the story of the woman caught in adultery in John 8.

Besides omissions, these modern versions make significant changes in the text. For example, in I Timothy 3:16, the King James reads, "God was manifest in the flesh," but most modern translations read, "He was manifest in the flesh." In Revelation 22:19 the King James speaks of the "book of life" while virtually all modern versions speak of the "tree of life." Altogether, there are hundreds of textual changes between the King James and modern translations

You have made the King James (a 17th century translation into English) the standard. The standard ought to be the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts that all Bibles are translated from.

Deuteronomy 4:2

Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

Going by the earliest manuscripts, the KJV has added these to the Bible, not the other way round.

Whichever translation we use, the main thing is that we are not just hearers of the Word, but that we do what it says, we can at least agree on that?

 

[cfyahoo08]

You have made the King James (a 17th century translation into English) the standard. The standard ought to be the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts that all Bibles are translated from.

Going by the earliest manuscripts, the KJV has added these to the Bible, not the other way round.

Whichever translation we use, the main thing is that we are not just hearers of the Word, but that we do what it says, we can at least agree on that?

The way the bible is translated matters and those doing the translating matter, if they are doing a scholarly translation verses a spiritual translation it matters a great deal the outcome of the final translation. It MATTERS.

 

[DW1980]

The way the bible is translated matters and those doing the translating matter, if they are doing a scholarly translation verses a spiritual translation it matters a great deal the outcome of the final translation. It MATTERS.

What do you mean by scholarly versus spiritual translations?

 

[cfyahoo08]

What do you mean by scholarly versus spiritual translations?

If the people doing the translation were language scholars and NOT of faith or had ulterior motives in their translations, did not capture the real and true intent. When translating there are subtle nuances that might be extremely difficult to translate, if your trying to convey a complex idea or message and the language your translating it into has no frame of reference for that idea or message its going to be very difficult, you should have some kind of spiritual understanding / inspiration when doing that kind of translation

 

[DW1980]

If the people doing the translation were language scholars and NOT of faith or had ulterior motives in their translations, did not capture the real and true intent. When translating there are subtle nuances that might be extremely difficult to translate, if your trying to convey a complex idea or message and the language your translating it into has no frame of reference for that idea or message its going to be very difficult, you should have some kind of spiritual understanding / inspiration when doing that kind of translation

Well, the NIV, NLT and ESV were all translated by committed Christians who held to doctrinal standards. They are also language scholars so understand the nuances in the text. Don't they meet your criteria?

NIV
"Behind the NIV Bible stands a world-class team of biblical scholars: the Committee on Bible Translation (CBT). CBT members bring decades of Bible translation experience to their work, along with an unshakeable commitment to God’s Word. Their efforts, which began in 1965, continue to this day, ensuring an accurate, faithful Bible translation for generations to come."
https://www.biblica.com/niv-bible/niv-bible-translators/
https://www.biblica.com/niv-bible/niv-bible-translation-process/

"The 15 members of the Committee on Bible Translation (CBT) don’t just translate the Bible. They believe the Bible. They’re united by the conviction that what they translate isn’t just any book; it’s the inspired Word of God."
Every NIV translator affirms this confession of faith from the original CBT charter: “The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written.”
https://www.biblica.com/niv-bible/niv-bible-translation-accuracy/

NLT
"All of the Bible scholars and stylists involved in this work are Christians who accept the Bible as the inspired Word of God. Most of the translators are professors in seminaries or universities, and all of the translators have written books and/or scholarly articles regarding the specific books of the Bible for which they did their translation work. They represent a rich variety of theological and denominational backgrounds, united by the common conviction that the Bible is God’s Word and that all people should have a translation of Scripture that they can really understand."
https://www.tyndale.com/nlt

ESV
"The ESV publishing team has included more than a hundred people. The fourteen-member Translation Oversight Committee has benefited from the work of more than fifty biblical experts serving as Translation Review Scholars and from the comments of the more than fifty members of the Advisory Council, all of which was carried out under the auspices of the Crossway Board of Directors. This hundred-plus-member team shares a common commitment to the truth of God’s Word and to historic Christian orthodoxy and is international in scope, including leaders in many denominations."
https://www.esv.org/preface/

 

[ViaCrucis]

https://bible.org/article/why-so-many-versions

Where have all the verses gone? The modern translations seem to have cut out many of the most precious lines of Scripture. They end Mark's gospel at the 8th verse of chapter 16; they omit the reference of the angel of the Lord stirring the waters at the pool of Bethesda (verse 4 of John 5); and, most notably, they excise the story of the woman caught in adultery in John 8.

Besides omissions, these modern versions make significant changes in the text. For example, in I Timothy 3:16, the King James reads, "God was manifest in the flesh," but most modern translations read, "He was manifest in the flesh." In Revelation 22:19 the King James speaks of the "book of life" while virtually all modern versions speak of the "tree of life." Altogether, there are hundreds of textual changes between the King James and modern translations

There are a myriad of manuscripts, and they aren't carbon copies of one another. There are some significant differences, but in most cases there are very minute differences. Even the manuscripts and critical texts which the translators of the King James Version used weren't uniform. The translators relied on several critical Greek texts, those of Erasmus, Stephanus, and Bezae. Erasmus actually, over his life, produced five editions of his Greek text, and each edition had differences from previous editions, either because he had access to more manuscripts to work with, or because he was convinced there were better readings. For example Erasmus didn't include the Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7) in his first two editions of his Greek text, only including it beginning in the third edition; the reason he did not include it originally was because he could not find any Greek manuscripts which had it, and he only ultimately included it due to pressure (the official Bible of the Roman Catholic Church, the Vulgate, included it) and by being provided some very, very late Greek manuscripts (they were less than a hundred years old at Erasmus' time) which likely were themselves influenced by the Vulgate.

So the translators of the King James worked with, as I recall, three of Erasmus' editions, as well as those of Stephanus and Bezae. All of these critical texts were made in the 16th century. And when translating they had to make decisions about which readings to use, as the critical texts they worked with were not uniform, not even Erasmus' texts as explained above. So they worked with five slightly different critical Greek texts, and had to make educated choices about which readings to use. And that's just with the New Testament. With the Old Testament while they primarily used the Masoretic Text, a 9th or 10th century medieval Jewish edition of the Hebrew Scriptures, they also worked with the Septuagint and the Vulgate. Influences from the Septuagint and the Vulgate can be seen throughout the King James Version's Old Testament, for example in Isaiah 14 the translators chose to simply borrow the Vulgate by using "Lucifer" in the text, "lucifer" is Latin, and is the Latin translation of the Septuagint's Greek word εωσφόρος (eosphoros) and the original Hebrew הֵילֵל (heylel), the Greek word means "dawn-bearer" and the Hebrew means "shining [thing/one]"; both of these terms referred to the planet Venus. Latin lucifer means "light-bringer" which, like the Hebrew and Greek words, was an epithet for the planet Venus (which ancient people thought was a star). The translators of the KJV also blatantly rejected the Masoretic reading in favor of the Septuagint/Vulgate reading in Psalm 22:16, the Masoretic text has "like lions [at] my hands and feet", but the Septuagint says "they pierced my hands and feet".

Further, the translators were not really seeking to create a brand new, original translation. The goal of the translators, as given to them by King James I of England, was to produce an updated text for use within the Anglican Church. The official and authorized version in use previously was the Bishop's Bible, but by the early 1600's it was felt that the text needed to be updated. And so the translators sought a two-fold methodology: Remain faithful to the previous English translations, especially the Bishop's Bible, and also improve the text by using the best source material they had at the time. The result was the Authorized Version, (authorized by King James for official use within the English Church), more commonly known as the King James Version.

The King James isn't the litmus test of a good English translation; nor is it some kind of immutable standard against which all other English translations must be judged. For one, the King James itself underwent numerous updates over the years, with new editions being published over the next century every few years or couple decades. In fact, so many updates and new editions had been published that by the mid 18th century it was deemed necessary to, again, produce a standardized text for use within the Anglican Church. The task to update and produce a new standardized text fell to the two great English universities of Oxford and Cambridge. Both ended up producing an updated text, with the 1769 Oxford text gaining dominance. When you read the King James Version today, you are reading the 1769 Oxford text, not the original 1611 text--and there are some significant differences between the original 1611 and the 1769 Oxford, not just spelling and orthographical changes, but actual changes to the text where the original 1611 actually had mistakes in the translation.

In the centuries since, we have also discovered literally thousands of more manuscripts of the New Testament, as well within the last century we discovered the Dead Sea Scrolls which gave us a major insight into the pre-Masoretic text of the Old Testament. What is fascinating about the Dead Sea Scrolls is that they actually agree more with the Septuagint in many places then they do with the Masoretic Text. Further, in regard to New Testament manuscripts, western scholars four and five hundred years ago relied largely on recent manuscripts that were largely restricted to the West--we have since found manuscripts from areas such as Egypt (the dry climate helps preserve papyrus which otherwise would deteriorate quickly), manuscripts which are often many hundreds of years older than anything Erasmus, Stephanus, and others were working with back in the 16th and 17th centuries.

It should come to no surprise, then, that as new English translations have been made part of the reason this has been done is to account for the wealth of manuscripts we have discovered over the last few centuries; in order to have a translation (or translations) which may be as faithful to the source as possible. No translation is perfect, no translation is infallible, no translation is going to get it 100% right; but we can benefit from the fact that we have more manuscripts, older manuscripts, and therefore a better selection by which to try and make our best decisions and educated guesses as to the most faithful reading. We'll never know with 100% certainty if the readings we are using are the original composed by the original writers, but we can be confident that the best job is being put forward to that end.

And that is precisely why there are often differences in many translations with the King James. For example, the longer ending of Mark is noticeably absent from many of the older copies of Mark we have, and it's usually agreed that Mark originally did end at verse 8, either on purpose or perhaps even because the author was unable to finish the work. The longer ending is found in the majority of manuscripts, but not the oldest, though it is pretty old itself; it's generally agreed that a later person wrote the longer ending because they noticed how abrupt the text ends, and it was incorporated early into the text somewhat early. But the longer ending isn't the only alternative ending to Mark we have, there are two other endings known to us as well. If you have a copy of the NASB you can find both the traditional longer ending and one of the alternative short endings mingled together:

"[Now after He had risen early on the first day of the week, He first appeared to Mary Magdalene, from whom He had cast out seven demons. She went and reported to those who had been with Him, while they were mourning and weeping. When they heard that He was alive and had been seen by her, they refused to believe it.

After that, He appeared in a different form to two of them while they were walking along on their way to the country. They went away and reported it to the others, but they did not believe them either.


Afterward He appeared to the eleven themselves as they were reclining at the table; and He reproached them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they had not believed those who had seen Him after He had risen. And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned. These signs will accompany those who have believed: in My name they will cast out demons, they will speak with new tongues; they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover.”


So then, when the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God. And they went out and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them, and confirmed the word by the signs that followed.]

[And they promptly reported all these instructions to Peter and his companions. And after that, Jesus Himself sent out through them from east to west the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation.]"

In italics/brackets: the traditional longer ending.
In bold/brackets/italics: one of the common alternative short endings.

But there's even yet another alternative ending to Mark, found only in one manuscript, Codex Washingtonianus, a late antiquity codex containing the four Gospels; it uniquely contains this ending to Mark, known as the Freer Logion:

"And they excused themselves, saying, 'This age of lawlessness and unbelief is under Satan, who does not allow the truth and power of God to prevail over the unclean things of the spirits [or: does not allow what lies under the unclean spirits to understand the truth and power of God]. Therefore reveal thy righteousness now' - thus they spoke to Christ. And Christ replied to them, 'The term of years of Satan's power has been fulfilled, but other terrible things draw near. And for those who have sinned I was delivered over to death, that they may return to the truth and sin no more in order to inherit the spiritual and incorruptible glory of righteousness which is in heaven.'"

At the end of the day, the "Why are there translations that disagree with the KJV?" question is answered pretty simply: Because the KJV isn't perfect, never was, it contains some portions of text that are incredibly late (i.e. the Comma Johanneum), and we have better manuscripts to work with today to provide better translations for faithful Christians who want to read the Holy Scriptures in their native tongue.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[SonOfZion]

Phi 2:6 Jehovah' Witness NWT Westcott and Hort Greek

who, although he was existing in God’s form, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God

Philippians 2:6 ASV - NT: Textual Basis Westcott and Hort 1881 <<< That is one messed up translation, grasping for legitimacy. And Failed

ESV...Westcott and Hort Greek

"who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,"


Textus Receptus, Morphological Greek Text

Phl 2:6

Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: Being - Present Active Particple

WESTCOTT AND HORT < In

Brooke Foss Westcott (1825-1901) and Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828-1892) produced a Greek New Testament in 1881 based on the findings of Tischendorf. This Greek NT was the basis for the Revised Version of that same year. They also developed a theory of textual criticism which underlay their Greek NT and several other Greek NT since (such as the Nestle's text and the United Bible Society's text). Greek New Testaments such as these produced the modern English translations of the Bible we have today. So it is important for us to know the theory of Westcott and Hort as well as something of the two men who have so greatly influenced modern textual criticism.

In short, the Westcott and Hort theory states that the Bible is to be treated as any other book would be.

Westcott and Hort believed the Greek text which underlies the KJV was perverse and corrupt. Hort called the Textus Receptus vile and villainous (Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Vol. I, p.211).

If Westcott and Hort are the fathers of modern textual criticism and the restorers of the true text, should we not know something of their beliefs to see if they are consistent with Scripture? This would be harmonious with the teaching found in Matthew 7:17.

Here's what Westcott and Hort said about...

The Scriptures:

"I reject the word infallibility of Holy Scriptures overwhelmingly." (Westcott, The Life and Letters of Brook Foss Westcott, Vol. I, p.207).

"Our Bible as well as our Faith is a mere compromise." (Westcott, On the Canon of the New Testament, p. vii).

"Evangelicals seem to me perverted. . .There are, I fear, still more serious differences between us on the subject of authority, especially the authority of the Bible." (Hort, The Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Vol. I, p.400)

"Dr. Wilbur Pickering writes that, Hort did not hold to a high view of inspiration." (The Identity of the New Testament Text, p.212)


The KJV has the preserved Word of God in the Original Languages, the ESV, NIV ASV all are from a text that was put together by men who didn't have a high view of God's ability to preserve His Word, or that it was Inspired in the first place.

The basis for most modern money making mistake filled translations, frauds and charlatans preying on the ignorant.

The KJV is far from perfect, but the underlying texts are where the real study begins.

Not being real familiar with the ASV until this site, Since then, I have Personally found it to be a Terrible translation. Inconsistent at telling places. Deceptive.


Banah - Qal Perfect - build (340x), build up (14x)....בנה

Psalms 102:16 ASV Hath built up? Hath Appeared?

KJV - When YHWH shall build up Zion, He shall appear in His glory.

Banay - Qal Perfect בני

Isaiah 60:10 ASV Shall build up

KJV - And the sons of strangers shall build up thy walls, and their kings shall minister unto thee: for in My wrath I smote thee, but in My favour have I had mercy on thee.

Titus 2:13

Tit 2:13

Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great Elohim and our Saviour YESHUA Mashiach;



Westcott and Hort on Creation in the link above


No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history. I could never understand how anyone reading them with open eyes could think they did." (Westcott, cited from Which Bible?, p. 191).

"But the book which has most engaged me is Darwin. Whatever may be thought of it, it is a book that one is proud to be contemporary with..... My feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable." (Hort, cited from Which Bible?, p. 189)

NO WAY were these two men of God. No two men have been more responsible for the attack on the preserved word of YHWH.

Deity deniers to boot. Said it was undeniable that YESHUS was the first creation just like JWs

OY VEY and OY VEY

It's like getting to the bottom of who has been running the American government, layer upon layer of swamp creatures.

A bad tree Can Not bear good fruit, it just can't

 

[cfyahoo08]

There are a
At the end of the day, the "Why are there translations that disagree with the KJV?" question is answered pretty simply: Because the KJV isn't perfect, never was, it contains some portions of text that are incredibly late (i.e. the Comma Johanneum), and we have better manuscripts to work with today to provide better translations for faithful Christians who want to read the Holy Scriptures in their native tongue.

-CryptoLutheran

Well those are all examples of people doing their best to interrupt God's meaning in the bible, I prefer the KJV still they had a bit more "meat in the game" at the time.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Well those are all examples of people doing their best to interrupt God's meaning in the bible

Who was doing the interrupting? On what basis are you making this argument?

I prefer the KJV still they had a bit more "meat in the game" at the time.

And you say that because...why? On what basis? Who is "they"? Do you even know who "they" are?

I can't help but think that you really don't know what you're talking about and are simply trying to justify a feeling that the KJV is better, but you don't know why just that "it is".

Why the KJV? Why not the Bishop's Bible? Why not the Geneva? Why not go back further, why not the Wycliffe Bible? Why the KJV? And which KJV? The 1611? The 1769? Why would revising the KJV be okay in 1769, but not 1885 (the RV), or the 1901 ASV, or the 1959 RSV? And why the 1769 Oxford and not the 1762 Cambridge? With or without Deuterocanonicals?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[cfyahoo08]

Who was doing the interrupting? On what basis are you making this argument?



And you say that because...why? On what basis? Who is "they"? Do you even know who "they" are?

I can't help but think that you really don't know what you're talking about and are simply trying to justify a feeling that the KJV is better, but you don't know why just that "it is".

Why the KJV? Why not the Bishop's Bible? Why not the Geneva? Why not go back further, why not the Wycliffe Bible? Why the KJV? And which KJV? The 1611? The 1769? Why would revising the KJV be okay in 1769, but not 1885 (the RV), or the 1901 ASV, or the 1959 RSV? And why the 1769 Oxford and not the 1762 Cambridge? With or without Deuterocanonicals?

-CryptoLutheran

It is better because of the sacrifice that was necessary to bring it about, it was brought about because of a concern for TRUTH not $ as those that followed it.

 

[faroukfarouk]

It is better because of the sacrifice that was necessary to bring it about, it was brought about because of a concern for TRUTH not $ as those that followed it.

I use the King James and appreciate it; its pedigree and antecedents go back to Tyndale.

 

[Strong in Him]

It is better because of the sacrifice that was necessary to bring it about, it was brought about because of a concern for TRUTH not $ as those that followed it.

So ALL those people who wanted to provide a translation of the Bible after 1611, making it more accessible to people and using the manuscripts that had been discovered, were only doing so to make money?
Apart from a massive sweeping statement that I doubt you could ever prove, that's rather insulting; to the people involved, and the Holy Spirit.

I'm told that those who produced the KJV even said in their introduction that it wasn't inspired.

 

[cfyahoo08]

So ALL those people who wanted to provide a translation of the Bible after 1611, making it more accessible to people and using the manuscripts that had been discovered, were only doing so to make money?
Apart from a massive sweeping statement that I doubt you could ever prove, that's rather insulting; to the people involved, and the Holy Spirit.

I'm told that those who produced the KJV even said in their introduction that it wasn't inspired.

"Your told" ?

 

[Strong in Him]

"Your told" ?

There was a debate on here recently with a "KJV only" person, who was claiming that it is the only true Bible etc. Another forummer said that the introduction to the 1611 KJV says that it was not inspired. I can't remember who it was and I don't know where the thread is.
It would be easy enough to Google, but I had not done so when I wrote my reply. Which is why I said, "I'm told", rather than "this is a definite fact that I have verified for myself, and here is the link."

By the way; you are = you're not your.

 

[Hawkins]

Humans can't keep a perfect theology whole, by using a single version of the Scripture. God makes a theology perfect by using the imperfect human hands. The multiple authenticated translations adding up together makes it possible for God to show humans a perfect theology of His salvation.

 

[Open Heart]

It is my opinion that the New American Bible is the best translation. This is because its Old Testament is translated exclusively from the Hebrew Masoretic text, instead of from the Greek Septuagint.

Basically, the Greek is itself a translation. Doing a translation from a translation is whoafully inadequate -- much more is likely to get lost in the translation. In addiction, although the Greek translation of the first 5 books is beyond par, the rest of it is considered sloppy work.

Christians tend to lean on the Septuagint 1. because the Early Church depended upon it, and 2. because the gospels and epistles quoted from it. However, this makes sense because the Early Church was Greek speaking and the gospels and epistles were written in Greek -- its like you or I preferring a Bible in English. It makes no comment on the fact that the primary manuscript will ALWAYS be the Hebrew one.

Because the NAB translates from the Hebrew, it resolves ALL of the objections that Jews have with our OT. And believe me they have a lot. It's why Jews are not allowed to read Christian translations. But a Christian would be able to use the NAB when speaking to a Jew.

It does require some getting use to, as a few favorite Christian verses do word things quite differently.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

Verse (Click for Chapter)
New International Version
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

How many ways are there to say I love you?

This famous saying defines the Bible. Just as there are multiple ways to say I love you, there are multiple ways for the Bible to say God loves us. The message is simple enough and repeated such that the key points God wishes us to know can be known despite differences in translations. Ironic that you choose John 3:16 to call out the importance of a particular translation. Your listing of the various translations of John 3:16 only highlight the insignificant differences of the translations.