Recommend Bible Version

[fashion master]

Well...the issue of "NIV deleted many verses" is much more complex than you realize. Modern, **appropriately-accredited** Biblical language scholars have evidence that several verses have been **added** to the New Testament over the centuries. (That evidence: *none* of the oldest original language documents include those verses.)

Given this very strong evidence, most modern Bibles either omit those verses entirely (NIV) or - more often - place those verses in footnotes.

Realize that this discovery was not made until the late 1800s - so Bibles produced before that time generally include most or all of those add-on verses, and those add-on verses have verse numbers!

 

[a pilgrim]

Well...the issue of "NIV deleted many verses" is much more complex than you realize. Modern, **appropriately-accredited** Biblical language scholars have evidence that several verses have been **added** to the New Testament over the centuries. (That evidence: *none* of the oldest original language documents include those verses.)

Given this very strong evidence, most modern Bibles either omit those verses entirely (NIV) or - more often - place those verses in footnotes.

Realize that this discovery was not made until the late 1800s - so Bibles produced before that time generally include most or all of those add-on verses, and those add-on verses have verse numbers!

I've seen this "evidence." This is an example of the evidence:

1 John 5
[7] For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
[8] And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

Since the opening phrases in verses 7 and 8 are so similar, they are probably [?] copiest errors and render one verse or the other in question. So, we will edit the information as follows:

From:

1 John 5
[7] For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
[8] And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

To:

7 For there are three that testify:
8 the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

This is based on the assumption that the the Wescott and Hort 1881 is an accurate rendering. However did you know that almost ALL of the modern translations (New Testament,) come from Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaticus and those two manuscripts differed over 3,000 times in JUST the four gospels alone. And yet, they are the older and "more reliable" manuscripts.

There were notes in the margins where an earlier scribe would strike out a verse and comment: "This clearly was not in the originals," only to have the next "scholar" come along and mark out the earlier note and write: "This note was written by an idiot. . ." etc.

Friends, this is NOT God's way of preserving his word pure for the children of his creation. And furthermore, do you think the God of heaven would relegate the keeping of his pure word into the hands of such careless men? You sell God short!!!

Check where your ESV,NIV, NASB, R.V., ASV, New Jerusalem, etc., ad nauseum, come from. ALL of them come from the Wescott and Hort 1881 R.V. work. It is FULL of holes.

Here's the bottom line:

1. God said his word is pure.
2. He said he'd preserve it in it's purity.
3. God is not a liar.
4. Man is.

So, you tell me, which one, (for us English speaking people,) is the pure, preserved, word of God? You don't have to follow me, I'm just a nobody. BUT, God is not a liar and said he'd keep his word pure for us humans. Where is it?

 

[childofdust]

Personally, I use many translations for the NT and compare them.

Is there a reason why you don't use your own translation (like I do for the Old Testament)?

I don't use versions such as HCSB, ESV, or NET AT ALL for any verse whatsoever. They're that bad.

I assume that you know Greek well if you're going to make that kind of statement. Could you provide a random verse in the Greek, explain what the Greek is saying and why it is saying that, and then compare and contrast how the HCSB, ESV, and NET dealt with the Greek, where their renderings are bad, and what the better rendering would be based on the Greek? Any person who actually knew what they were talking about when it comes to translating from an original language and from an ancient document would be able to do that simple thing.

Thanx

 

[a pilgrim]

Is there a reason why you don't use your own translation (like I do for the Old Testament)?



I assume that you know Greek well if you're going to make that kind of statement. Could you provide a random verse in the Greek, explain what the Greek is saying and why it is saying that, and then compare and contrast how the HCSB, ESV, and NET dealt with the Greek, where their renderings are bad, and what the better rendering would be based on the Greek? Any person who actually knew what they were talking about when it comes to translating from an original language and from an ancient document would be able to do that simple thing.

Thanx

For the Old Testament, do you use the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, or the Masoretic Text?

 

[childofdust]

So that I may understand what you mean by the words you use (and that you actually know what you're talking about), please explain in your own words where the Masoretic Text came from and when and how it developed. You may do this here or in a different thread if you wish.

 

[a pilgrim]

So that I may understand what you mean by the words you use (and that you actually know what you're talking about), please explain in your own words where the Masoretic Text came from and when and how it developed. You may do this here or in a different thread if you wish.

Go here to read, (it's easier.)

The Masoretic Text

 

[childofdust]

Did you write that? If not, then it tells me nothing about what you do or do not know.



If you need an easier question, then here it is: How does a segolate change between a Babylonian text and a Masoretic text?



If you know what a Masoretic Text is, then you should know the answer to this question. If you do not know the answer to this question, then you do not know what a Masoretic Text is and I'm afraid I cannot answer your question because you do not know what you are asking.

 

[PeterAV]

There is only one real English Bible that is the whole Bible with nothing added, changed or taken away.
The King James Bible.
All others are corrupt. They used Alexandrian MSS for their basis instead of the accepted textus receptus.
Also, the King James Bible is the easiest to read.
It passed 24 of 26 tests as the easiest and came in second for the other two.
*******
King James is the only pure bible out there. All other modern versions are in deep error.
This is the real reason the church is where she is today.
*******
The church needs to have a revival, but a true revival will not happen without turning together to the King James Bible. This way the church once again will speak the same thing, mind the same thing.
But if acceptance to these modern perversions continue, only confussion and folk doing what is right in their own eye.
They have gotten sucked into satan's deception. The word is sown and immediately the devil attack the word.
He has turned many into little EVITES. Choosing the lie of satan and arbitrarily choosing against the very words of God.
The church now plays the game of 'I PREFER'.
All this modern versionism was planned upon years ago.
This included folk like Westcott and Hort, Prime minister of England at the time who loved going to seances. Other occultists were at these private secret meetings as well.
Lightfoot etc. Even Charles Darwin attended and was in on it. Madame Blavatsky as well.
*******
This is serious folks.
Over 100 years of planning this deception.
*******
PeterAV
Every word of God is pure:
Choose you this day whom ye will serve.
The satanic modern slop rags that are intentionaly put out to destroy the church.
Or the pure word of God, that brought millions to Christ and was the foundation of all those great true revivals.

 

[Unix]

You are misinformed by people who don't have good knowledge of Bible versions. Since You're saying the Textus Receptus, I draw a conclusion that You're mostly concerned about the NT, am I right?
There is a NT called the 1865 Common English New Testament. It has nothing added, changed or taken away. It's done before Westcott and Hort. It DOESN'T have footnotes telling what the critical text says, so it's not another NKJV.

The 18th century King James is definately not easier to read than the 1865 Common English New Testament.

You may wonder what my question is then, it comes here: what's the urge to use a version that many others use? Come on, really I don't see the point! The NKJV has sold better (no I'm DEFINATELY not purpoting it this is solely just an example) for a long while now, than the KJV - IMO that's still NO reason to buy a NKJV, besides it's not the same thing, there's a huge leap in language and style, the NKJV doesn't share anything in particular with the KJV, sharing the underlying Greek is just a minor detail after all.

I mostly don't scrutinize Bibles by the underlying Hebrew or Greek. Other aspects of the translation matters more.

There is only one real English Bible that is the whole Bible with nothing added, changed or taken away.
The King James Bible.
All others are corrupt. They used Alexandrian MSS for their basis instead of the accepted textus receptus.
Also, the King James Bible is the easiest to read.

And childofdust, I haven't forgot about Your question, but I'm sure You understand I can't as 1st priority undertake that. There is one passage in 1 Jn which is better in a Bible that I have and which You don't have/use, in the version I have they've made use of the Apostolic Fathers to determine better how the underlying Greek should read and then translated it to English, other versions, such as the ones You use and NRSV don't make use of the Apostolic Fathers quotes in that verse. Are You interested of hearing what it is[SIZE=3"?[/SIZE] I have earlier on mentioned the verse to PaladinValer who uses NRSV, neither the NRSV or the NRSV-CE got it right.

 

[a pilgrim]

Did you write that? If not, then it tells me nothing about what you do or do not know.



If you need an easier question, then here it is: How does a segolate change between a Babylonian text and a Masoretic text?

You are not trying to pose an easier question. Come on, man. You're trying to sound like the scholar that you probably are not. MHO. Oh, and by the way, segolate refers to word endings that may change between the Babylonian, (or as some refer to it, the Chaldean,) text and Hebrew, but in this case it does not matter because the Masorete, a Hebrew scholar who is expert in the Masora, knew all the nuances between the two.

If you know what a Masoretic Text is, then you should know the answer to this question. If you do not know the answer to this question, then you do not know what a Masoretic Text is and I'm afraid I cannot answer your question because you do not know what you are asking.

The Masoretic Text is the authoritative Hebrew text of the Jewish Bible and is regarded as Judaism's official version of the Tanakh. While the Masoretic Text defines the books of the Jewish canon, it also defines the precise letter-text of these biblical books, with their vocalization and accentuation known as the Masorah.

How's that?

 

[PeterAV]

The King James is the final Textus Receptus. All other works have error and disagree with each other.
I am concerned about the whole Bible. It just happens to be that the main problems with the newer perversions are mostly in the NT, but I can find many errors in the OT as well in every modern slop rags pimped out to the dumbed down Christian.
All of them, NIV NASB ESV NKJB Amp.etc....
*******
The church has left the truth of God's word behind and play the satanic game of 'I PREFER'. Then we wonder why there is no unity in the churches etc.
*******
Speak the same things and mind the sames things...remember?
We need to get back to the pure Holy Bible and have it as the final authority once again.
We dare not usurp the final authority of God's word or we will be turned into hell.
*******
King James all the way folks.
Or destruction and deception and every evil work.
*******
It is a dangerous game the church is playing these last few decades.
The vast majority of the churches even register with the government=slavery and manipulation and freedom completely gone.
The churches have no freedoms any more.
*******
You can print your own Pure King James Bible. Don't rely on the secular proffiteers and manipulators who decide for you with their hellish propaganda.
*******
PeterAV
Every word of God is pure:

 

[PeterAV]

Well...the issue of "NIV deleted many verses" is much more complex than you realize. Modern, **appropriately-accredited** Biblical language scholars have evidence that several verses have been **added** to the New Testament over the centuries. (That evidence: *none* of the oldest original language documents include those verses.)

Given this very strong evidence, most modern Bibles either omit those verses entirely (NIV) or - more often - place those verses in footnotes.

Realize that this discovery was not made until the late 1800s - so Bibles produced before that time generally include most or all of those add-on verses, and those add-on verses have verse numbers!

*******
What a lie from the pit of hell.
It was Origen that ripped out those verses along with Westcott and Hort.
The full text has always been the full text.
Good grief.
The NIV and others used the tainted works from Origen because he ripped out those verses to suit his own private new age theories. Westcott and Hort later upheld those works as the best but in reality, they are the very worst of the worst.
*******
Strong evidence my foot!
Those oldest MSS are not the only oldest.
King James type material was there right from the begining.
King James Bibles have 99% of MSS evidence in favour right throughout history.
The perverted Alexandrian MSS such as Aleph and B stand almost alone as a minority text. With only a few scraps to help them.
In fact, even the papri that the Alexandrian croud touts as supporting their perversion has more support for the King James than their own. Go figure.
*******
The ONLY reason that the Alexandrian texts lasted so long was because THEY WERE NEVER READ. In fact, one was found in the trash can.
One was changed by several diferent hands over the years in many places.
*******
The modern versions are not made to be accurate despite the deceptive retoric and propaganda to the contrary.
They are designed to destroy the church and change doctrine to suit eventualy the New World Order.
*******
So far, its working, because the bigwigs know how lazy the christian has become.
The people need to take back the church.
But I fear time is way too short.
*******
PeterAV
Every word of God is pure:

The most tainted, however are the modern slop rags that started in the late 1800's.
They will continue to divide and conquer as long as the dumbed down christian go with the flow, and believe the deceiving pastor and greek teacher. Hirelings every one of them.

 

[Unix]

Lk 2:25b-27 (my translation): He was a good and God-fearing1 man, having an anticipation2 for Israel to be saved3. * It had been disclosed4 to him * that he would not die before5[/I] setting his eyes on the anointed one of Yahweh6. * And he came into the Temple; and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, that they might do concerning him after the custom of the law,

1 Should not be "righteous" because that's not the Catholic vocabulary. Should not be "upright" because that's more like how Jesus is described as in 1 Jn 2:1 NJB (Jesus Christ, the upright. and Bible in Basic English (Jesus Christ, the upright one).
2 προσδεχόμενος 3785,4
3 I rendered that by dynamic equivalence in accordance with many of the expectations in the OT.
* omission(s) of words that are in NA25-27/UBSGNT1-4 Lk there’s suspiciously many insertions of “Holy Spirit” and “in the Spirit”.
4 Intermediating between the Vulgate “received an answer” and Gk.
5 ή άν (but with an extra ' above the ή and the ά: manuscripts 01♦, 019, 033, 33, THWe text: NA25
6 Expression from passages such as 1 Sam 24:6, 10; 26:9, 11, 16, 23.

“God-fearing” in American English. Rest of v. 25b-26 British English. V. 27b-c American English

(2007 ESV Anglicised): and this man was righteous and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel, and the Holy Spirit was upon him. And it had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he would not see death before he had seen the Lord's Christ. And he came in the Spirit into the temple, and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him according to the custom of the Law,

(HCSB): This man was righteous and devout, looking forward to Israel's consolation, and the Holy Spirit was on him. It had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he would not see death before he saw the Lord's Messiah. Guided by the Spirit, he entered the temple complex. When the parents brought in the child Jesus to perform for Him what was customary under the law,

(NET): who was righteous and devout, looking for the restoration of Israel, and the Holy Spirit was upon him. It had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he would not die before he had seen the Lord’s Christ. So Simeon, directed by the Spirit, came into the temple courts, and when the parents brought in the child Jesus to do for him what was customary according to the law,

Is there a reason why you don't use your own translation (like I do for the Old Testament)?

I assume that you know Greek well if you're going to make that kind of statement. Could you provide a random verse in the Greek, explain what the Greek is saying and why it is saying that, and then compare and contrast how the HCSB, ESV, and NET dealt with the Greek, where their renderings are bad, and what the better rendering would be based on the Greek? [...]
Thanx

Then the 1 Jn passage:

Well it's simply because You went on saying:

The new translations are based on the best material,

I differ with You on that opinion. From that it seems to me that You are saying that NRSV - and such which You think should be regarded equal or higher in value - would have used patristic material to a great extent. They haven't.

PM answer from PaladinValer on 19th July 2011, 12:12 PM local time Re: How does 1 John 4.8
1 St. John 4:8 in the NRSV[-CE] reads as follows:

"Whoever does not love does not know God, for God is love."

 

[Unix]

What I meant was above the letter right behind the Tonos with very narrow spacing. EDIT: Or possibly I mean Psili and Oxia.

(but with an extra ' above the ή and the &#940

JB makes use of the Apostolic Fathers: Anyone who fails to love can never have known God, because God is love.

Then the 1 Jn passage:

 

[PeterAV]

The recent discoveries of the world's oldest New Testament fragment Magdelan Paprus A.D. 60 proves the KJV right yet again and the NIV,CEV,NRSV, JB, NASB, ESV, and most new versions wrong.
*******
But today, with the church totaly forsaking God and his pure words, have led millions into the ditch. The blind leading the blind.
*******
Then there is Rupert Murdock that just left England; He is the owner and holds exclusive rights to the NIV. Did you know he wqas just made a Knight by the Nazi Pope.
*******
Murdock now puts the NIV under the same umbrella as the TV Guide, which he also owns.
*******
The publishers of the NKJV has just been charged with fraud by the securities Commission. They were fined to the tune of some $400,000.
*******
Then there is the fiasco of the NAS26 and UBS with Jesuit Cardinal Carlo Martini as the editor of this Greek text. These texts are used by the NIV, NASB and the rest of the modern versions. This man is now dead, but his last book he wrote how man can be "divine".
*******
Even the Ded sea scrolls scandal leaves the modern versions on real shaky ground.
*******
Forensic stylonomy would conclude that the modern versions were written by an effeminate man or a woman. This cooborates the recent comment by the former Monitor
of the Christian Reformed Church that NIV OLd Testament Chairman, Martin Woudstra, was believed to be a homosexual. He posted articles in homosexual magazines.
*******
OBVIOUSLY, the inclusive language translations are exposed.
*******
And the translation of LUCIFER [helel] in the King James Bible in Isaiah 14:12 is again proven correct.
*******
So when folk try to tout the latest new version,even their own; know that the true Bible exposes them.
The King James Bible is the only pure word of God, therefore thy servant LOVETH it.
*******
Info gleaned from G.A. Riplinger.
*******
PeterAV
Every word of God is pure:
Man's word not pure.

 

[a pilgrim]

What I meant was above the letter right behind the Tonos with very narrow spacing.JB makes use of the Apostolic Fathers: Anyone who fails to love can never have known God, because God is love.

Do you realize that all that stuff is not relevant to the average person who wants to know what bible version to use. They would not know the difference between Greek, Hebrew, and home brew.

Just tell them a good version to use. I think KJV, but if you think otherwise, let them know. Bro. Joe and Sis. Jane don't know ANYTHING about manuscript differences.

 

[strelok0017]

In my experience I have found that ESV is the best for me. It's very readable and I like it also because I find it's translation to be the closest one to my country's language which is basically a very literal translation too (I think it has very few paraphrases). I've basically read the entire ESV and I like it. I don't have aynthing against other translations, especially other people liking other translations better but if I was to recommend, I'd say that ESV is a way to go. I did however notice one, maybe even a huge flaw, that does not appear in the KJV and my home language translation (I don't know about other English translations but I know that it's also there in the NIV) but apart from that ESV is my choice Bible. I wish I could get myself an ESV study Bible too.

 

[Unix]

In: http://www.christianforums.com/t7541241-post60352865/#post60352865
... I suggest an Anabaptist commentary for Proverbs.

There are some issues with the 2011 NIV, CEB, NKJV, NASU, ESV, HCSB: http://www.christianforums.com/t7645280-post60345676/#post60345676

I'm quite fond of the Holman Christian Standard Bible.

There are many opinions on what version is accurate, but I cannot say which one is closest to perfect. I would say that possibly the 2 simplest ones to read and understand would be either NIV or NKJV.

 

[a pilgrim]

But, alas, I am doomed if you want to call it that, to believe in something called "pure words." God promised them, pure words, plural, each individual one, preserved by and omnipotent and sovereign God. He said he would do it, I chose, with childlike faith, to believe he has. I choose to say it it, (for the English speaking world,) the KJV. If God has promised them. . . pure words. . . why don't ANY of the other versions claim to contain them? I am guilty of believing God can do just what he said.

 

[Minty]

In my experience I have found that ESV is the best for me. It's very readable and I like it also because I find it's translation to be the closest one to my country's language which is basically a very literal translation too (I think it has very few paraphrases). I've basically read the entire ESV and I like it. I don't have aynthing against other translations, especially other people liking other translations better but if I was to recommend, I'd say that ESV is a way to go. I did however notice one, maybe even a huge flaw, that does not appear in the KJV and my home language translation (I don't know about other English translations but I know that it's also there in the NIV) but apart from that ESV is my choice Bible. I wish I could get myself an ESV study Bible too.

I agree in recommending the ESV. I also like the NRSV and NKJV and for personal reading (not study or when my brain just will not concentrate) The Good News Bible. I have a huge KJV study bible, but it is so heavy I can barely lift it so it only gets used when I have a table handy