What Bible version do you use?

[Jay Barker]

This is a complex question, if someone wants a complete answer. It requires a knowledge of church history and manuscript history. Once these are known, it becomes obvious that the Authorized Version was a Providential work, whose fruit and influence is monumental, and it also shaped the English language itself.

To make it PLAIN:

The majority of all Greek manuscripts are called the Textus Receptus family---they are the same.

This statement is untrue on a number of points.

First of all, the TR is the name of a TEXT, not a FAMILY.

Secondly - there are 30 different variations of this one text - and no TWO are the same, hence, your claim that they are is incorrect.

Third - the majority of 'all Greek manuscripts' do NOT constitute the TR but the Traditional Text, a text which varies over 1800 times from the TR.

The King James was translated mainly based on them, although many other ancient versions were consulted, like the Old Latin.

The new versions are based on two measly manuscripts unearthed in the 1800s, which differed greatly from all the other manuscripts we have. The have many changes in them, and many missing verses. They also have heretical readings in them, and one of them has Apocryphal books in it as part of the inspired New Testament canon!

Again, this is untrue on several counts.

1) The new versions are NOT based on just two mss. (which is irrelevant anyway since one based on the ONE ORIGINAL would be more accurate than one based on ALL FIVE THOUSAND COPIES).

2) They do not have heretical readings in them any more than the KJV does.

3) Your claim on the Apocrypha is funny esp. since all pre-1639 KJVs had the same thing in their text.

So the issue really isn't "which translation is better" because the NIV and NASB are based on different Greek text than the KJV.

All the vaunted claims about the NASB are just hot air, it is not the best, most accurate translation of "the" Greek, as if there is only one type of Greek text. The people who tell you this are deceiving you.

The King James is a great translation of the RIGHT, MAJORITY, of Texts, therefore it is superior to all other versions because all other versions are translations of the wrong Greek texts.

They don't tell you this, they just make it sound like there is this thing called "the Greek Text", and these newbies have supposedly done a better job of translating it. They haven't. They are inferior translation works themselves, and they don't last long.

How long did the original ASV last before it went bankrupt? It came out in 1901 and was dead a few decades later. Then the Lockman Foundation picked up its copyright for a mere $500 and put out the NASB.

All that has been happening to the KJV for over 120 years is perpetual attacks on it from outside and inside the church, and yet this version won't go away, and it continues to bless millions.

Why?

Because it is anointed of God. Because God is behind that translation. A knowledge of church history and God's Providential dealings leads any simple believer to this acknowledgment of the obvious.

And the rest of this is rhetoric.

[OneLight]

And the rest of this is rhetoric.

Hey Jay,

You do realize that the thread you are posting to is over 3 1/2 years old?

Blessings,

Alan

[hillsong_girl]

There is a different philosophy and method behind every Bible translation. Any Bible I have bought or been given has an explanation from the translation committee. I think it is good to have experience with at least 2 or 3 versions, because sometimes different renderings of the text can shed light on understanding.

Personally, I prefer the ESV and NASB. I feel both of these try to stay honest with the text. I also like the KJV, though I don't really study from that one. NIV and NRSV are also decent, but not the best in my opinion. I DO NOT LIKE the NLT or NCV, they are watered down and too para-phrase for me.

[kambic]

I like the KJV

[EricH]

UMM, does anyone have any opinions on John 7:8 or any of my other questions or thoughts?

God bless,

jason

There are variances in the early Greek texts in this verse (both early). Some say I am not yet going up (Greek word oupo for not yet), others say I am not going up (Greek word ouk for not). Most scholars feel that oupo was added by scribes to try and correct for the percieved issue you you have raised (the rules for determining the best reading are go with the earliest, best attested, and most difficult).

In either case (no matter which is correct) Jesus is not made out to be a liar. The context of the passage removes this concern. When Jesus resonds to His brothers, He is not saying that He will remain in Galilee forever, but that His movements are dictated by God's will and not His brother's. He will not go to the feast when they say He should go, but when the Father tells Him to go (Psalm 1:1). Obviously after His discussion with his brothers, the Father so moved. This was not an unusual occurrence in Jesus' ministry. For example, in John 2, Jesus mother asked him to provide wine for a wedding that had run out. Jesus said this:

"What has this concern of yours to do with Me, woman?" Jesus asked. "My hour has not yet come." (John 2:4 CSB)

Jesus then provides the wine through a miracle. This is a pattern in John. A request is made, Jesus initially refuses, then later proceeds on His own terms

[Guest Debradoo]

6-8Jesus came back at them, "Don't crowd me. This isn't my time. It's your time

[Fez]

Its the ESV for me (and e sword to search for scriptures in the others I have loaded, and for Greek translations).

[EricH]

Most of the English versions that are not based on dynamic equivalence are great and dependable. I like the Holman, but all are great

[Fez]

EricH, excuse my ignorance but I can't agree, disagree, until I know what dynamic equivalence is Care to elucidate?

[redwing]

King James Version