Missing Scriptures in Modern Versions

[PROPHECYKID]

Hey you guys, I want to show you this presentation that I am looking at. The presenter goes through the different versions and shows where pieces of verses and almost whole chapters have been taken out in versions such as the RSV and NIV.
214B - Changing the Word / Total Onslaught - Walter Veith - YouTube

 

[PROPHECYKID]

To those who looked at it and wondering about some of his comments, maybe the previous presentation would help.

213B - Battle of the Bibles / Total Onslaught - Walter Veith - YouTube

 

[childofdust]

I started watching the first video and already I have some big issues with it.

Firstly, he seems to be implying that these scriptural texts that speak of YHWH's word or of a certain text (like Revelation) apply either to a written text or to the entire canon as it would be known hundreds of years later. Not only is that anachronistic (there was no such thing as The Bible when any single text in our bibles were written), not only is this blatantly applying something speaking about a certain text to a whole slew of completely unrelated texts (just because something like Revelation says not to add or subtract from “this prophecy” tells us nothing at all about, for instance, James), but it is committing the heresy of Docetism by making a written text God's Word itself. We are not Muslims. Holy Scripture has the Word of God in it, but its ink, paper, writing, grammar, and words are not the Word of God itself. Christ is God's Word, not a book.

Then the first discussion of texts is only New Testament... Nothing about the Old Testament. Missing something?

He proceeds to note that the original manuscripts are lost. And then says that of the “textual families,” the “traditional family” is almost identical to the originals.

Um...hello! You just said the originals are lost. How on earth can you possibly say something is virtually identical so something else that doesn't exist? I might as well say my post here is virtually identically to a scrawl on the dark side of the moon. Do you believe me?

If this guy can't get the first five minutes of his lecture down rationally and coherently... why on earth should anybody listen to anything else he has to say?

 

[PROPHECYKID]

I started watching the first video and already I have some big issues with it.

Firstly, he seems to be implying that these scriptural texts that speak of YHWH's word or of a certain text (like Revelation) apply either to a written text or to the entire canon as it would be known hundreds of years later. Not only is that anachronistic (there was no such thing as The Bible when any single text in our bibles were written), not only is this blatantly applying something speaking about a certain text to a whole slew of completely unrelated texts (just because something like Revelation says not to add or subtract from “this prophecy” tells us nothing at all about, for instance, James), but it is committing the heresy of Docetism by making a written text God's Word itself. We are not Muslims. Holy Scripture has the Word of God in it, but its ink, paper, writing, grammar, and words are not the Word of God itself. Christ is God's Word, not a book.

Then the first discussion of texts is only New Testament... Nothing about the Old Testament. Missing something?

He proceeds to note that the original manuscripts are lost. And then says that of the “textual families,” the “traditional family” is almost identical to the originals.

Um...hello! You just said the originals are lost. How on earth can you possibly say something is virtually identical so something else that doesn't exist? I might as well say my post here is virtually identically to a scrawl on the dark side of the moon. Do you believe me?

If this guy can't get the first five minutes of his lecture down rationally and coherently... why on earth should anybody listen to anything else he has to say?

It is my fault maybe. In the previous lecture he speaks about the 2 manuscripts which war used to give us the versions today and where they originated from. In the first 5 minutes of the first video you should get that information. I actually posted this while looking at it so to answer the question directly i'll have to watch the last video again but the answer is all in there.

Past 14 continues from Part 13 in which he speaks about who were the guys who's translation we use for most of the modern versions and these were guys who didn't believe in the divinity of Christ, didn't believe in the atonment, etc and he looked at all that evidence in Part 13 so in Part 14 he is just showing what they changed by the background is Part 13. So again it is my bad.

 

[wayseer]

Hey you guys, I want to show you this presentation that I am looking at. The presenter goes through the different versions and shows where pieces of verses and almost whole chapters have been taken out in versions such as the RSV and NIV.

I have not looked at the vid - I can guess what it says.

Yes, there are any number of differences in the various productions of Bibles. For one thing the various traditions use various canon - which inevitable means whole books are left in, or out, as the case may be.

WE no longer have any 'original' text - they have all been lost one way or another. What we have is copies of copies of copies - over 5000 for the NT. The earliest date is 2nd century for a bankcard size piece of Gospel of John. The earliest of anything else is the 3rd century.

But scholars, who spend their life doing little else, have developed some pretty good techniques from which they make their observations. Needless to add, that some of them disagree is to be expected. But there is no great divergence of opinions over the significant issues.

The other thing is that we have had discoveries, DSS & NHL, that have basically confirmed the work of the scholars - that have got it pretty right.

However, there are some interesting aspects to these finds. In the Book of 1 Samuel we can find a distinct difference where NRSV adds some additional verses to 10: 27 which are not included in the NIV.

The compilers of the NRSV decided to go with the scroll found in the DSS collection taking the line that it was a copy of an earlier work. The compilers of the NIV decided that the scroll was a later copy and therefore did not reflect the original. It's a matter of choice.

The point is - there are any number of legitimate reasons for the textual variations in our Bibles.

 

[PROPHECYKID]

I have not looked at the vid - I can guess what it says.

Yes, there are any number of differences in the various productions of Bibles. For one thing the various traditions use various canon - which inevitable means whole books are left in, or out, as the case may be.

WE no longer have any 'original' text - they have all been lost one way or another. What we have is copies of copies of copies - over 5000 for the NT. The earliest date is 2nd century for a bankcard size piece of Gospel of John. The earliest of anything else is the 3rd century.

But scholars, who spend their life doing little else, have developed some pretty good techniques from which they make their observations. Needless to add, that some of them disagree is to be expected. But there is no great divergence of opinions over the significant issues.

The other thing is that we have had discoveries, DSS & NHL, that have basically confirmed the work of the scholars - that have got it pretty right.

However, there are some interesting aspects to these finds. In the Book of 1 Samuel we can find a distinct difference where NRSV adds some additional verses to 10: 27 which are not included in the NIV.

The compilers of the NRSV decided to go with the scroll found in the DSS collection taking the line that it was a copy of an earlier work. The compilers of the NIV decided that the scroll was a later copy and therefore did not reflect the original. It's a matter of choice.

The point is - there are any number of legitimate reasons for the textual variations in our Bibles.

Most of your guess is wrong. Look at the first 5 minutes of any of the videos at least to see if it would be of interest to you.

 

[hedrick]

Of course saying that passages are missing in other translations assumes that the KJV is right. Otherwise you'd say that they were added in the manuscripts used by the KJV.

 

[PROPHECYKID]

Of course saying that passages are missing in other translations assumes that the KJV is right. Otherwise you'd say that they were added in the manuscripts used by the KJV.

Well there is an in depth analysis of the origins of the manuscripts used in the second video I posted which comes before first. So its not just about KJV vs other versions.

 

[wayseer]

Most of your guess is wrong. Look at the first 5 minutes of any of the videos at least to see if it would be of interest to you.

I am not interest is sensationalism - I am more interested in what respected scholar have to say.

 

[Unix]

Hey you guys, I want to show you this presentation that I am looking at. The presenter prof Walter J. Veit goes through the different versions and shows where pieces of verses and almost whole chapters have been taken out in versions such as the RSV and NIV.

And he mentions in the beginning that NASB changes 900 verses. In addition to this I know that Bibles such as New English Bible (NEB) and TEV/GNB (Today's English Version/Good News Bible) makes a lot of omissions.
My preferences are the Vulgate and UBGSNT4. I have a book that lists ratings in the UBSGNT4 and a book that deals with the textual differences between the Alexandrinian text type and Byzantine text type and Minority text type and the Vulgate. (PM me or browse through my previous posts to find out those books. Don't be too shy to use PM, my posts are often lengthy and it's therefore more convenient to ask m directly and I get happy for getting to communicate with people interested in the Bible.)
The Old Testament (other than Isaiah, 2 Esdras, Zechariah, Malachi) is unfortunately less familiar to me than most of the New Testament is. Locally, here where I live, I've managed to find on a dating-site a friend who is 32-years-of-age and interested in Judaism, and I look very much forward to getting to discuss with her, and that will balance this. We'll just be friends and my GF has approved given that the reason is plausible and I've been open about the search.

Very amicable video to watch, for a change, it seems to be in Brittish (I'm not that good on telling the difference between accents) and that is very pleasent and well-needed, I really need to listen to a lot of Brittish. Speaking of which, I would be glad if I get friends that are from over there, to speak on phone with, so that the accent will stick.

I paid notice to passages such as these:
The NWT leaves out Mk 16:9- and the report about the woman caught in adultery, and the presenter retorts that in most Bibles these omissions are at least pointed out in notes. The presenter is making a point out of that modern versions are really lacking something. Becacause of these points, he might be quite pleased with one certain modern version: the Revised English Bible (REB). It has the long ending in Mark NOT in brackets diminishing it's value or anything like that, plus it has the report about the woman caught in adultery, enfolded separately loose from the Bible books since it is giving the argument that it has not been enclosed IN any Bible book (but does of course belong to the Bible). But the reason why the presenter would be displeased with the REB, is that Acts 28:29 is missing just like in ecumenical Bibles (in contrast to ASV, Rheims, ESV, HCSB, KJV, NKJV, MRD, NASB, NASU that has the verse).

Mt 24:36. It should be as in the Catholic Public Domain Version (CPDV)
Matthew 24 - Catholic Public Domain Version (CPDV) - Bible - YouVersion.com
I'm got quite convinced that the Vulgate has preserved Matthew textually there, although the presenter is not mentioning that the Vulgate has rendered it likewise as the Textus Receptus and KJV.

Mk 10:21 all other versions than Murdoch (MRD), KJV and NKJV omit 'take up your cross' (MRD your, KJV/NKJV the)
Mk 10:24 The presenter gives the argument "the visitors should pay tithe, after all if we have to keep the monasteries going better keep that out" for the omission of 'trust in riches' (ASV, Rheims, KJV, NKJV, MRD, TLB).
Lk 2:14 the Byzantine text-type has preserved it: peace, good pleasure toward men
Lk 22:43-44 The presenter refers to KJV, mentioning that the RSV is the only version that leaves out these two verses completely
CPDV: Luke 22 - Catholic Public Domain Version (CPDV) - Bible - YouVersion.com
43 Then an Angel appeared to him from heaven, strengthening him. And being in agony, he prayed more intensely; 44 and so his sweat became like drops of blood, running down to the ground.
Acts 13:42 the Jews (omitted in all other versions than the (KJV, NKJV, The Living Bible, REB) "These people are SO thorough. You think this is a slip of the pen (in the manuscripts), I don't think so!"
Acts 16:7 the Spirit (only KJV and NKJV renders it this way)

 

[Roni999]

But the reason why the presenter would be displeased with the REB, is that Acts 28:29 is missing just like in ecumenical Bibles (in contrast to ASV, Rheims, ESV, HCSB, KJV, NKJV, MRD, NASB, NASU that has the verse).

My ESV does not have Acts 28:29 but it is mentioned in the little notes at the bottom.

Acts 13:42 the Jews (omitted in all other versions than the (KJV, NKJV, The Living Bible, REB) "These people are SO thorough. You think this is a slip of the pen (in the manuscripts), I don't think so!"

(The ESV omits both "the Jews" and "the Gentiles" from the verse. I would like to know if the Manuscript that we use to translate from is being added or taken away from by translators for reasons of opinion or doctrine or some other reason.)

Acts 16:7 the Spirit (only KJV and NKJV renders it this way)

In my ESV, it says, "but the Spirit of Jesus did not allow them."

I also find this quite interesting.

 

[Roni999]

Hey you guys, I want to show you this presentation that I am looking at. The presenter goes through the different versions and shows where pieces of verses and almost whole chapters have been taken out in versions such as the RSV and NIV.

WOW!!! Amazing Video. I want to throw my ESV in the trash and dump my cats litter on it. Destroying the Deity of Christ, removing His redemptive work, leaving out the Coming of God in the Flesh is just unthinkable for me. It is Anti-Christ to think God was NOT manifested in the Flesh. I thank you ProphecyKid for posting this. The King James is NOT perfect but it is Way Better, than the junk they are putting out these days and calling it the word of God!

My "thought" was that these new translations was in leaving out the "thee's and the "thou's" and so on and maybe clarifying a word here and there. Was I WRONG!!! Leaving whole chapters out. Leaving out words and sentences out. This is definitely a conspiracy against the Body of Messiah/Christ.
May God reach more believers and return them to the truth of His Word.

 

[Unix]

You probably want to own some Bible anyhow? REB might me something that I'd recommend You! It's better than ESV.
http://www.amazon.com/Apocrypha-RE530-Baker-Publishing-Group/dp/0521769310/ref=sr_1_1
I use REB for the Pauline corpus and Acts and the Apocrypha. I don't have the whole New Testament of it, I have:
http://www.amazon.com/New-Testament...=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1323726471&sr=1-1
( Here's what the cover of it looks like:
The New Testament Epistles: Early Christian Wisdom, Partially Abridged from the Text of the Revised English Bible Classic Bible Series: Amazon.co.uk: John Drane: Books )
(I used to have the whole New Testament of REB but I left it accidentally on the train when going to leave a letter to an untrustworthy girl who had allegedly been catholic. I might have made more use of it) There was some Jew that worked in the team on the Old Testament/Tanakh.
You are a US citizen, so the Brittish English of the REB might annoy You.
It was completed in 1989.
The Apocrypha can be bought separately and includes 2 Esdras:
http://www.amazon.com/Apocrypha-RE530-Baker-Publishing-Group/dp/0521769310/ref=sr_1_1

If You want to compare different translations, then perhaps this one would be convenient, in addition to buying a Revised English Bible:
http://www.amazon.com/Catholic-Comparative-New-Testament-Douay-Rheims/dp/019528299X/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_3
It includes to translations that are not seen especially often anymore or around here, from the reviews:
"* Good News Translation- Catholic Edition, is an English translation by the American Bible Society. This translation has been endorsed by many Christians Churches such as the Catholic Church, the Southern Baptist Convention, the Lutheran Church, Episcopal Church, and the Presbyterian Church. Excerpts from the New Testament were used extensively in evangelistic campaigns, such as the Billy Graham crusades and others, from the late 1960s through to the early 1980s. In the Philippines, the GNT is the most popular version of the Bible for both Catholics and Protestants. The Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines used this translation for the English version of their Basic Ecclesial Community Bible.

* The Christian Community Bible was published in 1986 as an answer to Rev. Alberto Rossa (a Claretian missionary in the Philippines) need for an English version of the Bible that reaches out to ordinary readers, particularly those in Third World countries. The primary feature of this translations is its use of common English. Editors of the Christian Community Bible consider it to be a very accurate translation from the Hebrew and Greek biblical texts."

About the Jerusalem Bible (JB):
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Jerusalem-Bible
The Old Testament of the JB can be bought separately, without footnotes (=Readers Edition):
http://www.amazon.com/Old-Testament-Jerusalem-Bible/dp/B000NSJHFI/ref=sr_1_50

From another review:
"Since the Greek language is so much more nuanced than Hebrew and Aramaic, many Greek words have several possible English translations. Take the Greek word metanoia as one example. This is the word used by John the Baptist in Chapter 3 of the Gospel of Matthew. Of the eight translations presented in the comparative text, five choose the word repent, while the other three vary in their translation, including, "penance," "turn away," "change your ways," and "change of heart." Having the ability to readily compare these different translations provides the reader with new insights into texts that they may have previously read in a much more limited manner."

From another review:
"The book is well-bound and well-typeset. The font is necessarily a little small, but definitely readable."

WOW!!! Amazing Video. I want to throw my ESV in the trash and dump my cats litter on it.

 

[Deaver]

Most translations are credible. There are so many. I generally recommend that one use many translations and let the “whole” bible aid them in their interpretation. For example (not for argumentative purposes) let’s look at the following.

Mk 10:21 all other versions than Murdoch (MRD), KJV and NKJV omit 'take up your cross'

I think if we look further we will see that is in error. My only point is that we should not become so tied to a particular translation of the Bible that we loose sight of its message.

Mark 10:21

(ALT) Then Jesus having looked attentively at him, loved him, and said to him, "One [thing] you lack. Be going away; as many [things] as you have, sell and give to the poor [ones], and you will have treasure in heaven. And come! Be following Me, having taken up the cross."

(Bishops) Iesus behelde hym, and loued hym, and sayde vnto hym, one thyng thou lackest: Go thy way, sell whatsoeuer thou hast, and geue to the poore, & thou shalt haue treasure in heauen, and come folowe me, and take vp the crosse.

(CLV) Now Jesus, looking at him, loves him, and said to him, "Still one thing you are wanting. Go. Whatever you have, sell, and be giving to the poor, and you will be having treasure in heaven. And hither! Follow Me, picking up the cross."

(EMTV) Then Jesus, looking at him, loved him, and said to him, "One thing you lack: Go, sell all that you have, and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, take up the cross, and follow Me."

(EVID) Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said to him, One thing you lack: go your way, sell whatsoever you have, and give to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me. [g]

(LITV) And looking at him, Jesus loved him, and said to him, One thing is lacking to you. Go, sell what things you have, and give to the poor. And you will have treasure in Heaven. And come, follow Me, taking up the cross.

(Webster) Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said to him, One thing thou lackest: go, sell whatever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven; and come, take up the cross, and follow me.

(YLT) And Jesus having looked upon him, did love him, and said to him, `One thing thou dost lack; go away, whatever thou hast--sell, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven, and come, be following me, having taken up the cross.'

 

[DamianWarS]

the presenter is clearly anti-Catholic and presents his argument seeing only two schools: what is Catholic and what is right and he presents it about as arrogantly as that statement. He says everything not based on the Textus Receptus inherently is influenced by Catholic doctrine which he then assumes is evil or analogous to pagan or unorthodox christian groups like LDS. His arguments are very bias and one-sided bombarding us with an onslaught of cons and problems with his opposing view which he then leaves no room but to assume that he has the answer to all these problems.

He assumes the KJV in all his arguments and everything is compared against it. He uses the term "Bible" synonymously with the KJV but doesn't extend the same definition to other translations only calling them by their name or their influence but never "Bible" manipulating us into his perspective. Some examples are that he says the NASB has 900 changes leaving us to believe the NASB has 900 errors. But changes from what? Well of course changes from the KJV which is his assumed text but he presents it like as if the KJV is the actual penned words of God. Another instance he looks at Matthew 25:13 to which the NIV reads "Therefore keep watch because you do not know the day or the hour" and the KJV reads "Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour where in the Son of Man cometh." He explains how the KJV should be naturally assumed as right because the NIV or other translation texts are ambiguous and the reader wouldn't know if this verse was talking about "the Son of Man" coming or, as the presenter puts it, "the ice cream man". However he fails to recognize the context of the passage which well establishes the idea of the coming of the Lord in the previous chapter and continues without pause right into the this chapter and then into this verse leaving no doubt to the reader. He presents this like it is unquestionably wrong and hints Gnosticism in such a verse that are missing what the KJV says.

He may have valid points however his videos echos the style as so many "KJV Only" arguments before him have and will continue to have and he failed to really present a critical exchange of Greek Texts or translations. We have all heard such noise from both sides and all they create is more noise. I would appreciated a well rounded look and discussion on this subject rather then such an arrogant one sided view like these videos present.

 

[Unix]

I know what You are refering to, Deaver, You are refering to the most recent major Bible translations and some others such as RSV and JB and 1976 GNB 4th edition and '60s-'10s (Revised) Grail Psalter and 1984 NIV. I don't know if You are refering to Amplified (a version which seems to be used by some on Christianforums) and NKJV? But I strongly disagree with You. It's NOT necessary to make use of all major translations in comparisons! See here an example of how the discussion goes, and You'll understand what I mean:
Common English Bible? - Christian Forums
... what I mean is that it's futile to endorse new versions just because there were "many scholars" on the translations team - because that doesn't mean accurasy, and the older versions aren't always defeated regarding style either:

Most translations are credible. There are so many.

Follows: Bibles I completely avoid and don't have (except for the few exceptions I've stated in this post further down):
(Explanation of abreviations: C = Roman-Catholic, P = Protestant (in the case of RSV that is just my abreviation).)
* 21st century King James
* Amplified first edition NT '50ies, OT '60ies, second edition 1965, third edition 1987
* 1901 ASV (reformed conservative bias)
* 1769 AV Blayney-revision (I have NT only) P historic Official Version
* 1999 Bibel2000 with 2000 notes Swedish version. New P Official national church Bible, has replaced the 1981-1982 version.
* Bible in Basic English
* '10s Common English Bible = CEB
* CEV NT-1991, OT-1995 and also the Catholic edition and Youth Bible Global Edition
* Christian Community Bible
* Clear Word Bible (strong Seventh-Day Adventist bias)
* 1961 Confraternity Psalter and 1941 Gospels and James (Psalter-and-Gospels-and-James)
* Cotton Patch
* Douay-Rheims all three editions, the first edition, the second edition 18th century, the third edition 1899. C historical Official version
* Dr. William von Peters language update The Original and True Rheims New Testament of Anno Domini 1582 by Dr. William von Peters in Religion & Spirituality
* ESV all editions, currently there are 2001, 2007 and 2011. Recommended by lay people in some denominations in the US and EU. (Strongly biased to evangelical P.) Also used as text in the Lutheran Study Bible.
* 1995 God's Word, a Lutheran version designed to read much like the 1976 GNB/1992 GNT.
* 1966 Good News Bible first edition and second edition issued that year
* 2008? or 2010? Revised Grail Psalter (Psalter-only)
* HCSB. Recommended by clergy in some P denominations in the US
* 1998 Jewish New Testament, by David Stern
* 1955 Knox
* 1971 LB-OT It was marketed on Billy Graham crusades plus it was translated into, or inspired versions in, some other languages. I've read one interesting opinion on Ecclesiastes, although I don't agree that LB should be used: What Bible do you prefer? - Page 2 - Christian Forums
* 2002 Message NT both editions 1993 and 2002, whole Bible 2002, OT published in parts 2000-2002, see: The Message
* 1851 Murdock translation of the Peshitta
* 1970 NAB Gospels-only (I own it (NT divided into two volumes)) and OT
* NASB NT 1963 with OT 1971 (conservative bias)
* NCV both editions 1987 and 1991
* 1970 NEB-OT (I used to have it, including the Deuterocanonicals. It was bulky: read thick)
* NIrV
* NIV 1984-second(OT)/third(NT)-edition and 2011-third(OT)/fourth(NT)-edition and 1978-OT-with-second-edition-NT. Being marketed here and there over the world
* 1982 NKJV first edition and second edition. Large vocabulary
* NLT all editions: first edition completed in 1995 and second edition 2004 and third edition 2007. Well known Arminian bias 66-book Bible
* NRSV both variants (there's an anglicized one) Promoted by states (and that is a bad sign), such as China (the official bilingual Chinese-English parallel Bible), and Catholic edition with Grail Psalter is C Official version in Canada except for Quebec which is French-speaking. Mainstream bias
* NWT all editions '50s-1960, 1961, 1970, 1984. JW Official version
* 1992 (Pyhä) Raamattu New Finnish Official version (more liberal than the 1933-1938 version which it replaced). Biased
* 1999 Raamattu Kansalle NT with '10s OT (not yet done) Finnish version. (I owned a NT but didn't use it.) Modern competing version. Biased
* Readers Digest Bible (I have only volume containing Daniel and some other books of the OT), an abridged RSV-2P
* Recovery Version both editions 1985/1991. Among other, it was Witness Lee's Local Church's Official version
* RSV-1, RSV-2P, RSV-2CE. Still recommended by clergy of various countries and denominations. (Liberal bias)
* SAAS Septuagint (in the Orthodox Study Bible)
* Simplified Version, an abridged NASU NT-only
* Third Millenium Bible
* TNIV NT 2002, whole Bible 2005. Second edition 2007? or 2008? But if You insist on getting a 1973 or 1978 or 1984 or 2011 NIV, then get http://www.amazon.com/Story-Zonderv...r_1_19?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1325378694&sr=1-19 it's just slightly better (abridged and has TNIV text)
* Voice NT (NT-only) Strong Universalist bias
* '10s WEB
* 1961 The New Testament: An Expanded Translation, Kenneth S. Wuest (I had it but donated it to mom whom I visit almost never, a few times a year, we see each other at work right now)

Bibles I own but make no use of whatsoever
* 1776 Finnish Pyhä Raamattu. The bulkiest Bible I have but thight binding since it's a 1967 offset print. Very-hard-to-read old-time typeface, the only Bible I still have with the old typeface. Well the use I make of it, is for quick look-up of cross-references, as I don't have any other Bible with an extensive verse cross-reference. Lutheran historic Official version
* 2005 NET 1st edition

Bibles I own but almost COMPLETELY avoid:
* '00s Disciples New Testamant and Genesis, by Victor Nimrud Alexander Aramaic Bible, Disciples New Testament, Genesis, Exodus, Jonah, Daniel, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Zechariah, Malachi
* 1985 NJB (because heretical), I use it only for passages in Mt where it translates from Codex Bezae and for some verses in 1 Jn. (I have it as printed matter, was also offered it in Logos for $5 but didn't want it.)
* 1985 New Jewish Publication Society Tanakh. I use Nevi'im and Kethuvim. OT-only

Bibles I own but make little use of and cautiously:
* Good As New - A radical retelling of the Scriptures (NT-only). Liberal, not particularily biased, made by an Anglican
* 1995 NASU (conservative bias) Favorite Bible of those Fundamentalists who want a word-for-word translation, and the reason is because it doesn't contain the Deuterocanonicals, they see inclusing of the Deuterocanonicals as a bad sign
* 1992 Good News Translation Catholic edition. GNT is Official version on a few islands somewhere in the world

Bibles I have I make some use of, but make no use of the notes of:
It's necessary to be cautious, read this post and follow all the links, note especially the criticism towards GNB/GNT:
Essential books? - Page 2 - Christian Forums
* 1971 Good News Bible NT-only third edition. I use it very cautiously, but I like it. Less bias than in the newer editions
* 1976 Good News Bible fourth edition NT. Was promoted in Billy Graham evangelization campaigns. Note: I think that to evangelize is WRONG
* 2004 Good News Translation third edition OT, sixth edition NT UK-English. EDIT Jan. 12. 2013: This edition is unfortunately not available in Logos, to support the tagging of it, tell Logos that You want it, by posting in this thread: 1992 GNT-CE 2nd ed. preferably with Anglicized text and 1971 GNB 3rd... ... saying that You want that particular version!
* 1971 LB NT third edition. First edition was published in parts in the '60s, second edition of the NT 1967 (I have NT only) Mostly I just use it as an example of how a Bible should NOT be rendered. I use it very cautiously
* 1970 NAB the volume with Acts, all the NT Epistles, and Revelation
* 1970 NEB NT second edition. I have NT-only. This Bible I've used 2004-2006 (I had a whole Bible with Apocrypha) and 2011 and will continue to use despite there are newer Bibles
* 1972 Phillips Revised edition NT- and a few books of the OT-only. I have the NT only. I like it for some parts of the NT
* Swedish 2003 ReformationsBibeln (language update of historic Official Bible 1703, NT only issued so far) (modern competing version, based on Byzantine Greek text)

Bibles I own and make a some use of:
* 1865 Common English Version New Testament second revised edition. NT-only Portions of the NT from Romans-2 Peter 1:21a. Forthcoming in Logos, place a bid! English Bible Collection (27 vols.) ... please bid $40-$50! The reason many of the bids so far are low is that this collection used to be smaller, then Logos suddenly added many Bibles so the cost of production for the collection went up. I wish I would have the 1912 third edition but it's a bit difficult to order it since sellers don't specify which edition it is that they provide. Not particularily biased
* 19th-century Swedish evaluation translation, a rare copy that I have, I can't remember the exact year since I haven't looked at it for a long time, it is somewhere between 1860-1879. Not to be confused with a better known and much circulated translation from the end of the 19th century.
* Lukas evangelium i Gustav Vasas Bibel (probably done in 1539) 1541 (Whole Bible, but I have Gospel according to Luke-only). Lutheran historic Official Bible. I would have like to have also it's predecessor, 1526 (NT-only) C historic Official version for 15 years, but it's nowhere to be found, I looked in the Swedish Royal Library in the early '00s
* 1986 RNAB NT = New American Bible Revised NT. C Official NT version in the US
* 1997 Revised New Jewish Publication Society Psalms (Psalter-only issued that year)
* RSV-CE (I have NT only)
* UPDV version 2.16 (I have the 2011 2.15 now, and as soon as 2.16 is released I'm going to make all the updates with a pen and Tip-ex, but I'm going to keep Lk 1-2 for reference.) It's the third-most bulky Bible I have

Bibles I own and make frequent use of:
* 2008-2009 COM=The Comprehensive New Testament, by Clontz. First-second edition
* 2010 NAB-RE OT-only Large-Print-edition. ALTHOUGH MOST OF THE OT I DON'T READ OFTEN

Earlier on in my life, I have used:
* In the '90ies Swedish 1982 OT (language update of 1917, a reformed lutheran bias version) with 1981 NT (freshly translated). P Official Bible of the national church, replaced 1917 version. I have a book by the foundation Biblicum (not an official organization but a competing) that tells, in interview-form, the backgrounds of it, and it reveals that the translators didn't believe in God all that much and not in miracles. Liberal bias
* In the early '90ies Finnish NT 1933 with OT 1938 Conservative Lutheran Official Bible. Lutheran bias
* In the turn of the millenia Swedish Folkbibeln 1998 OT (partially language update of 1917, a reformed lutheran bias version) made by Svenska Folkbibelsällskapet with 1996 NT (modern competing version) freshly translated by the foundation Biblicum and Svenska Folkbibelsällskapet. Biased
* From the turn of the millenia until the mid '00s: Aapeli Saarisalo Uusi Testamentti (NT-only) I don't remember when it was issued. Strongly biased
* For a short while in the '00s: Swedish 1703 P Official (national church (Lutheran)) version. Strongly biased

Bibles I make the most use of:
* 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version I use for Mt 1:18-17:6 with 77 corrections plus 8 own omissions. Printed from the internet, I should buy the volume 6/6 as book (whole Bible is 6 volumes): New Testament is in 2 volumes large print. Translated from the Vulgate, so this version replaces Confraternity version EXCEPT that it lacks notes. Although not translated by a team.
* 1961 Confraternity Bible Daughters of Saint Paul edition Genesis-Ruth, Job-Sirach, and the Prophetic OT books, with NT epistles. Of which I don't use James. C historic Official version (Genesis-Ruth-only, Job-Sirach-only-of-wich-I-don't-use-the-psalms-only, and the Prophetic-books-only, with NT-epistles-only.)

I think that a much better option for a Bible with Catholic commentary, is the Confraternity Version, but be careful to select one that actually has footnotes (send a question to the seller, that's what I did, first, to be sure)! The footnotes in Confraternity version were written by Grispino.

* 1966 JB Reader's Edition. I have 2. One whole Bible, One NT-only. C Official version in several countries such as France, Belgium, Sweden, England, Wales, replaced Confraternity Version (also in the U.S. and Canada earlier on). Was issued also in French, so the possibilities worlwide to reade this version are good, and I think that is a part of Gods wish for this terrific version.
* 1989 REB. I-own-many-portions-of-the-Bible. I have the Deuterocanonicals including 2 Esdras, parts of the OT, Acts, Romans, 1-2 Corinthians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and loose pages I photo copy in Åbo-/Turku-library, Finland, and I photocopied half of James before I lost my first REB which contained NT and the deuterocanonicals bound in one volume. Very good all-in-all for the NT epistles! This version I have had the longest continuously but didn't use it while I was atheist. Inter-faith

Translation I'm making
* Swedish 2013 James (James-only)

I don't read all the books of the Bible:
Best Catholic Books? - Christian Forums

Here are lists of which version I use for which book of the Bible:
How I determine which Bible version to use
Re: New on prepub: Ignatius Catholic Study Bible and more

The Bible is fact:
Bible is not 100% true? - Page 2 - Christian Forums
Bible is not 100% true? - Christian Forums
...continued on January 7. 2012 at 3:24 PM local time GMT+1h

Previously edited by Unix; 14th December 2011 at 6:04 AM local time. Reason: add accide. missed words, correct alphabetical order, add translation I'm making, add 1 Bible I remember well to those I have
Previously edited by Unix; 14th December 2011 at 12:22 PM local time. Reason: Added God's Word, which I had forgot
Previously edited by Unix; 16th December 2011 at 1:01 AM local time. Reason: Added CEB, which I just accidentally missed to put in the list
Previously edited by Unix; 27th December 2011 at 9:22 AM local time. Reason: Added NCV and Aapeli Saarisalo, I had completely forgot about those
Previously edited by Unix; 1st January 2012 at 6:29 AM local time. Reason: Added Voice, corrected about NEB edition and many small corrections, added 2 links, added major translations on top together.
Previously edited by Unix; 7th January 2012 at 3:24 PM local time. Reason: Added Clear word Bible, corrected typos

 

[Ignatius the Hermit]

WOW!!! Amazing Video. I want to throw my ESV in the trash and dump my cats litter on it. Destroying the Deity of Christ, removing His redemptive work, leaving out the Coming of God in the Flesh is just unthinkable for me. It is Anti-Christ to think God was NOT manifested in the Flesh. I thank you ProphecyKid for posting this. The King James is NOT perfect but it is Way Better, than the junk they are putting out these days and calling it the word of God!

My "thought" was that these new translations was in leaving out the "thee's and the "thou's" and so on and maybe clarifying a word here and there. Was I WRONG!!! Leaving whole chapters out. Leaving out words and sentences out. This is definitely a conspiracy against the Body of Messiah/Christ.
May God reach more believers and return them to the truth of His Word.

There is no need to throw out your ESV--it is a fine translation. What most people who read the bible realize that most of the modern translations are being translated and checked against the earliest documents that we have. It is amazing to see the differences---and the additions and changes made to scripture to promote certain doctrines. My personal favorite is 1 John 5:7--in which the KJV and NKJV state the following:

"Forthere are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one".

This verse only appears in the latest manuscripts (most of which were latin and not Greek)--which means it was added to the biblical text----most likely to promote the doctrine of the Trinity.

 

[Fireinfolding]

I wasnt going to watch this video, I usually dont watch them but I had something to do and figured I'd have it playing in the back. The video stopped halfway through.

The one that really got me (though I hadnt a pen handy to write which versions) was the nixing of the name of order of the priesthood of Melchizedek. It was like bomb hit me on that one. Those folks are untrustworthy is all I can say, thats a shady move. Why would they do that? Because he sprang out of Judah of which Moses spake nothing of the priesthood (to keep a levitical overhang)?? I'd hate to be them deleting the name of order which come by the oath of God. No God Speed to them either. For what possible good intent?? I certainly dont see one but I can think of alot if shadys ones. That one hit me like a ton of bricks. Though I wonder if they were consistent and removed it fourfold from the NT and went back to the OT and snagged it from Psalm 110:4 too, I wish he would have clarified that.

Now I gotta go back and rewatch it to find out which three versions it was taken out of. That one got my goat though (pun intended) There were others too, and one I disagreed with him on concerning how essential it was (in respects to what he was hearing) whereas I was not, but I felt the order of Melchizedek was way more important, because it would just say, "thou art a priest for ever" (thats it). Leave less and less clues for the reader, how lovely...or maybe the point? Thats not a short video, but glad I gave it a watch, it can be tedious to go through, what can you say? God reward them? I mean really...

 

[Unix]

That one is in the video 0:43:30 - 0:44:59
Hebrews 7:21
Douay-Rheims: But this is with an oath, by him that said unto him: The Lord hath sworn and he will not repent: Thou art a priest for ever.)

RSV-2P and RSV-2CE: Those who formerly became priests took their office without an oath, but this one was addressed with an oath, "The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind, 'Thou art a priest for ever.'"

NIV: but he became a priest with an oath when God said to him: "The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind: 'You are a priest for ever.'"

The one that really got me (though I hadnt a pen handy to write which versions) was the nixing of the name of order of the priesthood of Melchizedek. It was like bomb hit me on that one. Those folks are untrustworthy is all I can say, thats a shady move. Why would they do that? Because he sprang out of Judah of which Moses spake nothing of the priesthood (to keep a levitical overhang)?? I'd hate to be them deleting the name of order which come by the oath of God. No God Speed to them either. For what possible good intent?? I certainly dont see one but I can think of alot if shadys ones. That one hit me like a ton of bricks.

 

[hedrick]

Melchisedek is present in the KJ and the Greek edition from which it was translated. It is not present in any current Greek text. Normally there are footnotes indicating which manuscripts have different readings. For 7:21 there are no footnotes. This indicates that there aren't enough Greek manuscripts that have Melchisedek for it to be worth citing the evidence for that reading.

Please remember that the edition prepared by Erasmus, on which KJ is largely based, was based on a small number of late Greek manuscripts. Since I can't find any analysis of the issue I can only guess. But it's fairly common for scribes to confuse two similar passages. I'd be willing to bet that a copyist was thinking of one of the other verses where Melchisedek is mentioned, e.g. 7:17.

The biggest problem with these discussions is when people assume that there are theological motivations for changes like this. There are not. No one is trying to remove the name of the order. It just doesn't happen to appear in this verse in the original Greek. They're correcting a mistake. If they wanted to remove it, they'd remove it from 7:17 as well.