What translation, or versions of the bible do you like to use and why?

[PrincetonGuy]

The POINT was... I was challenged as telling a lie when I said Wescott and Hort created their OWN GREEK New Testament text).

I gave proof that Wescott and Hort DID... create their OWN New Testament Greek text version. I provided TWO links to that proof. It's as plain on the nose on your face.

Don't be silly, Wescott and Hort's 1881 work was a TRANSLATION from Greek manuscripts.

Oh yes they did present 'their own' Greek translation in 1881, and that is fact (titled as The New Testament in Original Greek).


You need to get up to speed. Their Greek text is called the WH text, abbreviated after their last names. They were Greek scholars, and they based 'their' Greek translation from the Codex Alexandrinus and Codex Vaticanus manuscripts.

I'm not the one who coined the "WH text", which refers to Wescott and Hort's 1881 translation from Greek manuscripts.

You said Wescott and Hort did no such translation. I said they did, and I gave unquestionable proof of it by a digitized photo copy of their translation over at the Internet Archive website...

The New Testament in the original Greek : Westcott, Brooke Foss, 1825-1901 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

View attachment 311714

So man up, and admit they DID DO A GREEK TRANSLATION IN 1881.

This is the worst case of wanton dishonesty and insulting behavior that I have ever seen on a Christian forum.

 

[hedrick]

This is the worst case of wanton dishonesty and insulting behavior that I have ever seen on a Christian forum.

It seems like the poster doesn't understand that a critical edition of a text isn't a translation. I try to avoid getting upset by misunderstanding.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

It seems like the poster doesn't understand that a critical edition of a text isn't a translation. I try to avoid getting upset by misunderstanding.

I carefully considered that possibility and concluded that the evidence does not support such a conclusion. Moreover, such a possibility would not excuse the insulting behavior.

 

[Davy]

I don't subscribe to the TR since it was just a small number of copies that Erasmus had available to him. I'll stick with the thousands of texts from the Greek Orthodox church.

That's a joke, right? about the Textus Receptus (TR)? It's printing is not how it is authenticated. Those who dwell on that idea are like those who try to support the texts from Alexandria, Egypt as being more reliable just because they are older than the Received Texts.

The Textus Receptus involves about 95% of the 5,800+ of Greek manuscripts in existence of the Byzantine type. The Textus Receptus agrees with the early Bible versions, like the Peshitta (AD150), Old Latin Vulgate (AD157), the Italic Bible (AD157), and agrees with the majority of the quotes from the early Church fathers, from late first century to the middle ages.

And especially, the Textus Receptus is untouched by Egyptian pagan philosophy, heresies, and unbelief like those of the School at Alexandria, Egypt were subject to, like Origen, Clement of Alexandria, etc.

 

[Davy]

This is the worst case of wanton dishonesty and insulting behavior that I have ever seen on a Christian forum.

Of course the LIE is what you are trying pass, like hot gas.

This cover of Wescott and Hort's Greek New Testament translation reveals the date as 1881 for the translation, like I had said. And in case anyone else is ignorant about what a 'new translation' means, that is what a NEW REVISION is, which is what Wescott and Hort did.

The below is taken from THEIR new 'revised' Greek translation, which this image is from a copy on the Internet Archive website: The New Testament in the original Greek : Westcott, Brooke Foss, 1825-1901 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

So don't listen to the LIARS here brethren, because Satan's children have a whole lot invested in the later modern Bible translations that are from corrupt manuscripts.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

Where did you find that above quote? I didn't say that. You made that up didn't you??

It is right in the list in your link!

So now you're an immediate authority on English Bible translations while trying to work from a Greek cupola?

As for the Greek Orthodox Patriarchal text, The Patriarchal Greek New Testament (PATr)

 

[Andrewn]

-

 

[GreekOrthodox]

Textus Receptus:
"The name has been retrospectively applied to all the printed Greek texts of the same Byzantine text-type. The Byzantine text-type represents over 95% of the 5,800+ Greek manuscripts of the New Testament still in existence today."

The TR represents Erasmus's texts only and is not applied to the Byzantine Majority text as a whole. Erasmus was not working with Byzantine lectionaries but with seven manuscripts from the Basel Dominican Library.

 

[Davy]

The TR represents Erasmus's texts only and is not applied to the Byzantine Majority text as a whole. Erasmus was not working with Byzantine lectionaries but with seven manuscripts from the Basel Dominican Library.

That of course is just your opinion. Many Bible scholars disagree with you, which is why I quoted this...

Textus Receptus:
"The name has been retrospectively applied to all the printed Greek texts of the same Byzantine text-type. The Byzantine text-type represents over 95% of the 5,800+ Greek manuscripts of the New Testament still in existence today."

Furthermore, when the Textus Receptus AGREES with the quotes by the early Church fathers, that is more solid proof of the authenticity of what Greek texts they used, pointing to the Textus Receptus. So all Erasmus did was translate, not re-write the original Greek texts the Church fathers used.

 

[Jared MacNeill]

I like my new king James , I’m always arguing with my friend that there’s nothing wrong with nkjv because I don’t understand all that old English talk!

I have an niv I was given yes ago but the church and have never read it . I couldn’t it’s too small and I struggle with reading to begin with.

I recently got an ESV study bible because it was free and was an rc sprouls reformation bible. Last night I shocked to find out that in the niv and ESV there are several different passages missing! Including ones about the trinity (never actually uses the term) and how to be saved!

my friend tried to tell me it’s the same with the nkj but it’s not , the missing scriptures are in the nkj .


Now that also give you an understanding about why there’s a kjvo movement.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

I like my new king James , I’m always arguing with my friend that there’s nothing wrong with nkjv because I don’t understand all that old English talk!

I have an niv I was given yes ago but the church and have never read it . I couldn’t it’s too small and I struggle with reading to begin with.

I recently got an ESV study bible because it was free and was an rc sprouls reformation bible. Last night I shocked to find out that in the niv and ESV there are several different passages missing! Including ones about the trinity (never actually uses the term) and how to be saved!

my friend tried to tell me it’s the same with the nkj but it’s not , the missing scriptures are in the nkj .


Now that also give you an understanding about why there’s a kjvo movement.

The passages you mention are not missing in the NIV or ESV they are in the footnotes with an explanation as to why they were removed... and it is because they weren't in the original texts.

 

[Jared MacNeill]

The passages you mention are not missing in the NIV or ESV they are in the footnotes with an explanation as to why they were removed... and it is because they weren't in the original texts.

No they are gone ! I compared my nkjv with kjv with ESV and niv and they are in fact missing. How else do you explain I going verses 5,6,7,8 to 7,6,8. Where is verse 7 it’s gone , not there! And it’s not the only passage . I’ll even post pictures when I get home after work to show my findings. Because I’m not here to argue just simply explaining what I noticed the other night

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

No they are gone ! I compared my nkjv with kjv with ESV and niv and they are in fact missing. How else do you explain I going verses 5,6,7,8 to 7,6,8. Where is verse 7 it’s gone , not there! And it’s not the only passage . I’ll even post pictures when I get home after work to show my findings. Because I’m not here to argue just simply explaining what I noticed the other night

I don't have an NIV or ESV handy, but you could look at the wikipedia article on texts omitted from modern bibles. Or go to Bible Hub or Bible gateway and look at the footnotes there: It says 'Late manuscripts of the Vulgate testify in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 8 And there are three that testify on earth: the (not found in any Greek manuscript before the fourteenth century)'

My NET has copious translation notes and says that the extra bit can only be found in in manuscripts from 10th - 18th century and nothing before that. It was not written by John for certain, not unless he lived to a ripe old age of 1000 years.

As far as I am aware and have seen all of these extra bits have been noted and included in footnotes on the page in question. The two exceptions are the ending of Mark and the Woman caught in adultery. Both are included in the texts of modern bibles with a note indicating that they are not originally part of the texts identified. The ending of Mark goes back to the 2nd century and the portion of John is much later (can't remember off the top of my head).

Most textual critics think the extra words were added originally as a clarification or commentary but subsequent authors included it in the text. We have enough copies that are old and untouched to know what was and wasn't originally part of the text.

You are getting indignant that portions of the KJV have been removed by modern translations, whereas you should be indignant that portions of the KJV were added in when they weren't part of the canon of scripture!

 

[miamited]

Hi @Jared MacNeill

No they are gone ! I compared my nkjv with kjv with ESV and niv and they are in fact missing. How else do you explain I going verses 5,6,7,8 to 7,6,8. Where is verse 7 it’s gone , not there! And it’s not the only passage . I’ll even post pictures when I get home after work to show my findings. Because I’m not here to argue just simply explaining what I noticed the other night

You apparently didn't read @Silly Uncle Wayne's comment. He said that they were often in the 'footnotes'. That's not the same as being in the body of the text. He also said 'why' some translations prefer to put them in the footnotes. You see, the problem isn't that we want all future translations to match the KJ translation. What we want is for any translation to be as close to the MSS (original manuscripts) as we can find.

The KJ translation was published some 1500 years after the last written original manuscript. So, before anyone makes the claim that one translation is corrupt because it doesn't match a translation that was created 1500 years after the original manuscripts, we need to ask, well, was the KJ translation correct in those places that we have found questionable? It is possible that what you've long read in your KJ translation is the one that isn't correct. And that will likely always be a serious question for Scripture scholars to answer and may never be answered to everyone's satisfaction. Which is why some of the newer translations have moved such passages to the footnotes. Thereby offering the opportunity to explain that a particular passage, while it has long been accepted, at least since the KJ translation, there is some doubt as to the source of such passage.

Ultimately, however, the words found from beginning to end of any translation don't have to be 100% exactly what was written in the MSS. The Scriptures repeat certain teachings and so one passage on a teaching that goes missing doesn't change what the Scriptures teach.

Do you know what the Scriptures teach?

That a God who is light and love and spirit created all things in this realm in which we live. That His purpose of creating all things in this realm in which we live is that He wanted to have a loving and nurturing and deep abiding relationship with the one creature He created in this realm of His creating, called man. However, man broke that relationship and, on his own, cannot restore it. So God raised up a people to be His people upon the earth to write His revelation of Himself to us. That the ultimate work of His people was to bring in everlasting righteousness and forgiveness for sin through the death of a Savior who would be God's Son. That each and everyone of us can now restore that relationship between God and man IF that is what one chooses to do. He also lets us know, just as He did with His people Israel, the consequences of following or not following His way. One way leads to death and one way leads to eternal life. Then He closes out His revelation to us with an account of how all of this realm of His creating will ultimately come to an end and what will become of us.

I've read a lot of translations and have yet to find a single one of the reputable translations that fails in these teachings and instructions. So, my encouragement is to read whatever translation that you're comfortable with. BTW, I have an NIV, ESV and NLT and they all contain the words that allude to the Godhead as consisting of three living parts.

The next time you find a passage that is missing in one translation, the question to ask is not; "well, it was in the KJ translation." The question to ask is; "I need to find out if it was in the MSS that John or Paul or whoever the writer of that piece of Scripture was?" Then you will be correctly dividing the word of your God.

God bless,
Ted

 

[Jared MacNeill]

Hi @Jared MacNeill



You apparently didn't read @Silly Uncle Wayne's comment. He said that they were often in the 'footnotes'. That's not the same as being in the body of the text. He also said 'why' some translations prefer to put them in the footnotes. You see, the problem isn't that we want all future translations to match the KJ translation. What we want is for any translation to be as close to the MSS (original manuscripts) as we can find.

The KJ translation was published some 1500 years after the last written original manuscript. So, before anyone makes the claim that one translation is corrupt because it doesn't match a translation that was created 1500 years after the original manuscripts, we need to ask, well, was the KJ translation correct in those places that we have found questionable? It is possible that what you've long read in your KJ translation is the one that isn't correct. And that will likely always be a serious question for Scripture scholars to answer and may never be answered to everyone's satisfaction. Which is why some of the newer translations have moved such passages to the footnotes. Thereby offering the opportunity to explain that a particular passage, while it has long been accepted, at least since the KJ translation, there is some doubt as to the source of such passage.

Ultimately, however, the words found from beginning to end of any translation don't have to be 100% exactly what was written in the MSS. The Scriptures repeat certain teachings and so one passage on a teaching that goes missing doesn't change what the Scriptures teach.

Do you know what the Scriptures teach?

That a God who is light and love and spirit created all things in this realm in which we live. That His purpose of creating all things in this realm in which we live is that He wanted to have a loving and nurturing and deep abiding relationship with the one creature He created in this realm of His creating, called man. However, man broke that relationship and, on his own, cannot restore it. So God raised up a people to be His people upon the earth to write His revelation of Himself to us. That the ultimate work of His people was to bring in everlasting righteousness and forgiveness for sin through the death of a Savior who would be God's Son. That each and everyone of us can now restore that relationship between God and man IF that is what one chooses to do. He also lets us know, just as He did with His people Israel, the consequences of following or not following His way. One way leads to death and one way leads to eternal life. Then He closes out His revelation to us with an account of how all of this realm of His creating will ultimately come to an end and what will become of us.

I've read a lot of translations and have yet to find a single one of the reputable translations that fails in these teachings and instructions. So, my encouragement is to read whatever translation that you're comfortable with. BTW, I have an NIV, ESV and NLT and they all contain the words that allude to the Godhead as consisting of three living parts.

The next time you find a passage that is missing in one translation, the question to ask is not; "well, it was in the KJ translation." The question to ask is; "I need to find out if it was in the MSS that John or Paul or whoever the writer of that piece of Scripture was?" Then you will be correctly dividing the word of your God.

God bless,
Ted

It very well could have been an error while printing, it’s a lot type let alone proof read without missing something.

I often question my friend asking “ how do you know they didn’t change things for the kjv”

 

[pescador]

It very well could have been an error while printing, it’s a lot type let alone proof read without missing something.

I often question my friend asking “ how do you know they didn’t change things for the kjv”

They did "change things for the KJV". It is impossible to translate the ancient languages in English without some modifications. a) There are no original manuscripts and the earliest copies differ from each other. b) The vocabulary, syntax, idioms, etc. are different between languages. c) Translators must also take cultural differences into account in order for those of us living thousands of years after the latest manuscripts were written.

The King James translation is one of many and was based in part on earlier translations. Some may think that it's the word of God, but it isn't. It was regarded as the English Bible for a long time but, IMHO, that time is long past.

As I've said previously, why don't the KJV people writeth in 17th Century Englyshe?

 

[Trusting in Him]

I like the King James bible, but it is not always a perfect translation. I don't think that there is any such thing as a perfect translation. Many of us notice things which we need to check out using concordances and lexicons to get somethings straight in our own understanding. We all have our favorite versions, of the bible, but we don't discard them when we find things which we don't necessarily understand.

We look into these things and find out what we need to know. This may not apply to us all, but there was a time when I decided to get various so called literal translations and even some interlinear Hebrew, Greek and English bible versions. Even these don't always agree, but there are usually times when looking into things which we don't understand, will reward us for doing so.

Are we always going to agree on all these things? I would not count on it!

 

[miamited]

Hi @Jared MacNeill

It very well could have been an error while printing, it’s a lot type let alone proof read without missing something.

I often question my friend asking “ how do you know they didn’t change things for the kjv”

Actually, I believe it to be the source documents used. The translator of the KJ translation of the Scriptures used certain documents that have, in some cases, been shown now to not be completely correct. Here's what Wiki says on the subject:

The New Testament verses not included in modern English translations are verses of the New Testament that exist in older English translations (primarily the King James Version), but do not appear or have been relegated to footnotes in later versions, such as the New International Version (NIV). Scholars have generally regarded these verses as later additions to the original text.

Although many lists of missing verses specifically name the NIV as the version that had omitted them, these same verses are missing from the main text (and mostly relegated to footnotes) by the Revised Version of 1881 (RV), the American Standard Version of 1901,[1] the Revised Standard Version of 1947 (RSV),[2] the Today's English Version (the Good News Bible) of 1966,[3] and several others. Lists of "missing" verses and phrases go back to the Revised Version[4] and to the Revised Standard Version,[5] without waiting for the appearance of the NIV (1973). Some of these lists of "missing verses" specifically mention "sixteen verses" – although the lists are not all the same.[6]

So, it seems to be more a matter of what the sources were, that the translator of the KJ translation depended on for creating the KJ translation. More recent research, and we now have thousands of fragments dating older than what was available to the KJ translators, has brought into question whether or not particular pieces of the words and verses of the KJ translation are actually the words and verses that were actually written down by the hands of the apostles and other writers of the new covenant Scriptures. Or, did they somehow find their way into these source documents which the KJ translators used through some kind of error? There is even some who say that parts of the KJ translation was just filled in as it was expected that it might have been written and not based on any actual piece of manuscript that included the particular passage. The writings about the trinity is one of those questionable pieces.

But again, it doesn't matter, in the work for which God set for His revelation to mankind to do as the heart of the issue. You can take a copy of the Scriptures that has all that you feel should be in them that is brought into question; or you can take a copy of the Scriptures that doesn't have the very, very few places where some small fragments are missing. What you come away with in both examples is that God loves us. He wants to restore the relationship that He initially intended for mankind to have with Him. He has done that by raising up a nation of people to both, write down all that He wants us to know and to also bring in the righteousness of the Christ through the death, burial and resurrection of His Son. None of the missing pieces has any bearing whatsoever on that overarching teaching of God's word to us.

Look, I understand that it's important to you and that you have bought into the claim that the KJ is the only correct translation of the Scriptures. Because of that, you've taken on this battle against other reliable translations. Here's my encouragement: Take whatever translation someone uses or has available to them, and show them the love of God through Jesus and guide them to the place where they can also declare that Jesus is Lord! To the glory of God! Don't let this worthless argument that there is only one true and correct translation of God's word, destroy your goal and assigned task by Jesus, to go into all the nations; teaching them the gospel, and baptizing and continuing to teach those who will accept it. That's why God gave us His Scriptures.

God bless,
Ted

 

[Jared MacNeill]

Hi @Jared MacNeill



Actually, I believe it to be the source documents used. The translator of the KJ translation of the Scriptures used certain documents that have, in some cases, been shown now to not be completely correct. Here's what Wiki says on the subject:

The New Testament verses not included in modern English translations are verses of the New Testament that exist in older English translations (primarily the King James Version), but do not appear or have been relegated to footnotes in later versions, such as the New International Version (NIV). Scholars have generally regarded these verses as later additions to the original text.

Although many lists of missing verses specifically name the NIV as the version that had omitted them, these same verses are missing from the main text (and mostly relegated to footnotes) by the Revised Version of 1881 (RV), the American Standard Version of 1901,[1] the Revised Standard Version of 1947 (RSV),[2] the Today's English Version (the Good News Bible) of 1966,[3] and several others. Lists of "missing" verses and phrases go back to the Revised Version[4] and to the Revised Standard Version,[5] without waiting for the appearance of the NIV (1973). Some of these lists of "missing verses" specifically mention "sixteen verses" – although the lists are not all the same.[6]

So, it seems to be more a matter of what the sources were, that the translator of the KJ translation depended on for creating the KJ translation. More recent research, and we now have thousands of fragments dating older than what was available to the KJ translators, has brought into question whether or not particular pieces of the words and verses of the KJ translation are actually the words and verses that were actually written down by the hands of the apostles and other writers of the new covenant Scriptures. Or, did they somehow find their way into these source documents which the KJ translators used through some kind of error? There is even some who say that parts of the KJ translation was just filled in as it was expected that it might have been written and not based on any actual piece of manuscript that included the particular passage. The writings about the trinity is one of those questionable pieces.

But again, it doesn't matter, in the work for which God set for His revelation to mankind to do as the heart of the issue. You can take a copy of the Scriptures that has all that you feel should be in them that is brought into question; or you can take a copy of the Scriptures that doesn't have the very, very few places where some small fragments are missing. What you come away with in both examples is that God loves us. He wants to restore the relationship that He initially intended for mankind to have with Him. He has done that by raising up a nation of people to both, write down all that He wants us to know and to also bring in the righteousness of the Christ through the death, burial and resurrection of His Son. None of the missing pieces has any bearing whatsoever on that overarching teaching of God's word to us.

Look, I understand that it's important to you and that you have bought into the claim that the KJ is the only correct translation of the Scriptures. Because of that, you've taken on this battle against other reliable translations. Here's my encouragement: Take whatever translation someone uses or has available to them, and show them the love of God through Jesus and guide them to the place where they can also declare that Jesus is Lord! To the glory of God! Don't let this worthless argument that there is only one true and correct translation of God's word, destroy your goal and assigned task by Jesus, to go into all the nations; teaching them the gospel, and baptizing and continuing to teach those who will accept it. That's why God gave us His Scriptures.

God bless,
Ted

thats very well put , I believe sometime we over emphasize on stuff that doesn’t really matter, for example kjvo .

I like having my ESV handy when I’m studying because I may not understand something I read in the nkjv so it great help that way.

I remember buying my bible it will be four years in October. I was at bible study and I just felt like I needed a good bible .I can only imagine that was the work of the Holy Spirit and I must admit I’ve grown so much in those four years and have really started to enjoy my readings at night.

the night of the bible study I asked the pastor if he was going to the neighbouring town because I can’t drive but I he wasn’t and I couldn’t wait another day , I just knew it had to be the next day. I couldn’t even order one online I just couldn’t wait.

when I couldn’t find kjv my cousin’s husband quoted “ 1st Corinthians 3:2” and had to explain it be I didn’t understand.

I stood there all stupid like and that’s when I saw the hollmans study bible but it was almost $90 , I checked out the other bibles but that Holman study bible was just calling me and it goes everywhere with me basically.

It just happened to be a nkjv but I’m sure the lord would have let me grow with a ESV .

and yes the big thing to focus on is salvation. The birth,death and resurrection of our lord and savour Jesus Christ.

 

[Andrewn]

I like my new king James , I’m always arguing with my friend that there’s nothing wrong with nkjv because I don’t understand all that old English talk!

I have an niv I was given yes ago but the church and have never read it . I couldn’t it’s too small and I struggle with reading to begin with.

I recently got an ESV study bible because it was free and was an rc sprouls reformation bible.

Yesterday, I noticed discrepancy between the versions in 1Co 7:36

NKJV 36 But if any man thinks he is behaving improperly toward his virgin, if she is past the flower of youth, and thus it must be, let him do what he wishes. He does not sin; let them marry.

NIV 36 If anyone is worried that he might not be acting honorably toward the virgin he is engaged to, and if his passions are too strong and he feels he ought to marry, he should do as he wants. He is not sinning.They should get married.

ESV 36 If anyone thinks that he is not behaving properly toward his betrothed, if his passions are strong, and it has to be, let him do as he wishes: let them marry—it is no sin.

Here we are not talking about differing manuscripts but about translating the Bible correctly. I admit that the verse has nothing to do with deep theological truths. But it is a matter of which version to trust.

NKJV is the only one that translates the verse properly as it is in the Greek original.

Both NIV and ESV assume that the virgin talked about is the man's fiancée, but this is most likely, according to many commentaries, the wrong interpretation.

Most likely, the virgin talked about is the man's daughter. In ancient cultures, the father's approval is essential for marriage.

But NIV & ESV accommodate modern cultural sensibilities where the father's approval of the marriage is no longer relevant.

Considering these 3 translations, I encourage you to stick with the NKJV if you can tolerate its somewhat wooden language. It is more trustworthy.

And this is in addition to the manuscript issue that your friends addressed.