Which "BIBLE" is best ? Why it REALLY Matters !

[cfyahoo08]

How many ways are there to say I love you?

This famous saying defines the Bible. Just as there are multiple ways to say I love you, there are multiple ways for the Bible to say God loves us. The message is simple enough and repeated such that the key points God wishes us to know can be known despite differences in translations. Ironic that you choose John 3:16 to call out the importance of a particular translation. Your listing of the various translations of John 3:16 only highlight the insignificant differences of the translations.

The sacrifice of those that gave their life to bring forth the Bible is NOT something that is insignificant, The minor differences MATTER A GREAT DEAL in some cases. If you omit or completely change the meaning by your "new and improved" version of God's word. We are NOT supposed alter God's words or their meaning.

 

[Strong in Him]

The sacrifice of those that gave their life to bring forth the Bible is NOT something that is insignificant, The minor differences MATTER A GREAT DEAL in some cases. If you omit or completely change the meaning by your "new and improved" version of God's word. We are NOT supposed alter God's words or their meaning.

So how do you know what God said?

Language changes all the time, and sometimes we have to word things differently to convey their intended meaning.
For example, supposing there is a verse in the Bible that talks about being happy, and back in 1611, 1500 or whenever, it was translated using the word "gay"? Even when I was a child, 50 years ago, gay meant happy and no one had a problem with it.
What does it mean today? Homosexual.
There are no doubt countless verses in Scripture that talk about "the wicked", or "being wicked" - and most people know that it means "evil". If you went up to a teenager today and told them they, or their behaviour, were wicked, what do you think they would understand by it?
The phrase, "God says that you are wicked", could mean, to a teenager, the opposite of what it means in the Bible; what the prophets and so on meant by it.

You are also assuming that if a verse/phrase is omitted in a newer translation of Scripture, it is that translation that is at fault.
How do you know that it wasn't omitted because people realised that the verse/phrase was not in the original; ie that it was added by some versions to try to clarify?

 

[cfyahoo08]

So how do you know what God said?

Language changes all the time, and sometimes we have to word things differently to convey their intended meaning.
For example, supposing there is a verse in the Bible that talks about being happy, and back in 1611, 1500 or whenever, it was translated using the word "gay"? Even when I was a child, 50 years ago, gay meant happy and no one had a problem with it.
What does it mean today? Homosexual.
There are no doubt countless verses in Scripture that talk about "the wicked", or "being wicked" - and most people know that it means "evil". If you went up to a teenager today and told them they, or their behaviour, were wicked, what do you think they would understand by it?
The phrase, "God says that you are wicked", could mean, to a teenager, the opposite of what it means in the Bible; what the prophets and so on meant by it.

You are also assuming that if a verse/phrase is omitted in a newer translation of Scripture, it is that translation that is at fault.
How do you know that it wasn't omitted because people realised that the verse/phrase was not in the original; ie that it was added by some versions to try to clarify?

https://bible.org/article/why-so-many-versions

Where have all the verses gone? The modern translations seem to have cut out many of the most precious lines of Scripture. They end Mark's gospel at the 8th verse of chapter 16; they omit the reference of the angel of the Lord stirring the waters at the pool of Bethesda (verse 4 of John 5); and, most notably, they excise the story of the woman caught in adultery in John 8.

Besides omissions, these modern versions make significant changes in the text. For example, in I Timothy 3:16, the King James reads, "God was manifest in the flesh," but most modern translations read, "He was manifest in the flesh." In Revelation 22:19 the King James speaks of the "book of life" while virtually all modern versions speak of the "tree of life." Altogether, there are hundreds of textual changes between the King James and modern translations

 

[Strong in Him]

https://bible.org/article/why-so-many-versions

Where have all the verses gone? The modern translations seem to have cut out many of the most precious lines of Scripture. They end Mark's gospel at the 8th verse of chapter 16; they omit the reference of the angel of the Lord stirring the waters at the pool of Bethesda (verse 4 of John 5); and, most notably, they excise the story of the woman caught in adultery in John 8.

Besides omissions, these modern versions make significant changes in the text. For example, in I Timothy 3:16, the King James reads, "God was manifest in the flesh," but most modern translations read, "He was manifest in the flesh." In Revelation 22:19 the King James speaks of the "book of life" while virtually all modern versions speak of the "tree of life." Altogether, there are hundreds of textual changes between the King James and modern translations

So you're saying that we know what God said because of the King James Bible? That his word is in the King James only?
Strange that the OT prophets, apostles and Jesus all preached God's word without the benefit of the King James Bible. Strange that they made disciples, healed, baptised people in the Spirit, founded churches and saw them grow, all without the King James Bible.

No Bible is perfect - not even the King James, of which there are at least two versions.

 

[cfyahoo08]

So you're saying that we know what God said because of the King James Bible? That his word is in the King James only?
Strange that the OT prophets, apostles and Jesus all preached God's word without the benefit of the King James Bible. Strange that they made disciples, healed, baptised people in the Spirit, founded churches and saw them grow, all without the King James Bible.

No Bible is perfect - not even the King James, of which there are at least two versions.

I am saying that the KJV does not contain the omissions and less chance for error because of the integrity and effort it took to obtain it in the first place.

 

[Strong in Him]

I am saying that the KJV does not contain the omissions and less chance for error because of the integrity and effort it took to obtain it in the first place.

I'm saying, "how do you know they are omissions?"
A number of translations have a footnote in Mark 16 which says that the earliest manuscripts AND other witnesses do not have verses 9-20. The KJV has no such footnote, making it appear that the verses were in the original and there is no dispute with them.
These verses still appear in most Bibles, but if they weren't in the earliest versions, then, at some point, they have been added.
Have you read the original?
Are they there?

If they are NOT in the earliest translations, then if you come across a Bible that doesn't have them, it can't be said to be an omission - not if they weren't there in the first place.
The KJV was only produced in 1611. It wasn't the first Bible, and wasn't even the first in English.

And you haven't answered my points about language and question about changing God's word.

 

[cfyahoo08]

I am saying that the KJV does not contain the omissions and less chance for error because of the integrity and effort it took to obtain it in the first place.

Its all subjective but I truly believe it is the best version.

Well until the original is found and I learn the languages or something better than the bible comes along I will stick with the KJV, Its the best book in my book.

 

[Chinchilla]

Last days I have been searching for truth and it seems like all our Bibles which come from Masoretic text are corrupted that includes KJV . The majority text of KJV NT is fine but the OT is not in many cases , from genealogy to corrupted prophecy.
This is what happens when you take your source from Jewish roots 1000 years after Christ which did not believe in Christ and corrupted the text .

For example Isaiah 61:1

In KJV 1611
The Spirit of the Lord God is vpon me, because the Lord hath anointed me, to preach good tidings vnto the meeke, hee hath sent me to binde vp the broken hearted, to proclaime libertie to the captiues, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound:

Luke 4:18 King James Version (KJV)
18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,

King James Version (KJV)

Recovering sight is missing , everybody knew that Jesus healed blind at the time so phariasies corrupted it .

Septuagint (Branton)

1 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me; he has sent ✡ me to preach glad tidings to the poor, to heal the broken in heart, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and recovery of sight to the blind; 2 to declare the acceptable year of the Lord, and the day of recompence; to comfort all that mourn;


KJV is not pure word of God it's corrupted like most translations , as a translation it's really Good compared to others but not perfect .

If you think that these little things do not matter in prophecy like missing part of restoring sight , well Jesus said everything must be fulfilled , he didn't read the end of that prophecy " and day of vengeance " . What if instead of the sight somebody removed the vengeance part from OT prophecy ?
Glad they did not so we know that in 70. A.D the vengeance was not yet fulfilled because Jesus spoke about destoying the temple but he did not read all the Isaiah prophecy to the end so it not was the vengeance yet .

Also what I was thinking about is that prior to Christ , Septuagint had more OT books , they were later on removed by both CC and Protestants . Why would you remove something which was considered a word of God ? Because in some of these books it is in plain sight that Jesus was the Messiah and it was easy to convince somebody quoting Septuagint.

Dead sea scrolls found in 1947 shows us that they often side with Septuagint than Masoretic text , which means the second was corrupted because Dead sea scrolls came about 1000 years prior to that text , they might be what was hidden from destruction of the temple in case of future rebuilding of the temple .


So what do we do now ? Best is to compare Dead Sea Scrolls with Septuagint and Chuch Fathers which were quoting Septuagint often so we can restore wrong and missing things .


What KJV is missing :
Genesis 11 is missing 600 years according to Dead Sea Scrolls , Septuagint and 1st centory Jewish commentary .

Example :

KJV 1611 Genesis 11
14 And Salah liued thirtie yeeres, and begate Eber.

15 And Salah liued, after hee begate Eber, foure hundred and three yeeres, and begate sonnes and daughters.

16 And Eber liued foure and thirty yeeres, and begate Peleg.

Septuagint (Branton)
And Sala lived an hundred and thirty years, and begot Heber. 15 And Sala lived after he had begotten Heber, three hundred and thirty years, and begot sons and daughters, and died. 16 And Heber lived an hundred and thirty-four years, and begot Phaleg

 

[Strong in Him]

Its all subjective but I truly believe it is the best version.

That's fine. And if it is best for you and helps you in your Christian life, then that's great.

I'm not belittling the KJV or criticising for the sake of it. I just hate posts/statements that talk about the modern, corrupt versions - as if they must automatically be at fault because they are newer.
Maybe some of them aren't a word for word translation, and differ from the KJV. That doesn't mean that God's word has been corrupted.

 

[Chinchilla]

That's fine. And if it is best for you and helps you in your Christian life, then that's great.

I'm not belittling the KJV or criticising for the sake of it. I just hate posts/statements that talk about the modern, corrupt versions - as if they must automatically be at fault because they are newer.
Maybe some of them aren't a word for word translation, and differ from the KJV. That doesn't mean that God's word has been corrupted.

Compare Psalm 12:6-8 In KJV and NIV

 

[cfyahoo08]

That's fine. And if it is best for you and helps you in your Christian life, then that's great.

I'm not belittling the KJV or criticising for the sake of it. I just hate posts/statements that talk about the modern, corrupt versions - as if they must automatically be at fault because they are newer.
Maybe some of them aren't a word for word translation, and differ from the KJV. That doesn't mean that God's word has been corrupted.

If the intent / meaning is lost and / omitted it for sure has become corrupted, I sure just with the translation process there are issues.

 

[Strong in Him]

Last days I have been searching for truth and it seems like all our Bibles which come from Masoretic text are corrupted that includes KJV . The majority text of KJV NT is fine but the OT is not in many cases , from genealogy to corrupted prophecy.
This is what happens when you take your source from Jewish roots 1000 years after Christ which did not believe in Christ and corrupted the text .

The OT was the only Scripture that Jesus and his disciples had.
Jesus quoted from it, used examples from it, quoted it at Satan in the wilderness to defeat him and explained to the people on the road to Emmaus what the Scriptures, and prophets, said about him.
The Gospel writers showed how the OT pointed to Jesus and how he fulfilled prophecy.
re you saying that we can't trust the OT because it wasn't written by Christians?

For example Isaiah 61:1

In KJV 1611
The Spirit of the Lord God is vpon me, because the Lord hath anointed me, to preach good tidings vnto the meeke, hee hath sent me to binde vp the broken hearted, to proclaime libertie to the captiues, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound:

Luke 4:18 King James Version (KJV)
18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,

King James Version (KJV)

Recovering sight is missing , everybody knew that Jesus healed blind at the time so phariasies corrupted it .

???
The phrase "recovery of sight" is IN Luke 4; it's not missing.
Isaiah 61:1 uses the phrase "release from darkness for the prisoners", and there is a footnote in the NIV saying that the Hebrew, in the Septuagint, says "the blind".

Even so, if one author uses a phrase and another one leaves it out, how is that proof of Pharisaical corruption?

Septuagint (Branton)

1 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me; he has sent ✡ me to preach glad tidings to the poor, to heal the broken in heart, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and recovery of sight to the blind; 2 to declare the acceptable year of the Lord, and the day of recompence; to comfort all that mourn;

I don't know if this verse is from Isaiah 61 or Luke 4, but as I said; the Hebrew apparently says that the blind will have their sight recovered.

If you truly believe that a holy God would allow corrupt translations of his word to even exist, never mind be read; what does that tell you about God?
Supposing someone was saved after reading a "corrupt" version; does that mean their salvation is invalid? Does it also mean that if they are blessed, filled with the Spirit, receive gifts, make disciples and teach people to read the "corrupt" version/s of God's word?
Does God deliberately allow corrupt versions to exist because he knows he will use them and work through them anyway? If he does, then you are saying that God works through perversion and sin.
If a Bible is corrupt, how do we know we can trust it at all? So my questions about someone being saved, baptised, blessed etc still stand - if it was through a "corrupt" version that they heard the Gospel; is it valid?

Why do you say that omission of certain things means corruption? What evidence do you have that the scribes thought "I know what this says and I don't like it, so I'm going to deliberately twist/change it"?

 

[Strong in Him]

Compare Psalm 12:6-8 In KJV and NIV

Did you see the footnote in the NIV which says that the Hebrew says "earth"?
They chose to use the word "gold" in the text, for some reason, but at least they acknowledge what the Hebrew says.

Still doesn't prove corruption; far less answer the question why a holy God would let his word be corrupted. As I said, what does that then mean for salvation?
And if the translation of the Bible that you use makes no difference to being saved, Spirit filled, blessed, equipped, called etc by God, then why no let Christians use whichever translation they feel comfortable with, or that blesses and helps them, without talking about corrupt Bibles? Implication; corrupt Bibles produce corrupt/substandard Christians.

 

[mark kennedy]

NKJV and NIV, the king James id from textus recepticus while the NIV is Wesrscott Hort, most modern translations come from.Westscott Hort.

 

[gordonhooker]

My favourite is the Pastafarian left handed Braille version lol

Seriously the Bible you have in your hand at the time is the best version.

 

[Strong in Him]

My favourite is the Pastafarian left handed Braille version lol

 

[mark kennedy]

My favourite is the Pastafarian left handed Braille version lol

Seriously the Bible you have in your hand at the time is the best version.

I know what your saying there aren't that many differences for the average reader. I like cross referencing certain things like in Romans 6 where it says, "shall we sin that grace may increase, God forbid', every time that's translated they do it differently. Sometimes its, 'certainly not' or 'by no means. Its a Greek double negative so in English it doesnt translated word for word. It really means no, absolutely not. I just get a kick out of how many different wordings they come up with.

 

[cfyahoo08]

Did you see the footnote in the NIV which says that the Hebrew says "earth"?
They chose to use the word "gold" in the text, for some reason, but at least they acknowledge what the Hebrew says.

Still doesn't prove corruption; far less answer the question why a holy God would let his word be corrupted. As I said, what does that then mean for salvation?
And if the translation of the Bible that you use makes no difference to being saved, Spirit filled, blessed, equipped, called etc by God, then why no let Christians use whichever translation they feel comfortable with, or that blesses and helps them, without talking about corrupt Bibles? Implication; corrupt Bibles produce corrupt/substandard Christians.

errors and omissions most likely not done on purpose but they exist and I think we should use the best possible version.

 

[Chinchilla]

errors and omissions most likely not done on purpose but they exist and I think we should use the best possible version.

On purpose . When you change " God will give you sign virgin will be with child " to " God will give you a sign young woman will be with child " shows clearly support against virgin birth because young woman bearing child is not a sign it's common on daily basics .

Or like changing "they pierce my hands and my feet " to " my hands and my feet like lion " because you don't believe that Christ is Messiah ...

 

[cfyahoo08]

My favourite is the Pastafarian left handed Braille version lol

Seriously the Bible you have in your hand at the time is the best version.

Well I understand what your saying and it makes sense on some levels, however what if the version you have is incorrect and because of that causes one to sin ?