• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
  • We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

Bible Version

Louis C

New Member
May 18, 2022
4
4
56
Long Island, NY
✟22,985.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Good morning, and God Bless.

I am asking advice about which Bible version to read. I would prefer a modern translation of the text, without the gender-neutral pronouns.

For example, the KJV version of Matthew 4:19 reads:
"And he saith unto them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men."

While the NIV version reads:
“Come, follow me,” Jesus said, “and I will send you out to fish for people.”

I prefer the modern translation of the NIV, but without the gender-neutral elements. Any suggestions?

Thank you in advance for any help you may be able to offer.
 

tampasteve

I can't post or reply due to forum tech issues.
Christian Forums Staff
Administrator
Site Supporter
May 15, 2017
27,780
8,058
Tampa
✟982,063.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
ESV and CSB are solid choices, if you are a NIV fan then the CSB is probably a better choice IMO. The CSB may use some language that seems inclusive, but it is because the text is written in that way, in contrast to changing the words used in the original text to make it inclusive (as seen in NIV and RSV). The translators of the CSB followed the Colorado Springs guidelines on translating gender. A good article on this is here LINK.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Louis C
Upvote 0

Gregorikos

Ordinary Mystic
Dec 31, 2019
1,103
893
Louisville, Kentucky
Visit site
✟130,827.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Good morning, and God Bless.

I am asking advice about which Bible version to read. I would prefer a modern translation of the text, without the gender-neutral pronouns.

For example, the KJV version of Matthew 4:19 reads:
"And he saith unto them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men."

While the NIV version reads:
“Come, follow me,” Jesus said, “and I will send you out to fish for people.”

I prefer the modern translation of the NIV, but without the gender-neutral elements. Any suggestions?

Thank you in advance for any help you may be able to offer.

Sounds like you want a CSB. (Christian Standard Bible).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Louis C
Upvote 0

BPPLEE

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2022
17,082
7,932
62
Montgomery
✟282,651.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Good morning, and God Bless.

I am asking advice about which Bible version to read. I would prefer a modern translation of the text, without the gender-neutral pronouns.

For example, the KJV version of Matthew 4:19 reads:
"And he saith unto them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men."

While the NIV version reads:
“Come, follow me,” Jesus said, “and I will send you out to fish for people.”

I prefer the modern translation of the NIV, but without the gender-neutral elements. Any suggestions?

Thank you in advance for any help you may be able to offer.
I like The New King James Version.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Louis C
Upvote 0

Louis C

New Member
May 18, 2022
4
4
56
Long Island, NY
✟22,985.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Thank you folks. I think I'm going to try The New King James version.
Also, I highly recommend Bible Gateway. It has quite a few versions available, so it makes of very easy comparisons.

Again, thank you.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Andrewn

Well-Known Member
CF Ambassadors
Site Supporter
Jul 4, 2019
5,870
4,342
-
✟753,318.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
For example, the KJV version of Matthew 4:19 reads:
"And he saith unto them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men."

While the NIV version reads:
“Come, follow me,” Jesus said, “and I will send you out to fish for people.”
You've chosen an interesting verse (Mat 4:19):

1) The word rendered "men" in KJV, NKJV, and many other translations is Greek "anthropon" which really means "people" and for the sake of fidelity to the original text it should be translated as such.

2) A considerable debate is centered around the word "fishers." Until recently it was considered archaic But it has become fashionable in scientific papers as a gender-neutral replacement for "fishermen." However people in the fishing industry, both men and women, do not like to be called "fishers."

When the word "fishers" is read aloud, as the Bible often is, it sounds like "fissures." A "fissure" is a long, narrow opening or line of breakage made by cracking or splitting, especially in rock or earth. No one wants to be called that. “Fisher” is also the name of an adorable animal in the weasel family.

To avoid choosing between "fishers" and "fishermen," some Bible translations opted to choose different renderings:

CSB, NCV: I will make you fish
GNT: I will teach you to catch
NIV: I will send you out to fish
CEB, NLT: I’ll show you how to fish

Some of these renderings may be better than others. But why can't we simply translate:

"I will make you fishermen of people"?
 
Upvote 0

Louis C

New Member
May 18, 2022
4
4
56
Long Island, NY
✟22,985.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You've chosen an interesting verse (Mat 4:19):

1) The word rendered "men" in KJV, NKJV, and many other translations is Greek "anthropon" which really means "people" and for the sake of fidelity to the original text it should be translated as such.

2) A considerable debate is centered around the word "fishers." Until recently it was considered archaic But it has become fashionable in scientific papers as a gender-neutral replacement for "fishermen." However people in the fishing industry, both men and women, do not like to be called "fishers."

When the word "fishers" is read aloud, as the Bible often is, it sounds like "fissures." A "fissure" is a long, narrow opening or line of breakage made by cracking or splitting, especially in rock or earth. No one wants to be called that. “Fisher” is also the name of an adorable animal in the weasel family.

To avoid choosing between "fishers" and "fishermen," some Bible translations opted to choose different renderings:

CSB, NCV: I will make you fish
GNT: I will teach you to catch
NIV: I will send you out to fish
CEB, NLT: I’ll show you how to fish

Some of these renderings may be better than others. But why can't we simply translate:

"I will make you fishermen of people"?

Thank you for your response.

To answer your question as to "why can't we simply translate: "I will make you fishermen of people", my answer is, I never suggested you couldn't. I said I simply prefer what I believe to be a closer representation of the text from a predominantly patriarchal society.

I do not have access to the original texts (does anyone really?), and regardless, even if I did, I don't speak Greek, Latan, or Hebrew, or Aramaic so I can't speak to the accuracy or translation. What I do know is, people at the time, being from a patriarchal society, would have more likely said "brothers", and not "brothers and sisters", they more likely would have said "men" and not "people".

Does it change the meaning? It is it better to make it more inclusive? Would Jesus prefer the inclusivity of modern times? All questions I frankly do not care to dally with.

Let every man decide for himself. ;) Read the Bible version that you like best friend.
 
  • Friendly
Reactions: Andrewn
Upvote 0

Cockcrow

Well-Known Member
Jan 12, 2022
481
221
Southern USA
✟125,180.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
KJV is the authorized English translation from the original Greek text, and it is the accurate word of God. every other version has been altered, you don't need any other version. the NIV for example was created by Jesuits.
 
Upvote 0

Leaf473

Well-Known Member
Jul 17, 2020
9,326
2,564
56
Northeast
✟257,126.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Good morning, and God Bless.

I am asking advice about which Bible version to read. I would prefer a modern translation of the text, without the gender-neutral pronouns.

For example, the KJV version of Matthew 4:19 reads:
"And he saith unto them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men."

While the NIV version reads:
“Come, follow me,” Jesus said, “and I will send you out to fish for people.”

I prefer the modern translation of the NIV, but without the gender-neutral elements. Any suggestions?

Thank you in advance for any help you may be able to offer.
So this is just a brainstorm, but how about an older version of the NIV?
 
Upvote 0

JohnRemnant

Active Member
Jul 3, 2022
73
34
77
NYC
✟4,615.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I was considering that, but I decided to go with the New King James Version.

I suggest something more advanced. The Companion Bible by E.W.Bullinger. Its a KJV, but with scholarly notations for The languages the Bible is translated from. A simple English translation of KJV, or NKJV or anything like this will not be sufficient long term If you plan to learn more into The Bible. Hope that helps.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Davy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Nov 25, 2017
4,861
1,022
USA
✟291,297.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Our aim should not be about trying to find a Bible version that suits our personal beliefs about culture. Instead, it should be about the love of the Truth and our search for it with asking God's help.

WARNING:
All newer English Bible versions (New Testament) past the 1880''s are from completely different Greek texts than what the early Christian Church used. The Greek "Critical Texts" used for modern Bible translations come from manuscripts that omit many Scriptures that are contained in the Traditional Greek text which the early Church used.

The New King James Version (NKJV) also does NOT strictly use the original Traditional Greek text for the New Testament which the original 1611 KJV used. The NKJV also uses Wescott and Hort's new 1880's Greek New Testament revision that is used in modern New Testament translations. Thomas Nelson publishers admit this in a footnote referring to WH (Wescott & Hort).

 
Upvote 0

Gregorikos

Ordinary Mystic
Dec 31, 2019
1,103
893
Louisville, Kentucky
Visit site
✟130,827.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Our aim should not be about trying to find a Bible version that suits our personal beliefs about culture. Instead, it should be about the love of the Truth and our search for it with asking God's help.

I agree with you on that. But that is where our agreement ends. The rest of your post is factually incorrect about many things.

WARNING:
All newer English Bible versions (New Testament) past the 1880''s are from completely different Greek texts than what the early Christian Church used.

Not true. First of all, not all Bible versions produced since the 1880s are from the Greek text that you malign. There have been several translations produced using the Textus Receptus or the majority text.

Second, "The early Christian church" is the church from the first couple of centuries. The reason modern versions use a different Greek text is that all of the texts from the time period of "the early church" used a different greek text than that used to produce the KJV.

The Greek "Critical Texts" used for modern Bible translations come from manuscripts that omit many Scriptures that are contained in the Traditional Greek text which the early Church used.

It cannot be demonstrated that "the early church" used the texts you claim they used. Manuscripts from that time period are more in line with "the critical text" that you malign.

The New King James Version (NKJV) also does NOT strictly use the original Traditional Greek text for the New Testament which the original 1611 KJV used. The NKJV also uses Wescott and Hort's new 1880's Greek New Testament revision that is used in modern New Testament translations. Thomas Nelson publishers admit this in a footnote referring to WH (Wescott & Hort).

That is essentially a lie, if not absolutely a lie.
 
Upvote 0

Davy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Nov 25, 2017
4,861
1,022
USA
✟291,297.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
The rest of your post is factually incorrect about many things.
Well, no it's not, and just saying it is factually incorrect proves nothing.


Not true. First of all, not all Bible versions produced since the 1880s are from the Greek text that you malign. There have been several translations produced using the Textus Receptus or the majority text.
You need to do more research. The Greek "Critical text" is based on Wescott and Hort's New Greek translation from the Codex Vaticanus, the Codex Sinaiticus, and Alexandrian texts. NONE of those are what the early Church prior to the 1800's used. The early Church used what is known as the Traditional text, which is made up of the Majority Text (called so because it makes up the majority of existing Greek manuscripts of The New Testament).

Prior to 1800's -- Traditional Byzantine type, or Majority Greek text, used by the Church prior to the 1800's. This includes the Tyndale New Testament (1526), Coverdale Bible (1535), The Great Bible (1539), The Geneva Bible (1560), The Bishop's Bible (1568), King James Version (1611). Latin Vulgate by Jerome based on earlier Latin translations of Greek Byzantine tradition back to the 4th century A.D.

After the 1800's -- Critical text based on Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus, and Alexandrian texts translated by Brooke Wescott and Fenton John Hort, British Bible scholars of the 19th century. Also includes other Greek translations by Textual Criticism authors like Griesbach whom Wescott and Hort followed, and more modern pundants of Textual Criticism like Kurt Aland. ASV, NASB, NAB, ESV, HCS, NRSV, NET, RSV, NIV, NJB, REB, JNT, GNB, NLT, DRA (American edition), TLB, MRD, NKJV, are all based on Wescott and Hort's new Greek translation from Alexandrian Greek manuscripts, along with other 'critical texts' by UBS and Nestle-Aland translations from different Greek texts than the Majority Text.
 
Upvote 0

Davy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Nov 25, 2017
4,861
1,022
USA
✟291,297.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Not true. First of all, not all Bible versions produced since the 1880s are from the Greek text that you malign. There have been several translations produced using the Textus Receptus or the majority text.
There is a CLEAR line of demarcation between New Testament translations based on the Greek Majority text vs. the Alexandrian text and Codex Vaticanus (found in Vatican in 1475), and Codex Sinaiticus (discovered in 1850's).

The Textus Receptus was a translation from early Greek Majority texts by Erasmus and put into print. So when referring to the Textus Receptus (Received Text), it means non-Alexandrian text type, because that Erasmus rejected to use in his translations from the Greek.

Therefore, 'any' claimed modern... New Testament using just the Traditional Greek text is still... supporting a different group of manuscripts (Majority text) than WH and Novum Testamentum Graece.

Second, "The early Christian church" is the church from the first couple of centuries. The reason modern versions use a different Greek text is that all of the texts from the time period of "the early church" used a different greek text than that used to produce the KJV.
Wrong.
The 1611 KJV did not solely use the Textus Receptus, which by the way was only a translation from Greek Majority texts by Erasmus. This fact can be learned in the Letter To The Reader and to King James written by the translators in the 1st edition of the 1611 King James Version Bible.

Therefore, your usage of the word "modern" is different than how it is actually used regarding New Testament translations post-1881 when Wescott and Hort presented to the revision committee their 'new' Greek translation from different Greek texts than the Traditional text.

It cannot be demonstrated that "the early church" used the texts you claim they used. Manuscripts from that time period are more in line with "the critical text" that you malign.


That is essentially a lie, if not absolutely a lie.

It is you that is pushing a LIE, because the early Church's quotes is one of the ways to verify that they used the Traditional Majority Greek texts, which explains why the Majority Greek texts make up over 2000 Greek manuscripts, showing wide usage and copying.

The 'modern' New Testament versions post-1881 instead use Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus, and Alexandrian texts.
a. Codex Vaticanus was found buried in the Vatican in 1475, which reveals it was not of wide usage.
b. Codex Sinaiticus was found at a Greek monastery by Tischendorf in the 1850's who alone claimed its date, although he found it in a waste basket revealing it definitely was not respected as a viable Greek text. Pictures taken of the text reveal no sign of a document of antiquity compared with other ancient Greek texts, but instead one of modern origin, still very white in appearance.
c. The Alexandrian text was from the Christian school at Alexandria, Egypt, which was under heavy influence by Greek philosophy. Origen himself was excommunicated because of treating The Bible as pure allegory.
 
Upvote 0

EclipseEventSigns

Well-Known Member
Jun 17, 2022
568
90
Western Canada
✟34,371.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
If you want to get as close as possible to the ORIGINAL text and have an english translation, you should look up James Murdock's translation of the Aramaic Peshitta. Don't fall for any of the modern translations of the Peshitta - they all have religious bias in them.
 
Upvote 0

Joseph Perry

Active Member
Sep 1, 2022
26
5
89
Nashua
✟35,180.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Good morning, and God Bless.

I am asking advice about which Bible version to read. I would prefer a modern translation of the text, without the gender-neutral pronouns.

For example, the KJV version of Matthew 4:19 reads:
"And he saith unto them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men."

While the NIV version reads:
“Come, follow me,” Jesus said, “and I will send you out to fish for people.”

I prefer the modern translation of the NIV, but without the gender-neutral elements. Any suggestions?

Thank you in advance for any help you may be able to offer.
Bibles exist in different forms: Word-for-Word, Meaning-for-Meanings, Thought-for-Thought, and Paraphrase. A chart exists that rates different versions by the accuracy of translation into English. The American Standard Bible. I use the New American Standard Bible 1995 (NASB1995). It was upgraded a few years ago. The American Standard of the Bible is considered the most accurate translation.
I usually go online to BibleGayeway.com. In the upper right corner of their website, you can select the version you are interested in.
I'm not a fan of verse numbers. If you click on the gear, in the upper left you can control what you see. I use headings and red letter;
Verses do not always define sentences, I prefer outlines
 
Upvote 0

Ephesians321

Active Member
Oct 24, 2023
281
67
54
Riverside
✟20,095.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Good morning, and God Bless.

I am asking advice about which Bible version to read. I would prefer a modern translation of the text, without the gender-neutral pronouns.

For example, the KJV version of Matthew 4:19 reads:
"And he saith unto them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men."

While the NIV version reads:
“Come, follow me,” Jesus said, “and I will send you out to fish for people.”

I prefer the modern translation of the NIV, but without the gender-neutral elements. Any suggestions?

Thank you in advance for any help you may be able to offer.
Get a strong word for word translation such as KJV, NJKV, or YLT. They are trustworthy. I read NKJV.

With thought for thought translations that invites omissions of key words because it does not hold to the translator's doctrine and/or popular doctrines yet these omissions may hold too great significance to other individual's doctrines to be tossed away.
 
Upvote 0