Translation Wars!

JoeP222w said:

There is only one version of the Bible. Different translations, but only one version. Translations and versions are not the same thing.

Click to expand...

I understand your point, but there are different versions of the Bible. I have read two chronological Bibles where editors cut and paste the Scriptures so that the stories are arranged in chronological order, of which the Bible is not usually arranged. Not only is it rearranged, but they also eliminate duplicate passages so the Bible reads more like a novel. I found the reading interesting, but frustrating because they did not cite the original placement nor note the eliminated passages. So, this is truly a different version of the Bible.

Also, the Kingdom Hall, i.e., Jehovah Witnesses, have a different version of the Bible where words are changed to accommodate their doctrine that Jesus is not God but Michael the Archangel.

I use the NRSV, as it's the standard used in academic biblical studies (whether religious, secular or anywhere in between)

AlexDTX said:

I understand your point, but there are different versions of the Bible. I have read two chronological Bibles where editors cut and paste the Scriptures so that the stories are arranged in chronological order, of which the Bible is not usually arranged. Not only is it rearranged, but they also eliminate duplicate passages so the Bible reads more like a novel. I found the reading interesting, but frustrating because they did not cite the original placement nor note the eliminated passages. So, this is truly a different version of the Bible.

Click to expand...

That sounds like just a very bad paraphrase and not necessarily a different version. When verses are removed or moved/rearranged to fit a certain format, I do not consider a different version of the Bible. I no longer consider it a Bible at all.

AlexDTX said:

Also, the Kingdom Hall, i.e., Jehovah Witnesses, have a different version of the Bible where words are changed to accommodate their doctrine that Jesus is not God but Michael the Archangel.

Click to expand...

I would say the New World Translation is so corrupt that I do not even consider scripture, but completely false doctrine.

JoeP222w said:

That sounds like just a very bad paraphrase and not necessarily a different version. When verses are removed or moved/rearranged to fit a certain format, I do not consider a different version of the Bible. I no longer consider it a Bible at all.

Click to expand...

In a sense, you are right. Even though I read the two different versions of the chronological Bible, I could not read them again since I found them more confusing than helpful. Instead I created a chronological list so if I want to read the stories in chronological order (which is very helpful in seeing them from their time frame) I read my Bible and jump to chapter and verse as needed.

JoeP222w said:

I would say the New World Translation is so corrupt that I do not even consider scripture, but completely false doctrine.

Click to expand...

The New World translation is most certainly a false doctrine, but you can still witness to JW using the NWT to show them the truth. In other words there is still enough of the truth for the Scriptures to be understood. It is very similar to witnessing to Jews. Every Jew gets a copy of the Old Testament at their Bar or Bats Mitzvah. When you use their Bible to show them the Gospel it has a powerful impact on them.

But these are just side notes.

JoeP222w said:

There is only one version of the Bible. Different translations, but only one version. Translations and versions are not the same thing.

Click to expand...

You had me going for a while. But your statement is wrong. You are giving the word "version" a meaning that the publishers do not give the word.

The International Standard Version, the English Standard Version, the American Standard Version, The King James Version, The Authorized Version, etc., etc, are all English translations.

Different translations refers to languages, English, Spanish, German, Chinese, etc. The publishers use the term "version" to refer to same language variations.

Since you alone are giving the word "version" a meaning that no one else gives the word, your use of the word is meaningless and wrong.

Three Scriptural Reasons to Trust in A Perfect Word Today.

#1. God's Word claims that it is perfect
God's Word claims that it is perfect (Psalms 12:6) (Psalms 119:140) (Proverbs 30:5) and that it will be preserved for all generations (Psalms 12:7) and it will stand forever (Isaiah 40:8) (1 Peter 1:25). Therefore, seeing Scripture plainly states these facts, it then becomes an issue of a test of your faith in God's Word (See the test the devil gave to Eve in Genesis 3:1); For the Bereans were more noble because they compared the spoken Word of God with the written Word of God (Acts of the Apostles 17:11). In other words, if the Bereans thought the written Word was corrupt in some way they would have no way of really knowing if the spoken Word of God was true or not. This leads us to conclude that there is a perfect Word of God for our world language today. The world language today happens to be English; And the KJV is the most long time standing and trust worthy Bible out there today.

#2. KJV vs. Modern Translations
A simple side by side comparison of the KJV vs Modern Translations shows us that the devil tries to place his name in the Modern Versions. Have no idea what I am talking about?

Well, many Bible versions say that it is the dragon who is standing on the sea shore in Revelation. This is just evil and wrong.

See Parallel Version for Revelation 13:1 here...

Revelation 13:1 The dragon stood on the shore of the sea. And I saw a beast coming out of the sea. It had ten horns and seven heads, with ten crowns on its horns, and on each head a blasphemous name.

See, if you know anything about Bible language, standing on something means that you "own it"; And the devil wants to own you. In the King James, John is standing on the seashore. Yet in many Bible versions the dragon (i.e. the devil) is standing on the seashore.

Why is this a problem?

Let's look at...

Genesis 22:17

"That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the seashore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies;"

Did you catch that? God says to Abraham that He will multiply his seed as the stars of the heaven and as the sand which is upon the seashore where he will then possess the gate of his enemies (i.e. the devil and his kingdom). The apostle John who wrote Revelation was Jewish and he was the promised seed of Genesis 22 standing on the seashore in Revelation 13. It was not the dragon or the devil standing on the seashore.

For certain Modern Versions eliminate the part of the passage in Revelation 13:1 that says that John is standing on the seashore (When he refers to himself as "I").

Also, the devil tries to take out key points in important discussions within the Bible (Which can affect doctrine). For example: In Romans 7 Paul talks from the Jew's perspective in keeping the Old Testament Law (Which leads to problems), and he gives us the climax or heart of his message as a solution in Romans 8:1. Now, certain modern translations have eliminated "who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." Eliminating this passage destroys the whole thrust of Paul's argument. Walking in the Spirit is the key to being in Christ Jesus. You eliminate that and you destroy Paul's argument. Also, 1 John 5:7 is the only verse in the Bible that is the clearest and most concise teaching on the Godhead (i.e. the Trinity).

#3. Biblical Numerics
Bible Numbers that glorify God and His Word. (Note: These are not equidistant letter sequences or numbers that attempt to get one to have a special dream, or to divine the future in some way - Striving to foretell the future is forbidden in the Bible). Numbers are something that we deal with in our everyday life and all things glorify God. So obviously the numbers in God's Word would naturally glorify Him in some way. What am I talking about? Check out this video on Numbers & the Greek New Testament.

Sevens in the Bible - Chuck Missler:

Also, here is a video series by Mike Hoggard that talks about the number 7 in the King James.

King James Code - Number 7 - Mike Hoggard (Part 1):

King James Code - Number 7 - Mike Hoggard (Part 2):

Now, while I may not agree with Mike on everything he teaches in the Bible nor on the way he teaches Bible numbers in every example, I have found that he has made some startling discoveries. Discoveries that do not appear in the modern translations but only in the King James.

I believe the 1769 KJV is the Word of God for our world language (English) today.
In 1611, the printing process was not perfected yet and there was no set standard in spelling yet, either.

From my experience, I have discovered that there are two wrong extremes on this topic. One wrong extreme says the KJV is evil and to even use it is to be a part of a cult (That teaches that one must worship a book - Which is simply not true). The other wrong extreme says the same thing. For I have found that many KJV-Onlyists believe that you should only read the King James. Many other KJV-Onlyists will also say that the King James is not all that hard to understand, too. However, I disagree with both of these conclusions, though.

Anyways, while I believe the KJV is the divinely inspired Word of God, I do not think one should stick to just reading it alone. For I have found Modern Translations to be very helpful in updating the language (From Old English); However, I do not put my entire trust in Modern Translations because the devil has placed his name all over them and key doctrines have been watered down and important messages within God's Word have been neutered.

In other words, I read Modern Translations as if I am panning for gold. I have to sift thru the dirt or the garbage in order to get to the gold of the passage that lines up with the King James (and the original Hebrew and Greek).

This gold that is found within the dirt of the translations can be very useful because it reflects what is in the King James. This is the gold that people hear and are saved when they hear the gospel message. For someone can be saved just by hearing a few Bible verses about the gospel message of Jesus Christ. This gold shines thru and penetrates their heart.

Like the Parable of the Sower. Believers receive the Word of God into their heart from those passages that are talking about salvation. Words that line up with the King James. These words are sown in their heart. And if they let this Word take root in their heart by continually reading the Word of God, then they will have hidden His Word in their heart so they will not sin against Him. It will have taken root and they will not fall away due to persecution or the trials of this life.

For it only takes a few Bible verses to get someone saved. However, washing yourself with the water of the Word is going to be a lot more effective if you use the pure Word of God (i.e. the KJV).

Rubiks said:

I use the NRSV, as it's the standard used in academic biblical studies (whether religious, secular or anywhere in between)

Click to expand...

Well, that's not true. A number of different translations are used in academic biblical studies, although any really serious work uses the Hebrew or Greek text.

I started out reading a NKJV .. But once i came to understand the faults in the NKJV i decided to only trust in the KJV..

So whe i quote the Bible i always quote the KJV..

Because i first read the Bible in the NKJV thats the Bible that is in my memmory so a verse will come to my mind to add to a post as part of my answer.. But my memmory will give me the NKJV verse .. So i sometimes have to look up the NKJV online to see what book and chapter it is in and then i can then go to the KJV and quote the verse as it is written in the KJV..

Over time i am getting more and more verses altered in my mind to the KJV standard.. It takes time..

What about the people who read from different versions? I for example read from both the KJV and the NIV. I consider both to be good.

The KJV and the NLT are my two favorites (that I read at Biblehub.com website or on my YouVersion Bible app or Olive Tree app).

Every once in a blue moon, I reference the VOICE Bible to find out who is speaking in my Old Testament readings because it is writen like a movie script with who is talking.

I like the KJV2000 sometimes because it places all of God''s words in red (Including the Old Testament). My only pet peeve is that it does not use the Textus Receptus as it's sole guide and therefore words like "dragon" are sometimes translated as "jackal." This is silly because Jackals do not live in wells. Anyways, the KJV2000 it is very close sounding to the regular KJV.

I use the NIV and the KJV to read and study. The number of resources for both of these far outnumber the resources for other translations (Strongs, Theyer, BDB, Vines, etc.)

I also like the HCSB for formatting and use of modern English.

For using the computer, I agree, E-sword and Blue letter Bible.com are top notch. CCEL.org for historical texts that E-Sword doesn't have.

Oh, C.H.Spurgeon's sermons.

kw5kw said:

I also like the HCSB for formatting and use of modern English.

Click to expand...

The HCSB is no longer, having been updated and renamed the CSB.

Does anyone have any experience with the CSB?

I have two:

The Revised Standard Version (2nd Catholic edition) and the Christian Standard Bible. I like the RSV because it has the liturgical version of Psalm 23 and the Lord's Prayer, and I like the CSB because it's an easy read, and an accurate translation.

Drick said:

Well, the poll is butchered and I can't fix it. If your choice is other, just go with the first one.

Click to expand...

I can edit the poll for you if you need me to - if you want a change, please PM me and I'll fix it

Drick said:

Okay, not really. I do have a few questions, though. Firstly, I wanted a sample of how many people use various different versions of the Bible.

But what I'm really curious about is... well, we all know the conundrum between the readers of the King James Bible and the readers of modern versions. I want to know the arguments. If you're a KJV-only person, why do you think updating the Bible to incorporate newly found texts and updated grammar is wrong? If you read the NIV or NRSV, or any number of new translations, why did you choose the one you did, how does it compare to others, and why don't you use the KJV, most popular translation of the Bible in the English-speaking world?

As always, I appreciate any insights any of you can give me.

Click to expand...

My preferred version is the ESV. I will sometimes use other versions in comparison depending on what I'm studying and how I am - with the youversion app, I typically only keep to the one version of ESV because of use and space - but with bible-study PC programs I'd have a few open, including the NKJV and sometimes RSV. With reading the physical bible I just stick to the ESV, although I do have a few bibles in other translations that have a lot of meaning to me personally because of my experiences getting them, such as the NIV Women's Devotional Bible and my Great-Grandmother's Paraphrased Message bible.

To answer your second question, I never understood KJV-only. There were translations prior to the KJV and translations afterward. Much of the vocabulary has been changed or omitted completely from the English language. I don't see anything holy about that translation compared to other popular translations. It's an odd IMO

Drick said:

Okay, not really. I do have a few questions, though. Firstly, I wanted a sample of how many people use various different versions of the Bible.

But what I'm really curious about is... well, we all know the conundrum between the readers of the King James Bible and the readers of modern versions. I want to know the arguments. If you're a KJV-only person, why do you think updating the Bible to incorporate newly found texts and updated grammar is wrong? If you read the NIV or NRSV, or any number of new translations, why did you choose the one you did, how does it compare to others, and why don't you use the KJV, most popular translation of the Bible in the English-speaking world?

As always, I appreciate any insights any of you can give me.

Click to expand...

The translation that we should use is the one that we read regularly and understand. There are good things about the KJV, though it is not by any means a perfect translation, but if someone is struggling to understand the old English, then they should use a different translation. Thought for thought translations have positives and negatives over word for word translations, so different translations have different purposes and it is better to read multiple than to stick to only one. My mom did all of her memory work in the NIV and found it to be very helpful when she was volunteering as counselor, but found it to be the Nearly Inspired Version after she started studying Hebrew. I grew up with the NIV and ESV, with my preference to the ESV, though I am now leaning toward the Complete Jewish Bible and Tree of Life Version because they show a better understanding of the Jewish cultural context of the Bible.

Drick said:

Okay, not really. I do have a few questions, though. Firstly, I wanted a sample of how many people use various different versions of the Bible.

But what I'm really curious about is... well, we all know the conundrum between the readers of the King James Bible and the readers of modern versions. I want to know the arguments. If you're a KJV-only person, why do you think updating the Bible to incorporate newly found texts and updated grammar is wrong? If you read the NIV or NRSV, or any number of new translations, why did you choose the one you did, how does it compare to others, and why don't you use the KJV, most popular translation of the Bible in the English-speaking world?

As always, I appreciate any insights any of you can give me.

Click to expand...

Not really a KJVO but a KJVP; but if you chose you can call me a TRO. Too many reasons to state all the reasons for why I don't care for the modern versions but this stick with one of the 2; 12 verse passages missing in the modern translations.

Many scholars question rather the Pericope de Adultera; John 7:53-8:11 is really Scripture stating reasons such as why does John say; "And every man went into his own house." John 7:53. Has Christianity gotten so far from our Jewish Roots that most have to wonder about this? I ask this question because in John 7:2 we are told it is during the Feast of Tabernacle; this means for 7 days the Jews stayed in Tabernacles. Turning to John 7:37-39 we see it is the last day of the Feast and Jesus states Christians would have Rivers of Living Water flowing. from the Holy Spirit.
First we see the importance of the last day of the Feast. The Jewish Sabbath is Saturday but it actually starts Friday at sundown and end Saturday at sundown. This is important because as soon as John tells us it is the last day of the Feast that means at Sundown it is over and it makes complete sense to state everyone went to his own house instead of their booths.

Secondly Jesus tells us, Rivers of Living Water would flow thru us by the power of the Holy Ghost. So the next day, after hearing this the Pharisees brought to Jesus a woman caught in adultery to tempt Jesus. Many wonder what did Jesus write in ground those 2 times, I think the Bible is clear as to what was written. Jesus writing on the ground the first time wrote, "O LORD, the hope of Israel, all that forsake these shall be ashamed, and they that. depart from Me shall be written in the earth, because they have forsaken the LORD, the Fountain of Living Water." Jeremiah 17:13
For the Pharisees not only forsake Jesus but completely departed from Him Who is our Fountain of Living Water. When Christ wrote the second time, He wrote all their names in the ground.

This passage which teaches a great sinner such as myself the great wonders of my God's grace and mercy is either question or missing in modern versions. So with the modern translations I seem to hear the serpent whispering to the Church; "... Yea, hath God said..." Genesis 3:1.

This is why i'm a Textus Receptus Onlyism.

Hi drick,

You also should have allowed multiple choices for your answers.

I have a number of various translations in my library now. When I was first born again I read the NIV. It's a good translations. However, as time went on I recognized that one could often settle certain small confusions by comparing various translations.

I have long since come to realize that God gave unto mankind the Scriptures so that they may know Him and the way of salvation that He has prepared for us. Today, I'm happy and satisfied with any translation that fulfills that purpose of God. I don't really get into tizzy fits because a word or phrase here and there may be different or even left out between translations. I've come to find that there's really no way, with any assurance, for me to know which one is true to the original manuscript that the reading is based on because we don't have any of the original manuscripts by which to compare.

All we have are people who think to themselves that because one is an older version than another, or the one that they grew up with, or the one their grandfathers gave them, that it just has to be the correct one. Frankly, that's not sufficient for me to say that one is correct and another isn't. Then there are those who believe that the translators of a particular version were especially guided by God's Holy Spirit to translate a version as they did. Fine sounding theory, but no real evidence to support it other than the reasons given above. After all, there are those who think the same thing of the Catholic organization. Are they right?

So, for me, understanding the purpose for which God gave us His Holy Scriptures, I'm inclined to approve and use any version that fulfills the purpose for which God gave us His words. Does it leave a man, after reading through completely, with the clear understanding of all that God has done and that the only way of salvation is to take advantage of the sacrifice that God has prepared before all men? If any translation or version does that, then I'm fairly satisfied that both God and I find that translation or version to be sufficient for the purpose for which we were given the very oracles of God.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

I chose "other" as I read from several. KJV, HCS, NEV, NAB, RSV and others.