I'm having a hard time finding the right Bible.

[Daniel Martinovich]

If you want to read semi-literate nonsense, read the article this link points to. Notice even in the link above that there is a grammatical mistake: Bibles instead of Bible's. The same error appears in the banner of the article itself.

Here is "the most dangerous verse in the Bible"...

"hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord."

Why is it so dangerous? The "explanation" is in the article: "The reason the author is sighting this is the most dangerous translational error in the Bible is because it makes this the only verse in the New Testament that directly states that a beleiver can walk in blatant sexual immorality but still go to heaven." (Notice the spelling error: "beleiver" instead of "believer". The use of "is" instead of "as". And what is a "translational" error?) According to the author, a single word in a single verse that is a part of a single sentence that modern translators have chosen to use has created such a serious error that the doctrine derived from it has allowed the worst of sinners to go to heaven.

Here is the author's conclusion from the "addition" of one word, "Who can possible argue that there are not millions upon tens of millions of people who sit in churches all over the world thinking themselves safe but are in fact on the wide road that is leading to their destruction?" (Notice the use of "possible" instead of "possibly".)

My advice is to take articles like this that reveal God's truth from a single word in a single out-of-context verse for what they're worth. Nothing.

Sounds to me like your working awfully hard to minimize the fact that:

This word his is not in any of the Greek texts used to translate these verses. Neither the Textus Receptus, the Majority\Byzantine Text nor Wescott-Hort\Nestle-Aland. None of the modified versions of these texts have the word "his" in verse five. Nor does the Greek of the New Testament ever infer, imply or assume possessive pronouns such as "his." If there is one it will be in the sentence structure of the Greek just like verse four: The possessive pronoun "my" is in front of the word spirit to indicate the Apostle Paul's spirit that the sentence is referring to. 4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when you are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ. This hyperlink goes to all of these Greek texts so the reader can see this for themselves. You need no knowledge of Greek to be able to do this. The page will guide you through these Greek\English lexicons that are made so that everyone can understand them. After looking at the Greek test's hyperlink you may want to view how different Bible versions translate verses interpret this verse.

 

[pescador]

Sounds to me like your working awfully hard to minimize the fact that:

This word his is not in any of the Greek texts used to translate these verses. Neither the Textus Receptus, the Majority\Byzantine Text nor Wescott-Hort\Nestle-Aland. None of the modified versions of these texts have the word "his" in verse five. Nor does the Greek of the New Testament ever infer, imply or assume possessive pronouns such as "his." If there is one it will be in the sentence structure of the Greek just like verse four: The possessive pronoun "my" is in front of the word spirit to indicate the Apostle Paul's spirit that the sentence is referring to. 4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when you are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ. This hyperlink goes to all of these Greek texts so the reader can see this for themselves. You need no knowledge of Greek to be able to do this. The page will guide you through these Greek\English lexicons that are made so that everyone can understand them. After looking at the Greek test's hyperlink you may want to view how different Bible versions translate verses interpret this verse.

What are your qualifications as a Bible translator? I seriously doubt the you have the credentials that match those of the scholars, many of whom have decades of experience and have published journal articles.

 

[Daniel Martinovich]

What are your qualifications as a Bible translator? I seriously doubt the you have the credentials that match those of the scholars, many of whom have decades of experience and have published journal articles.

The only relevent question at this point is: Is the word "his" in any of the Greek manuscripts used to translate our Bibles. I linked them for you. You can find more on your own.

 

[1watchman]

Well, any reference to Bibles at this site will always bring forth a defense of what one likes. I like the venerable KJV and have more confidence in it to show the mind of God, rather than people's modern ideas. So, each one can do what they choose; and again I say that I have some good papers which can help one see the real reason for the KJV if one wants to write me. The name of the Lord Jesus is always shown in KJV as God intended, not deleted as in some Versions.

I have shared my understandings so will leave it all to whatever choices people enjoy, and the original OP writer will need to sort it all out and hopefully pray about what to use.

 

[pescador]

The only relevent question at this point is: Is the word "his" in any of the Greek manuscripts used to translate our Bibles. I linked them for you. You can find more on your own.

I won't bother, as I don't know your qualifications for overriding the work of many translators. Looking up something on the internet is not proof of scholarship. If you have credentials, what are they?

 

[Daniel Martinovich]

I won't bother, as I don't know your qualifications for overriding the work of many translators. Looking up something on the internet is not proof of scholarship. If you have credentials, what are they?

The Textus Receptus, the Majority\Byzantine Text nor Wescott-Hort\Nestle-Aland Greek texts are all readily available on the internet as Greek lexicons numbered to Strong's and a couple other Greek dictionaries. There is nothing to argue about. The word "his" is not in any of the Greek text our Bibles are translated from. You don't like that fact for some reason? I don't care to know why.

 

[pescador]

The Textus Receptus, the Majority\Byzantine Text nor Wescott-Hort\Nestle-Aland Greek texts are all readily available on the internet as Greek lexicons numbered to Strong's and a couple other Greek dictionaries. There is nothing to argue about. The word "his" is not in any of the Greek text our Bibles are translated from. You don't like that fact for some reason? I don't care to know why.

So you have no credentials. Therefore, your opinion is of no value. Modern scholars have agreed that "his" is appropriate. Case closed.

 

[Daniel Martinovich]

So you have no credentials. Therefore, your opinion is of no value. Modern scholars have agreed that "his" is appropriate. Case closed.

"Modern scholars" have agreed that a missing word that isn't even in their "modern manuscript" belongs in the Bible. Yep. I would say the case is closed.

 

[HighCherub]

I'd recommend either the NKJV or the ESV. The New Kings James is just a more current version that sheds a bit of archaic terms and redundancies.

NIV is decent, but it lacks conviction- certainly not the best to preach from the pulpit but good for private reading.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I personally use the NRSV and ESV.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[JoeP222w]

Before I purchase a Bible. I'm trying to find the right one. And what does the bible of the church of nazarene like? Or do I need to find a amplified kjv?

English Standard Version is closest to word for word translation. KJV, although very popular, is not an accurate rendering throughout.

 

[Eryk]

My reading Bible is the 2015 Amplified Bible, because that's the clearest Bible version I've ever read.

My listening Bible (for my commute and part of my workday) is the King James, because I've always liked that version.

 

[Daniel Martinovich]

If you want to read semi-literate nonsense, read the article this link points to. Notice even in the link above that there is a grammatical mistake: Bibles instead of Bible's. The same error appears in the banner of the article itself.

Here is "the most dangerous verse in the Bible"...

"hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord."

Why is it so dangerous? The "explanation" is in the article: "The reason the author is sighting this is the most dangerous translational error in the Bible is because it makes this the only verse in the New Testament that directly states that a beleiver can walk in blatant sexual immorality but still go to heaven." (Notice the spelling error: "beleiver" instead of "believer". The use of "is" instead of "as". And what is a "translational" error?) According to the author, a single word in a single verse that is a part of a single sentence that modern translators have chosen to use has created such a serious error that the doctrine derived from it has allowed the worst of sinners to go to heaven.

Here is the author's conclusion from the "addition" of one word, "Who can possible argue that there are not millions upon tens of millions of people who sit in churches all over the world thinking themselves safe but are in fact on the wide road that is leading to their destruction?" (Notice the use of "possible" instead of "possibly".)

My advice is to take articles like this that reveal God's truth from a single word in a single out-of-context verse for what they're worth. Nothing.

By the way. Thanks for the proof reading.

 

[Mediakira]

English Standard Version is closest to word for word translation. KJV, although very popular, is not an accurate rendering throughout.

Yes, KJV, Is very hard for me to understand. I'm taught to learn perfect english. And KJV is very bad with english. I'm guess it's old english from Great Britain, long ago. So, I understand that. But with my learning handicap. So, I read the easy to read.

 

[GeorgeJ]

I just love a good "KJV vs. all the other evil translations" thread. Makes me feel so good about being a believer.

 

[IT REALLY SAYS]

Type in niv corrupt and this will tell you all you need to know about that version...

1. Do not get a study bible
2. Do not get one with foot notes

The word wont lead you astray but mens words will... you do not need anyones comments on what is meant... thats what a good concordance and the Holy Spirit is for....

Kjv all the way.....

 

[IT REALLY SAYS]

The niv makes changes like this one in john 2:33 -

Niv calls them father and mother

Kjv calls them joseph and mother

Whats acomplished here is that God is not the father, you must realized that little by little the devil works and takes a bit here and there till none remains

 

[hedrick]

Unfortunately which translation you use depends upon your ideology.

* If you believe the KJV was inspired, use the KJV
* If you don't think the KJV was necessarily inspired, but the Hebrew and Greek which the KJV editors consstructed from the various manuscripts was inspired, consider a version such as the NKJV, which uses the same text but translates it in a more modern way.

If you accept that we should use a text based on more recent and older manuscripts, then you probably won't use the KJV. But you still have choices.

First, there's the kind of translation. If you want something that's fairly close of the original wording, use NRSV, ESV or other "formal equivalence" translations. Word for word translations don't produce usable English. But these translations try to reflect that original sentence structure as much as possible.

If you want something that is freer, but may do a better job presenting the meaning, there's another set. I like the Good News Bible, but if you're conservative there are conservative translations at a similar level.

In practice people often are better off to use both one of the formal equivalence translations and one of the freer ones. Use the formal equivalence translation if you're working with a commentary or doing the kind of study that requires you to look at the original structure. Use the freer translation if you're reading a whole chapter for meaning.

NIV is somewhat between the two approaches. However it tends to read a certain flavor of evangelical theology into the text, in a more serious way that other conservative translations such as ESV or Holman. N T Wright has said that you'll never understand Paul if you read the NIV.

Within the two approaches, formal equivalence and dynamic equivalence, there are "liberal" and "conservative" translations. From my (liberal) point of view, liberal translations use the best modern scholarship to determine what the author intended orginally. Conservative translations tend to interpret translations to match traditional understandings.

The best known example is treatment of OT prophecies. There are a number of prophecies (e.g. Is 7:14) that were used by NT authors and early Christians to refer to Jesus. However in the original context they referred to events at the time of the author. That's not to say that Christian practice is wrong. Jews often applied the OT to current events, e.g. in thinking of John the Baptist as a new Elijah. But liberal translations think this is a matter for exegesis, and the translation should give the original meaning, not the Christian application. There are examples in the NT as well, where recent scholarship suggests that some traditional translations are questionable. E.g. a word often translated "propitation." This implies a specific model of the atonement which the original authors may not have shared. Hence it may be better to translate with a more general term such as "expiation," which is consistent with a wider variety of understandings of the atonement.

The major formal equivalent translation from the liberal perspective is the NRSV. The conservative one I'm most familiar with is the ESV, though there are other good ones as well. The NET is worth considering because of its extremely useful notes. The major liberal translations that are freer are Good News Bible and Common English Bible. I don't know all the conservative translations of this type.

 

[miamited]

Before I purchase a Bible. I'm trying to find the right one. And what does the bible of the church of nazarene like? Or do I need to find a amplified kjv?

Hi mediakira,

The NIV is a good translation of the Scriptures. Although I'm not quite as sold on the TNIV, but it's a fairly good translation itself. I came to know the Lord through the NIV translation.

A lot of people don't seem to understand God's purpose in giving unto us His Scriptures. They get caught up in this big human driven debate about one translation being better than another. I think it worthwhile, and I believe for the one who truly seeks, through the Holy Spirit, to know the truth of God, to understand God's purpose in this.

I have been a born again believer in the one true and living God, His Son and His Spirit and His word for some 20 years now. I have read and studied over the Scriptures for most of that time. When studying the Scriptures I have pretty much always sought the guidance and wisdom of the Spirit to give me understanding in my studies. I believe that God has been faithful, as His Scriptures declare of Him, to do that. So, if I may, let me take a moment to explain my understanding of the Scriptures and the purpose for which God gave them to us.

God called a man by the name of Abram, out of Ur. Through that man, God promised to raise up a nation of people separated (holy) unto Him. Over the next 2,000 years or so God, through His Spirit, gave some of the faithful men of His nation Israel utterances and things to be written down to be preserved. These writings are what we, today, refer to as the Scriptures. Jesus refers to the Scriptures and so, too, does Paul. Paul, in fact, is the one who gives us some understanding that this writing and preserving of the Scriptures through God's people, Israel, was a part of God's plan.

He writes to us in his letter to the Romans:
What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? Much in every way! First of all, the Jews have been entrusted with the very words of God. (Romans 3:1-2 NIV) The KJV uses the word 'chiefly' in place of 'first of all'. I happen to like the word 'chiefly' used here because it does make it more clear that the very greatest reason in there being a Jewish line of people beholden to God was that they were purposed and entrusted with writing and preserving the 'very words of God'. While 'first of all' does also make this point, 'chiefly' does seem to make it better. However, grasping that point is really what's important. The Jews, as a very, very large and important part of their being God's people to do God's bidding upon the earth, were entrusted with the 'very words of God'.

So, I think it more than clear that when any of us consider where to go to find out the truth of the one true and living God, it is the Scriptures that have been recorded and preserved and delivered to us through the lineage of the people of Abraham. The Jews.

However, we don't still have those writings exactly as they were first penned. Nothing that we find in today's translations comes from the original manuscripts that were first written in the days of Moses and the judges and the kings of Israel. It all comes from copies that have been handed down and some from copies in languages other than the original manuscripts. So, we cannot have any real assurance that each and every specific word that is written in any translation is the exact word that was penned in the original. There are even places where we find that it is even possible that whole verses, as we divide the Scriptures, may not have been in the original manuscripts. However, we have no way of really proving any of these claims. All we can know is that in looking at the various documents from which our modern translations are translated from, that there are some minor differences.

But, here's what I believe God, through His Spirit, has impressed upon my heart. It really doesn't matter that this word or that word is or isn't the very word that the original writer penned. It doesn't really matter that a sentence or short passage is different from what was originally penned. God purposed the whole of the Scriptures to lead our wicked hearts back to Him.

The Scriptures contain some historical narrative of how God worked through His people, Israel. Bringing us along from year to year and generation to generation of all that He has done to make Himself known to us. How He called Abram and raised up the 12 tribes of Israel and brought His people out of Egypt and settled them in the land of promise and dealt with them through the centuries until, at the fullness of time, He delivered unto us His Son. Whether a certain word matches what was written in the original manuscript of these historical narratives is the same or not doesn't really affect the overall understanding of the historical narrative. God merely wants us to know all that He has done in causing these historical narratives to be written.

The historical narrative of the old covenant describes a covenant of love and protection that God made with the descendants of Abram; the Jewish people. How He raised them up and carried them as on wings of eagles.

Then we have the new covenant and it tells us all about how we can have eternal life. That through faith and repentance we can have what God promises those who will choose to love Him and live a life as we were created to live it. Without hate and anger and meanness and jealousy and greed, but with love for Him and for one another. As Paul also writes, we can have all the wisdom and knowledge and smart words of the most smartest of people, but without love, we're just wasting our efforts. Under this new covenant to all people, not just the Jews, Jesus said that there were two commands to follow. Love God and love others. But, he did give them in an order and he did tell us that the greatest of even these two simple commands was to love God. I firmly believe that if we can do the first, the second will naturally follow. As the Scriptures also say, how can we say that we love God whom we have not seen and yet hate our fellow man who we have?

So, my encouragement, don't get caught up in all these worthless arguments about how one translation has these words and another doesn't. Understand the purpose of the Scriptures and what they are instructing you to do. One can't honestly read and understand the words found in the KJV and not see what God desires of them. Neither can one read the NIV, NASB, NKJV, ASV or any of the many reasonably reliable translations of God's Scriptures and not understand what God is calling them to do as an individual. That's why God caused His Scriptures to be written through His people, Israel.

The message and the good news translations are two that I have, since studying the Scriptures, come to see as fairly loose with the message of God. However, even with them, one can't read and study them thoroughly and not understand what God is asking of the reader. God is wiser than you or I could ever hope to imagine. God has, throughout the ages, beginning with the first writings of Moses, preserved and protected His truth so that every man is without excuse. When we all stand in judgment, I'm confident that God is not going to ask any of us, "Well, did you come to know me by reading the KJV that I personally made for you?" No, not at all! God is merely going to look down on the one who is faithful to Him and say, "I saw that you loved me and loved others as I asked of you. Well done, my good and faithful servant. Enter into my eternal rest."

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

 

[hedrick]

Greek grammar isn't the same as English grammar. You won't find an equivalent of every word.