How can all of these Bible versions mean exactly the same thing?

Bible Highlighter said:

How do you know they are the best source texts?
Is it by faith?
Is not believing the Bible by faith?
But instead it sounds like you are believing the scholar when he makes the discovery of what he BELIEVES is the best source texts.
Faith then becomes like this ever changing message or words by God.
Your Bible today will not be the one 500 years from now.
For the NIV and NASB has had several revisions and the changes on particular words were major and done in an extensive way.
This is not the case with the KJB.

Click to expand...

There is no way that you can be dissuaded that the KJV is not the best Bible, not the truest translation. You are simply believing long-dead scholars who used the best source texts they had at the time, along with the knowledge that they might have had of the languages, ancient cultures, etc.

My Bible today will not be the one 500 years from now, but of course the KJV has been revised over time. The KJV you have today is not the same as the 1611 translation, which was based in part on earlier translations.

ChristianForCats said:

What I am reading here are both ancient and contemporary English word usages.

Click to expand...

To me, the practical meaning of any of these translations is that two men should not be doing what could hurt a lady who is nearby.

This is possibly not meant for if something like this happens, as much as it is intended to prevent this from happening.

We can see how two men could start to do what is wrong, but find out they are not in control like they thought . . . and therefore they hurt someone else in ways they did not mean to hurt someone. We can read this and stand warned that if we sin, we can fail to have the control we suppose we have, and therefore we can get ourselves and others hurt because of our sinning.

So, we need to relate in love, instead . . . all the time . . . even while younger ones and women are not nearby.

"Let all that you do be done with love." (1 Corinthians 16:14)

So-o-o - - - not only when others see what you are doing and are nearby . . . but "all that you do" needs to be in God's love.

I can read this scripture and see how those two men fighting got a woman hurt, and I can see, "That could be me." And be prayerfully careful in how I relate with other people, so I don't hurt anyone.

I find that every scripture can have a love meaning and application to help us find out how to love. So, this needs to have my attention, first, I consider

pescador said:

Aside from the very few paraphrase Bibles such as The Message and the New Living Translation that might be described as personal interpretation, the great majority of "modern" translations are excellent renditions of the earliest and best source documents.

Click to expand...

Of course, what else did you think I meant?

pescador said:

I am perplexed by your response. You make generalized statements such as "some modern Bibles took an already translated Bible and updated the text to be more modern and understandable." By this do you mean the NKJV or the NRSV or ..?

The best new translations are ones that have been created using the best source texts and the best knowledge of how to communicate the ancient languages into the destination language, including 21st Century English.

The only reason to use older versions alongside of a modern version is academic.

Click to expand...

pescador most times you click agree on my posts so I assumed you already knew where I was coming from.

Of course I am not referring to the NKJV, why would I when I said I use that version and recommend it! I think maybe you are missing chunks of this thread.

And I disagree its only for academic use, unless making sure I understand the text meaning is being academic. To me this is normal Bible study, be sure I got the full meaning of a verse by checking it across 2-3 versions. If I wanted to be academic I would grab a Lexicon and check out the Hebrew or Greek as well.

Bible Highlighter said:

Modern Scholarship says: There is no perfect Bible in any language today and only the perfect Word of God existed in the originals of which we do not have.

Click to expand...

There is no perfectly preserved Bible, why is that a problem? They all still bear witness to the record that Jesus was crucified and rose from the dead.

To all:

I am too busy right now working on new and exciting reasons based on Scripture and facts in defense of the King James Bible to deal with what I believe are petty and weak arguments against God’s Word (the KJB). If I feel it is worth my time in replying at a later time, I will reply. If not, I will simply move on. But for now, I am too busy to be distracted by such insignificant arguments and mere opinions.

Anyways, we can agree to disagree in love.
May the Lord’s good ways be upon you all.

KJV onlyism is a waste of time akin to the flat and stationary earth belief.

There’s no such thing as an inerrant translation.

If you want the most accuracy possible, to the Nth degree, spend years learning Hebrew and koine Greek, and just read the MSS that English bibles are translated from.

The KJV only types I’ve debated with, have no clue about translation of English from another language, and the fact that translators have to choose between many meanings a particular word has, and different translators may choose a different legitimate meaning for the same word from the list of definitions, and none of the choices can be called wrong.

An example of this is the Greek word that can mean world, or can mean age, thus some translations render a verse as end of the world, others as end of the age, and both are correct translations.

But the KJV only adherent will insist that it must be rendered only the way the KJ version has it.

coffee4u said:

Of course, what else did you think I meant?

Click to expand...

You wrote "some modern versions have become less about translation and more about some peoples personal interpretation". The meaning of that is quite clear, even though there is no basis for saying it IMHO.

chad kincham said:

KJV onlyism is a waste of time akin to the flat and stationary earth belief.

There’s no such thing as an inerrant translation.

If you want the most accuracy possible, to the Nth degree, spend years learning Hebrew and koine Greek, and just read the MSS that English bibles are translated from.

The KJV only types I’ve debated with, have no clue about translation of English from another language, and the fact that translators have to choose between many meanings a particular word has, and different translators may choose a different legitimate meaning for the same word from the list of definitions, and none of the choices can be called wrong.

An example of this is the Greek word that can mean world, or can mean age, thus some translations render a verse as end of the world, others as end of the age, and both are correct translations.

But the KJV only adherent will insist that it must be rendered only the way the KJ version has it.

Click to expand...

Great post!

Bible Highlighter said:

To all:

I am too busy right now working on new and exciting reasons based on Scripture and facts in defense of the King James Bible to deal with what I believe are petty and weak arguments against God’s Word (the KJB). If I feel it is worth my time in replying at a later time, I will reply. If not, I will simply move on. But for now, I am too busy to be distracted by such insignificant arguments and mere opinions.

Anyways, we can agree to disagree in love.
May the Lord’s good ways be upon you all.

Click to expand...

The position you're taking is getting my attention because the polemics being used against Islam is rather effective because that false religion also claims to have a perfectly preserved text. Christian textual critics are hurling the same questions Atheists threw at the Bible and now we're finding significant differences within the 30 odd different Qurans. Not versions, different Quranic readings.

So if you're going to spend time defending the KJV, I would ask, who are you defending it against?

I agree with Chad Kincham's post. KJV onlyism is a waste of time. Christians are supposed to worship God, not a 411-year-old Englyshe translation. And yes, I mean worship a translation. The KJV is not God.

pescador said:

You wrote "some modern versions have become less about translation and more about some peoples personal interpretation". The meaning of that is quite clear, even though there is no basis for saying it IMHO.

Click to expand...

I think you have the wrong end of the stick.

coffee4u said:

I think you have the wrong end of the stick.

Click to expand...

I'm not waving a stick. What are you talking about?

I wrote "You wrote "some modern versions have become less about translation and more about some peoples personal interpretation". The meaning of that is quite clear, even though there is no basis for saying it IMHO.

ChristianForCats said:

I guess some people can't figure out "the Word" in John 1:1-4 is JESUS and take it to literally mean paper bonded to leather.

Click to expand...

I would love a version which keeps certain Greek or Hebrew terms in the original. Logos, agape vs philio, etc.

ChristianForCats said:

What about an interlinear Bible that alternates between English and Hebrew/Greek?

Click to expand...

Like this for John 1:1?
In the beginning was the Word (Logos) and the Word (Logos) was with God (Theos) and God (Theos) was the Word (Logos).

pescador said:

I'm not waving a stick. What are you talking about?

I wrote "You wrote "some modern versions have become less about translation and more about some peoples personal interpretation". The meaning of that is quite clear, even though there is no basis for saying it IMHO.

Click to expand...

Yes some do. I believe there are some very new Bibles out there that are based around someone making a copy of a copy and adding their own views in.
My comment was in reference to the bad scripture that the OP quoted. I can't even remember what version that was now. For that version to use the word 'miscarriage' was worse then poor wording, it was nonsense.

Then you asked me if I meant the NKJV after I had already recommended the NKJV.
I would hardly read and recommend a version if I thought that it was bad now would I? Hence my comment about you getting the wrong end of the stick.

I have no idea why you are trying to drum up an argument with me. For the record I often agree with your posts and I have seen you agree with mine so I don't understand what this is about.

ChristianForCats said:

No, like this:

English words
Greek words

So "Word" and "God" on the first line and "Logos" and "Theos" are on the second line.

Click to expand...

I've got an interlinear NIV. It gets confusing because it has
Strongs number
Greek
English

Its messy

The reason why I suggest the mix of Greek and English is as a chanter, that is something that we have in some our printed materials for services.