Which Bible Would Jesus Use?

[toLiJC]

Have you read the new book "Which Bible Would Jesus Use"
It's pretty good; lays out subject like were was the bible before 1611?
Why there is only one bible.
Dirty secrets of versions
Showing for over 400 years the King James Bible has never been changed.
And many other controversies the conintelpro has thrown at God's word.
I gave it 98% agreeable. But 100% King James Bible.

better believe than read the Bible systematically, the systematic reading is not (so) effective compared to the very (exercise of) faith in the true Lord God

Ecclesiastes 12:12 "making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh."

Blessings

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

reading may be very important, even 'devouring' the word in love and joy and hope and totally seeking Yhvh for His revelation of what anything and everything means. so many people i've met online and in person don't have a clue about thousands of things , or dozens? , or hundreds? all related in Torah that is for edification and uplifting and exhortation and discipline(especially discipline(training)) and not knowing, they are very easily persuaded (tricked) into error. we can't know nor test nor tell how many are in even blatant error unless they seek and ask to find out themselves, and then not even publicily (online). like the group of students in the news nationwide yesterday - protesting the rules that would prohibit protesting and plainly declaring why that would be the death of freedom (as it is online when protesting the obvious governmental and religious abuses of freedom is not permitted). so read, read, read, delight in meditating on the Word of Yhvh daily. it is one of the only precautions / safety nets/ ways provided to keep ones self from error, or to be saved from it ... .... ...

 

[toLiJC]

i said "better" in the meaning of "rather"

Blessings

 

[Boidae]

I didn't even get to the reviews. I got this part of the book description:

Everyone's got an opinion as to which Bible is best.
And because of all the glaring differences and discrepancies in the different Bible versions, the Lord himself is forced to pick just one of them.
The funny thing is that hardly anyone ever considers the opinion of the Lord Jesus Christ. Don't you think he has a preference? Which Bible Would Jesus Use? proves that he does. And you can depend upon him to pick the "right one."
Which one would he use? The evidence shows that it's the same brand he's been using for the past 400 years.

That was so absurd that I just had to stop reading. It's like something that they'd say on a Saturday Night Live skit to ridicule Christians.

I did consult Jesus in prayer and two times was lead to a version other than the KJV.

 

[branchofthevine]

Jesus would have used the Septuagint. Even though the Tanakh was around, by the first century the majority of Jesus, at least up north in Galilee would have been Greek speakers.

The Tanakh (which differs from the OT only in book order) might have been used in the Temple rituals, but the lay people were mostly Aramaic and Greek speakers by then. At least, that is one of our best guesses, we don't know that much about the inner workings of the usage of Scripture in 1st Century Palestine Synagogues and Temple.

Though Jesus and even the Apostles' quotations of the OT match up more with the LXX than the TaNaK

 

[JacobLaw]

better believe than read the Bible systematically, the systematic reading is not (so) effective compared to the very (exercise of) faith in the true Lord God

Ecclesiastes 12:12 "making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh."

Blessings

Exactly; all this inefficiencies on reading something to get fleshly wisdom, when the scripture clearly speak of spiritual discernment, comparing spiritual with the spiritual.
Studying the scriptures negates searching the scriptures for spiritual purpose of being renewed in the spirit of our minds, being conformed into the image of his Son.
None of this is possible with versions of the truth, only the truth, the word of God, *(King James Bible) can work the mystery of the gospel, for its predestinated will of God.
Versions oppose the purpose and will of God, it take the pure language designed to bring in us into one consent that in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ.
This is why the word of God is the issues because man does not live by bread alone, but by every pure inspired word of God.

Ecclesiastes 12:13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.

Just encase you didn't read the book either.

Proverbs 18:13 He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.

 

[BryanW92]

Versions oppose the purpose and will of God, it take the pure language designed to bring in us into one consent that in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ.

Look on the title page of your "King James Bible". It says

The Holy Bible
King James VERSION​

 

[pescador]

Exactly; all this inefficiencies on reading something to get fleshly wisdom, when the scripture clearly speak of spiritual discernment, comparing spiritual with the spiritual.
Studying the scriptures negates searching the scriptures for spiritual purpose of being renewed in the spirit of our minds, being conformed into the image of his Son.
None of this is possible with versions of the truth, only the truth, the word of God, *(King James Bible) can work the mystery of the gospel, for its predestinated will of God.
Versions oppose the purpose and will of God, it take the pure language designed to bring in us into one consent that in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ.
This is why the word of God is the issues because man does not live by bread alone, but by every pure inspired word of God.

Ecclesiastes 12:13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.

Just encase you didn't read the book either.

Proverbs 18:13 He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.

I agree with you (or rather God)! "Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter"


Also, you haven;t bothered to "hear" people's responses before answering them.


You're just going on and on about how only you, having read one book, know that Jesus, who lived about 1600 years before the KJV was translated (by men) , would use it. That it alone of the many translations used throughout the world in different languages is God's "pure" word.


I have a suggestion for you: become a Muslim! They worship God and know that the Qu'ran was dictated by God in Arabic; that the Qu'ran in any other language is not the pure word of God.

 

[BryanW92]

I have a suggestion for you: become a Muslim! They worship God and know that the Qu'ran was dictated by God in Arabic; that the Qu'ran in any other language is not the pure word of God.

I didn't want to go there , but I was thinking the same thing. I've been listening to a series by RC Sproul and former-muslim Abdul Saleem this week on the differences between Islam and Christianity and JL does sound more muslim than Christian.

 

[Unix]

For the New Testament, there are tools in Accordance to correct the 1971 2nd Edition RSV and the Revised English Bible (REB): Comprehensive Bible, New Testament Text and Translation Commentary by Comfort and UBS Translator's Handbook New Testament series, I got the latter set used in Accordance. Additionally I'm learning ancient Greek. There's also a Reverse Interlinear for the 1971 2nd Edition RSV New Testament which can be purchased separately in Logos/Verbum.
Also, if we are talking omissions, all English Bibles except the New Revised Standard Version have a big omission in Sirach:

I trust the KJV, and read it only to avoid confusion.

The fact the translations differ is a problem, not just for the word but the spirit. A simple word like charity being changed to love can have implications on the truth.

The bible is God's witness, and a word he performs. If by God you realize even one word in a translation is misleading, you will avoid it, yes?

When publishers make interpretations for an easier read or other reasons, it affects those who walk by it, who need the truth of God for life. Nobody will lose their soul because of the translation they use, but they can lose riches in Christ.

 

[jbearnolimits]

So true. The goal of every translator (and those who commissioned them), including King James, was so the Church could read the scriptures in their own language. King James himself would not understand us when we speak and would probably wonder why some people use his translation when newer ones are so readily available.

I have looked into this as well, and I am not afraid of using the other translations. But I prefer the KJV or the NKJV for in depth study. The reason I prefer this is because after hundreds of years it has never been found to be in error.

And believe me, people have tried from the start of it to say that it has errors. Just as they do with all Bibles. They still try, but they have never found a supposed error that does not have a reason why it is actually not in error when you read it in light of other verses and when you understand the definition of the words.

I have however seen other translations that HAVE been shown to have some errors. In fact, some of them have side notes saying that there is an error. So I do not trust them as much as I trust the KJV because of the hundreds of years of testing it has gone through.

I do understand that some words could not be translated exactly and had to be paraphrased, but the meaning still fits with the whole of scripture.

Now as far as whole verses not being considered scripture and actually taken out of more modern translations there is an issue. The issue is because the KJV was translated from a different set of documents than the more modern ones.

The trick to knowing which one to trust in this case comes down to which one is free of error and which one is not. Some assume that the earlier documents are of more value, but this is not the case. Just because someone wrote something that wasn't true, and you haven't found something older does not mean that the untrue document is an authority.

 

[BryanW92]

They still try, but they have never found a supposed error that does not have a reason why it is actually not in error when you read it in light of other verses and when you understand the definition of the words.

Yep. Its not an error if you can justify it. Let's give the teams of scholars who translated the modern versions the same benefit of the doubt.

 

[kiwimac]

You are arguing that the KJV is error-free?

 

[BryanW92]

You are arguing that the KJV is error-free?

I'm not.

 

[jbearnolimits]

Yep. Its not an error if you can justify it. Let's give the teams of scholars who translated the modern versions the same benefit of the doubt.

**Edit: Remember that the teams of scholars translated from different documents than the ones used for the KJV.**

Well, if there had been hundreds of years of testing and proven strength I would. But as of yet, I have seen some of them that seem to be at odds with the one that has been tested. So if after hundreds of years the KJV has stood the test and some of the more modern translations have deviated from it, then I can only assume that deviation from tested truth leads to a lie.

Now if they agree with what is in the KJV then that is a different story. And I know that for the most part many do. Thus I am not afraid of using them, but I don't mind educating myself to understand the one that has stood the test of time.

Because even if something is translated into more modern language we would still need to understand that language. So we may not have a large vocabulary and need to pull out the dictionary.

I remember one time when I was young that I read a scripture in the KJV that used the word divers. I thought it was talking about scuba divers. But when I got the dictionary out I found out that it meant several different types of something.

The word is in our English dictionary and yet I didn't know it. Do I need a translation of my very own? Or do I need to be educated?

I feel that in many ways the answer is both. Because it would be much easier to have a translation with the same vocabulary as myself, but since that is not practical, I need to educate myself.

This is a good reason why the Gospel was to be entrusted into the hands of faithful men to carry the message to others. So if they don't understand the language of the KJV they can still be educated while learning to read it themselves (through translation or through increasing the vocabulary).

 

[jbearnolimits]

You are arguing that the KJV is error-free?

I am. Because the faith of many has been destroyed by a lack of trust in the scriptures.

 

[Proud Parrot]

I am. Because the faith of many has been destroyed by a lack of trust in the scriptures.

What leads us to God? Scriptures? Or his holy spirit within us?

 

[jbearnolimits]

What leads us to God? Scriptures? Or his holy spirit within us?

The scriptures are the words of His Spirit.

 

[Unix]

The faith of people is not destroyed if knowing a lot about about versionhs when choosing but people in general know extremely little, if anything, about the English versions:

I am. Because the faith of many has been destroyed by a lack of trust in the scriptures.

 

[kiwimac]

I am. Because the faith of many has been destroyed by a lack of trust in the scriptures.

To deny truth, however devastating it seems to faith, is to deny Him who sent the truth.