Wrong Bible?

[RevDavid]

I've noticed there are a lot of polls asking which Bible version people use. Here's a thought, do you think there is a "wrong" version?

 

[PaladinValer]

Yep: the KJV

 

[AngCath]

YES, for example, the New World Translation

 

[PaladinValer]

That isn't even a Bible, AngCath!

 

[Mandrake]

Living Bible.

 

[Philip]

An abridged Bible

 

[filosofer]

The Amplified Bible can give good insight but it also causes problems by presenting something out of context. By giving several alternatives for a Greek/Hebrew word in a specific instance, it almost appears that the specific Greek/Hebrew could mean any of those things. However, the meaning of the word is determined by, and derived from, context, that is, the surrounding words/sentences. Thus, to imply that a specific Greek/Hebrew word could mean one of several different words, because there are lexical (dictionary) definitions (or better, glosses) available is not helping us understand the meaning of that word in this specific context.

In Christ's love,
filo

 

[dignitized]

YES, for example, the New World Translation

ADD the Jospeh Smith Translation, The Clear Word Bible, and the Inclusive New Testament.

 

[AngCath]

That isn't even a Bible, AngCath!

I know

 

[James1979]

I believe KJV is the best version out of all the other ones. More challenging and it comes from the original manuscript without copying another version translation and adding to it. There are some errors as mistranslation but its fairly an accurate book.

 

[PaladinValer]

Wrong. The KJV utilized manuscripts no older than the 10th century, and that was just the oldest; all the other 11 are all 300-400 years older.

In addition, parts of the KJV were backtranslated from the Vulgate into Greek and then translated into English.

Be weary of KJV-Oist sources; they are riddled with misinformation.

 

[fuzzyh]

I don't recommend the Message for Bible study.

 

[oldsage]

Wrong. The KJV utilized manuscripts no older than the 10th century, and that was just the oldest; all the other 11 are all 300-400 years older.

In addition, parts of the KJV were backtranslated from the Vulgate into Greek and then translated into English.

Be weary of KJV-Oist sources; they are riddled with misinformation.

And don't forget the KJV is really a revision of the Tyndale bible

 

[AngCath]

I don't recommend the Message for Bible study.

i don't recommend the Message for just about anything

 

[dignitized]

I don't recommend the Message for Bible study.

I don’t recommend it for anything more than a door stopt! Even then, I suggest gluing the pages together - JUST IN CASE!!

 

[PaladinValer]

Today's English Version (Good News Version) is horrible too.

I'd get rid of the Living and New Living Translation as well.

 

[AngCath]

Today's English Version (Good News Version) is horrible too..

As I am pretty ignorant on the TEV, what is horrible about it?

 

[PaladinValer]

Calvinism, Sacramentarianism, paraphrase (YUCK!), and a host of others.

 

[dignitized]

Sacramentarianism

Splain your problem with this.

 

[James1979]

PalandinValer,

Where exactly do you get your informat from that the KJV utilize the manuscript no older than the 10th century. What God couldn't preserve his word so that we have truth? What riddle of misinformation are you talking about, any scriptures? What bible do you use, the additional books that don't harmonize with the rest of the 66 books?