Bible Versions

[Deaver]

The following short list is just a sampling of the divergent and confusing readings found among the contradictory modern bible versions. There are numerous other examples, but these are just a few to make you aware of what is going on here with "the late$t in $cholar$hip Finding$".


If you go back and read through this list of just some of the numerous very real differences that exist among these Bible of the Month Club versions, ask yourself Which (if any) are the 100% historically true words of God. IF "the Bible" is not 100% historically true in the events it narrates, then when does God start to tell us the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

I have looked through your list. All of these, unless I missed it, are insignificant differences, not worthy of major concern unless you are studying a very specific topic, in which case you would work them and find the right answer.

Just as many have chosen to overlook the problems in the KJV and read and study its message and thereby gain salvation, when one comes across discrepancies like these they should do the same thing.

 

[Sword7]

Sword 7 and brandplucked, one more thing. As Christians I think we agree the Bible is infallible in the original language and proper translations show no inconsistencies. However, to be honest, we all must agree that all translations have mistranslated some thing. Some translations have more severe mistakes than others. It is up to us to search the scriptures for the truth. We should not get hung up on those things that have little or no impact on the message of the Bible "salvation through Jesus Christ".

For example, I point the following out only for illustration and not to be combative:

The clearest KJV error/addition is 1 John 5:7, which reads, "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." Although this is not false teaching, it never was, however, a part of the original inspired word of God.

Who said 1 John 5:7 doesn't belong in the Bible? Who said its an error? What voices are you listening to?

It looks really suspcious when a christian who believes in the Trinity denies the very passage that is the strongest evidence for the Trinity.

 

[Deaver]

Are you sure you want me to ask my pastor? Ok, here goes: He has a website and this is his response to Ps:12

Will Hoyt, Learnthebible.org

Thanks for the follow up to my post, I respect that.


I actually utilize that website quite often. However, respectfully disagree with his interpretation of Psalms 12:7. I am going to send them my comments from this thread and get some clarification.

 

[Sword7]

I have looked through your list. All of these, unless I missed it, are insignificant differences, not worthy of major concern unless you are studying a very specific topic, in which case you would work them and find the right answer.

Just as many have chosen to overlook the problems in the KJV and read and study its message and thereby gain salvation, when one comes across discrepancies like these they should do the same thing.

So you are your own final authority. You sound like you would rather be right then willing to learn something new. Sorry, but you are in error and I have heard the very same complaints and accusations which you make a zillion times before. You mimic the very same things that all bible agnostics do.

BTW, you gave absolutely no evidence as to why Ps. 12 means people preservation and not God's words. Opinions are useless in matters pertaining to faith.

Oh, and please show me the errors in the KJB. Not only that but provide the proof. No one has been able to do it. Its really a faith issue, deaver.

 

[Sword7]

Thanks for the follow up to my post, I respect that.


I actually utilize that website quite often. However, respectfully disagree with his interpretation of Psalms 12:7. I am going to send them my comments from this thread and get some clarification.

It is not an interpetation. Its what the scriptures plainly says. There are no private interpretation when it comes to the scriptures.

You provide nothing Deaver to back up anything you say.

 

[ptomwebster]

I grew up with the KJV, switched to the NIV and RSV during seminary. Now I'm back to the KJV. I just prefer it because all my memory verses from youth were from KJV. I like working with the Greek and Hebrew but I have been getting rusty with them so use the Strong's Concordance a lot more and it is tied to the KJV. The KJV I use exclusively is the Companion Bible edited by E. W. Bullinger


My favorite on line source is E-sword with all the bells and whistles added. Another great web Bible is Scripture4All.

 

[Deaver]

Who said 1 John 5:7 doesn't belong in the Bible? Who said its an error? What voices are you listening to?

It looks really suspcious when a christian who believes in the Trinity denies the very passage that is the strongest evidence for the Trinity.

I am not sure what is suspicious. I absolutely believe in the Trinity. The fact that I point out this as an addition or error doesn't take away from that. You need to believe me this has been an interesting and informing discussion. I actually enjoy it because we are not having outlandish verbal assaults toward one another like you find on the creation/evolution forums.

Having said that I need to research this issue more. Primarily, because some of the proponents also suggest that it was added to support the “unscriptural” idea of the trinity. That really causes me to question the credibility of those that point out this error.

But to answer your post, some have suggested that the origin of the statement was a Spanish preacher named Presilium who, in 385, uttered those words in a sermon. The sentence was picked up and somehow made its way into later Latin translations and was then inserted into the Greek text from which was translated the KJV.

Seven of some 24 translations I have looked at are the same as the KJV.

I get back with what I find out.

 

[Deaver]

I grew up with the KJV, switched to the NIV and RSV during seminary. Now I'm back to the KJV. I just prefer it because all my memory verses from youth were from KJV. I like working with the Greek and Hebrew but I have been getting rusty with them so use the Strong's Concordance a lot more and it is tied to the KJV. The KJV I use exclusively is the Companion Bible edited by E. W. Bullinger


My favorite on line source is E-sword with all the bells and whistles added. Another great web Bible is Scripture4All.

e-Sword is a great tool. I use it all the time.

 

[Deaver]

It is not an interpetation. Its what the scriptures plainly says. There are no private interpretation when it comes to the scriptures.

You provide nothing Deaver to back up anything you say.

If you read the article, you would have seen that even the author says it is his interpretation.

"Here is my interpretation of Psalm 12:7
in context"

 

[Deaver]

So you are your own final authority. You sound like you would rather be right then willing to learn something new. Sorry, but you are in error and I have heard the very same complaints and accusations which you make a zillion times before. You mimic the very same things that all bible agnostics do.

I am willing to learn and I do everyday. I know that I am not my own final authority. I believe I can and do support everything I say with either scripture or reasonable logic

BTW, you gave absolutely no evidence as to why Ps. 12 means people preservation and not God's words. Opinions are useless in matters pertaining to faith.

If you really believe that you did not read how I arrived at my conclusion. To refresh your memory I looked at the Greek.

Oh, and please show me the errors in the KJB. Not only that but provide the proof. No one has been able to do it. Its really a faith issue, deaver.

I am not really sure where this thread is going. I respect your right to believe that the KJV is the best version. I think I agree with that.

My point is and remains that any translation we have available to us today was written by man and is subject to some error, whether it is a typo or a word here or there or in the worst case some doctrinal error.

 

[Deaver]

Who said 1 John 5:7 doesn't belong in the Bible? Who said its an error? What voices are you listening to?

It looks really suspcious when a christian who believes in the Trinity denies the very passage that is the strongest evidence for the Trinity.

Here is a follow-up to my previous post on the issue of 1 John 5:7

Even though you may not like the source, it seems to have been well researched. If you find something to the contrary please let me know.

A Simple Outline regarding I John 5:7

The evidence regarding I John 5:7

1. Greek manuscripts-about 300 existing Greek manuscripts contain the book of I John. Of these manuscripts, only 4 (manuscript numbers 61, 629, 918, 2318) contain the disputed words of v.7. All four are very late manuscripts (16th, 14th or 15th, 16th, and 18th centuries A.D. respectively); none gives the Greek text exactly as it appears in printed Greek NTs, and all 4 manuscripts give clear evidence that these words were translated into Greek from Latin.

Four additional manuscripts (88, 12th century; 221, 10th; 429, 16th; 636, 15th) have the disputed words copied in the margin by much later writers.

2. Ancient writers: no Greek-speaking Christian writer before the year 1215 A.D. shows any knowledge of the disputed words. Not once are these words quoted in the great controversy with the Arians (over the Deity of Christ and the doctrine of the Trinity) in the 3rd and 4th centuries; they certainly would have been quoted if they had existed in any Greek manuscript of that period.


The disputed words are quoted as Scripture only by Latin-speaking writers, and only after the middle of the 5th century A.D.

3. Ancient translations: the disputed words are not found in any of the ancient translations of the NT made in the 2nd-10th centuries A.D.--Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Georgian, Gothic, Ethiopic, Arabic, Slavic--except in Latin. The words are found in some manuscripts (but not the earliest) of the Old Latin version, and in many manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate (but not the earliest).

Conclusion: the evidence of every kind is consistent and clear: the disputed words of I John 5:7 have no claim as an original part of John's letter, but were introduced into Greek from Latin in the very late Middle Ages.

 

[2thePoint]

Good stuff, Deaver. I wish more people were taught at least the basics of textual criticism as a science, and how dependent all manuscripts, dictionaries, and translations are on such scholarship.

 

[CryptoLutheran]

First of all, do you believe God made the promise to preserve His word? If you do, do you believe God keeps His promises?

God does not have "versions." He has ONE book. God told Isaiah to write things down in a book, not books.

Publishers and translators of these "new" bibles make changes to God's word. They must do this because their bible is copyrighted, which means it has to be different from previous bibles. Therefore, what we have are versions that don't agree. Words are omitted or changed where sometimes even the meaning itself changes.

Before I answer any of that, answer me: Who decides what God's one preserved word in English is. Here, I'll help.

King Alfred translation of the Pentateuch, c. 900

Aelfric translation of the Penteteuch, Book of Joshua, and Judges, c. 990

Wycliffe Bible, c. 1380

Tyndale Bible, 1526,1530

Coverdale Bible of 1535

Matthew's Bible of 1537

Great Bible of 1539

Bishop's Bible of 1568

Douay-Rheims Bible of 1582/1609-1610

King James Version of 1611

Quaker Bible of 1762

King James Version of 1769

Thomson's Translation of 1808

Webster's Revision of 1833

Ferrar Fenton Bible of 1853

Young's Literal Translation of 1862

Revised Version of 1885

American Standard Version of 1901

Revised Standard Version of 1952

Jerusalem Bible of 1966

New American Bible of 1970

New American Standard of 1971

New International Version of 1978

New Jerusalem Bible of 1985

New Century Version of 1991

American King James Version of 1999

English Standard Version of 2001

Holman Christian Standard Bible of 2004

New English Translation of 2005

Today's New International Version of 2005

Just tell me which is God's preserved word in English, and how that was decided or how it is that that one is the right one.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Sword7]

Before I answer any of that, answer me: Who decides what God's one preserved word in English is. Here, I'll help.

King Alfred translation of the Pentateuch, c. 900

Aelfric translation of the Penteteuch, Book of Joshua, and Judges, c. 990

Wycliffe Bible, c. 1380

Tyndale Bible, 1526,1530

Coverdale Bible of 1535

Matthew's Bible of 1537

Great Bible of 1539

Bishop's Bible of 1568

Douay-Rheims Bible of 1582/1609-1610

King James Version of 1611

Quaker Bible of 1762

King James Version of 1769

Thomson's Translation of 1808

Webster's Revision of 1833

Ferrar Fenton Bible of 1853

Young's Literal Translation of 1862

Revised Version of 1885

American Standard Version of 1901

Revised Standard Version of 1952

Jerusalem Bible of 1966

New American Bible of 1970

New American Standard of 1971

New International Version of 1978

New Jerusalem Bible of 1985

New Century Version of 1991

American King James Version of 1999

English Standard Version of 2001

Holman Christian Standard Bible of 2004

New English Translation of 2005

Today's New International Version of 2005

Just tell me which is God's preserved word in English, and how that was decided or how it is that that one is the right one.

-CryptoLutheran

So your answer to my question depends on how I answer this post? My question is really simple and straight forward. Did God promise to preserve His word or not?

 

[Sword7]

Before I answer any of that, answer me: Who decides what God's one preserved word in English is. Here, I'll help.

Just tell me which is God's preserved word in English, and how that was decided or how it is that that one is the right one.

-CryptoLutheran

Do you know where the MVs come from, what texts? Do you know where the KJB comes from? If you do, you would know where God's preserved words are.

 

[Sword7]

I am willing to learn and I do everyday. I know that I am not my own final authority. I believe I can and do support everything I say with either scripture or reasonable logic



If you really believe that you did not read how I arrived at my conclusion. To refresh your memory I looked at the Greek.



I am not really sure where this thread is going. I respect your right to believe that the KJV is the best version. I think I agree with that.

My point is and remains that any translation we have available to us today was written by man and is subject to some error, whether it is a typo or a word here or there or in the worst case some doctrinal error.

Best version? The KJB was THE bible for nearly 400 years. It was used in the churches and even says on the front page to be used in the churches. Then that all changed in the 1800's when 2 guys came along and decided to translate their own bible, relying on 2 old codex that were altered so much that they were either hidden or thrown in a waste basket for centuries, rendered useless. These MVs come from this same source and are frequesntly being "updated." Why? Does God need help? Does he and His words keep changing?

God doesn't have versions. Anyway, like I said, people who claim that the KJB has errors never can prove it. Typos or spellings are irrelevant. I am talking about doctrines. The KJB has had editions but no real revisions. If you use the learnthebible.org site you will see that the late pastor David Reagan wrote a book on the myths of the so called revisions of the KJB.

As for 1 John 5:7 this passage was in the Old Latin Bible (not to be confused with the catholic latin vulgate). The early christians, the Waldenses, guarded this bible with their lives.

Where is this thread going? I am asking why do Christians use MVs when they are not God's preserved text.

You say you're willing to learn, then you say the pastor at learn the bible is wrong and you are right and you intend to write him and correct him!

 

[Deaver]

Best version? The KJB was THE bible for nearly 400 years. It was used in the churches and even says on the front page to be used in the churches. Then that all changed in the 1800's when 2 guys came along and decided to translate their own bible, relying on 2 old codex that were altered so much that they were either hidden or thrown in a waste basket for centuries, rendered useless. These MVs come from this same source and are frequesntly being "updated." Why? Does God need help? Does he and His words keep changing?

God doesn't have versions. Anyway, like I said, people who claim that the KJB has errors never can prove it. Typos or spellings are irrelevant. I am talking about doctrines. The KJB has had editions but no real revisions. If you use the learnthebible.org site you will see that the late pastor David Reagan wrote a book on the myths of the so called revisions of the KJB.

As for 1 John 5:7 this passage was in the Old Latin Bible (not to be confused with the catholic latin vulgate). The early christians, the Waldenses, guarded this bible with their lives.

Where is this thread going? I am asking why do Christians use MVs when they are not God's preserved text.

You say you're willing to learn, then you say the pastor at learn the bible is wrong and you are right and you intend to write him and correct him!

You know Sowrd7, I think we are really in violent agreement. The King James has been and continues to be one of the very best, if not best, translation. Also, I totally agree that some additions, errors, and perversions have crept into some other translations.

Anyone studying the Bible needs to aware of how and when the translation they are reading took place. Also they need to know whether it is a translation or a paraphrase.

Also, I still subscribe to the fact that a serious bible student should, after praying and asking for interpretation from the Holy Spirit, consider multiple translations and devotions to gain a fuller understanding of God's word.

As to the issue with the Learnthebible.org article, it is perfectly okay for me or anyone else to question someone when they have different interpretation or different set of facts and a different conclusion. After all that is how we learn.

I have enjoyed this thread and I hope that if we again meet and disagree that we can do it as civilized as we did here. Thank you.

 

[rev.hewett]

I apologize if this topic has already been discussed, but I could not find it.

What Bible version(s) do you use? Why and does it really matter?

I use many for studying. I have a parallel that contains KJV, NIV, NASB & NLT which I like to have out when I'm comparing scripture given the liberal nature of two of those & the literal nature of the other two. I have grown to like the NRSV despite its liberal nature because the point is there & it is said very well with a great dynamic equivalency (in my own opinion). Bible studies with teens I usually use the NIV because I have noticed most of their study Bibles are NIV these days ... though I'm not much for TNIV. My favorite is the HCSB because of the way it really combines the use of formal & dynamic equivalency. I quite normally preach out of the KJV or even NKJ. Those stay my preaching translations because 1. it's the "safe" translations in my denomination & 2. I really do enjoy the KJV despite the criticism it might receive from some. The KJV is a great translation.

Why does it matter? Well... I don't put a fuss with translations for many reasons. Where people ask if it's really the inspired "words of God" I say ... "Is the point being communicated?" It's not about specific words for me. It doesn't matter to me if the translation says "thou shalt not..." because I'm going to relay that to a Bible study group as "you shouldn't do this" & in both instances the same thing was said (not in specific word but in meaning). Personally, that's what Jesus taught all of the time & that's why the translation isn't as important as the message being preserved. It's like the ridiculous poster on CF that argues Moses' name was really "MoUses" when that argument doesn't change the important facets of scripture - what the man we know of as Moses did & what God did through him.

I do not believe the Bible (any translation) is the complete, inerrant, inspired wordS of God. I believe the Word of God is the Spirit of God which is revealed through the scripture we have no matter the translation & God has kept His Word true. Not the specific words, but the message those words prevail to us as believers. That message is inerrant, complete, inspired, & for me to argue that God hasn't preserved His true Word is to argue that He couldn't possibly do such a thing & that man could get in the way of that preservation.

 

[Sword7]

I use many for studying. I have a parallel that contains KJV, NIV, NASB & NLT which I like to have out when I'm comparing scripture given the liberal nature of two of those & the literal nature of the other two. I have grown to like the NRSV despite its liberal nature because the point is there & it is said very well with a great dynamic equivalency (in my own opinion). Bible studies with teens I usually use the NIV because I have noticed most of their study Bibles are NIV these days ... though I'm not much for TNIV. My favorite is the HCSB because of the way it really combines the use of formal & dynamic equivalency. I quite normally preach out of the KJV or even NKJ. Those stay my preaching translations because 1. it's the "safe" translations in my denomination & 2. I really do enjoy the KJV despite the criticism it might receive from some. The KJV is a great translation.

Why does it matter? Well... I don't put a fuss with translations for many reasons. Where people ask if it's really the inspired "words of God" I say ... "Is the point being communicated?" It's not about specific words for me. It doesn't matter to me if the translation says "thou shalt not..." because I'm going to relay that to a Bible study group as "you shouldn't do this" & in both instances the same thing was said (not in specific word but in meaning). Personally, that's what Jesus taught all of the time & that's why the translation isn't as important as the message being preserved. It's like the ridiculous poster on CF that argues Moses' name was really "MoUses" when that argument doesn't change the important facets of scripture - what the man we know of as Moses did & what God did through him.

I do not believe the Bible (any translation) is the complete, inerrant, inspired wordS of God. I believe the Word of God is the Spirit of God which is revealed through the scripture we have no matter the translation & God has kept His Word true. Not the specific words, but the message those words prevail to us as believers. That message is inerrant, complete, inspired, & for me to argue that God hasn't preserved His true Word is to argue that He couldn't possibly do such a thing & that man could get in the way of that preservation.

Would you say that you're a bible agnostic since you don't believe God preserved his words, or rather, that there's no 100% inspired preserved text anywhere on earth?

 

[bookit]

I have used the NASB, NIV, NKJV, and KJV and believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible. In studying using various translations I have observed a doctrinal shift conforming with the shift of the modern age towards the left. I have found the KJV to be reliable and true to the historic doctrine of the Gospel. Just use software such as esword and compare the discrepancies: the changes seem to modernize the Bible in language and doctrine. Alone most of the changes do not seem to deviate that much but if you view them as a whole an agenda seems to emerge. I thought the KJV was hard to understand but with the help of a KJV dictionary I have found it to be quite edifying. There are a lot of things that make more sense when compared to more modern translations. I discovered that the KJV was written in High English not Olde English and therefore conveys Hebrew and Greek a little better than modern English as we do not have a plural form of you for instance.