Most accurate Bible Translation

[Guest Butero]

I did, and have noticed widespread lack of love in many threads, but to claim only one is right, all else is wrong, in your face kind of attitude, is hard for me. Father in law is JW, and tells all the time nobody is saved unless they join the JW, and I simply cannot believe that either, i don't read that kind of attitude from Jesus in the bible, seek and you will find, that i believe, as it is printed in the bible i currently read, maybe KJV is better, i admit i do not know, as I am reading this thread looking for insight into purchasing a new bible.

God bless,

You are right that those of us who are KJV only do believe there is only one good translation. Yes, those on the other side seem to be more open minded in that they believe all translations are more or less ok. That is the appearance they want to portray, but in reality, you have two competing ideas.

1. Those who are KJV only. We believe that the Textus Receptus was God's Word, and that is what was used to translate the KJV Bible. We believe that the TR was fully trustworthy, and 100 percent accurate. While we don't claim absolute perfection with the KJV translation, as you will always have problems translating a word from one language to another without something being lost in the translation, we believe we can have full assurance in our Bible.

2. Those who are not KJV only rely on translations that are based on numerous manuscripts that have been found over the years. Some have more verses than others. They are not 100 percent in agreement with each other. You will even have footnotes saying that certain verses were not in the "most reliable manuscripts." In the NIV, you will find entire verses relegated to footnotes. The belief of those in this camp is there is no 100 percent reliable translation, so they look to a multitude of translations for the entire truth. These people are very hostile towards KJV only believers.

You see, both sides are just as hostile to each other. We both see the other side as in error. So what if some of us have 100 percent confidence in our KJV Bibles, and believe the others are full of errors? So what if we believe the new translations open the door for abuse, where people can change the meaning to advance their personal beliefs, like in the case of the TNIV, where the Bible was changed intentionally to make it gender neutral to appeal to feminists? You mentioned the Jehovah's Witnesses. They have their own corrupt translation to make it line up with their views, called the New World Translation.

There really isn't this all inclusive group verses this narrow minded group. Both sides are very narrow in their thinking. Both believe the other side is wrong. You have to get past this idea that one group is open minded, because they are not. You will generally find a hostility towards the KJV Bible on the part of the anti- KJV only people. They work overtime to show supposed errors in it. They claim this is because those on my side are so narrow minded, but they would rather destroy faith in scripture entirely than lose the argument.

Anyway, I can see you are sincerely looking for a translation you can trust. You have to make up your own mind on that, and if you were offended by anything I said, I apologize for offending you, but I am going to stand up for the truth as I see it, just as the other side will stand up for their beliefs.

[godrulz]

http://www.bible.ca/b-kjv-only.htm TR is problematic, not superior.

[Guest Butero]

I did, and have noticed widespread lack of love in many threads, but to claim only one is right, all else is wrong, in your face kind of attitude, is hard for me. Father in law is JW, and tells all the time nobody is saved unless they join the JW, and I simply cannot believe that either, i don't read that kind of attitude from Jesus in the bible, seek and you will find, that i believe, as it is printed in the bible i currently read, maybe KJV is better, i admit i do not know, as I am reading this thread looking for insight into purchasing a new bible.

God bless,

Here is a suggestion for you. Why don't you get a Parrallel Bible that includes the KJV as one of the translations. You can compare translations side by side, and let the Lord lead you as to what is correct. I started out with a Parrallel Bible with the KJV and the NIV side by side. This eventually led to my looking into the history of the translations, and I wound up becoming KJV only. You may come to another conclusion, but you will have multiple versions to compare in one Bible. Some have 4 translations side by side.

[Guest Butero]

http://www.bible.ca/b-kjv-only.htm TR is problematic, not superior.

Point proven. Those who supposedly claim all versions are basically the same are hostile towards the KJV. They will try to destroy faith in it in order to advance their agenda, and they will even use revisionist history.

[hmbld]

Thank you, i am not offended, just taken by surprise how strongly each side feels, well, i will research a little more, thanks all,

:P

[joi]

hmbld, I hope you do not do what I did. I searched for a new Bible because mine was falling apart and finally settled on the Chronological Bible. I do not like using it, for several reasons. One it is in chronological order (duh!) then it has a lot of peripheral information that I find distracting and then is is hard back, which I do not find user friendly.

Using this Bible for casual reading is fine I suppose, but I rarely use my Bible that way.

I hope you find a Bible you like. If you have any used book stores in your area, you may find several different versions available there at little cost. You could

conceivably get a copy of maybe three inexpensive Bibles that interest you and check them out at your leisure. I have found Bibles in Dollar General Stores for five dollars. I think this is only the KJV. They also have a large print version for ten dollars.

Using BibleGateway as suggested earlier is a good idea, if you have time to read there. Here are five different versions to compare John 3:36

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%203:%2036&version=KJV;NASB;NKJV;ESV;PHILLIPS

[~Clay]

Since you asked, I use the 1611 Version of the King James Version Bible, and believe it is the most accurate. The main thing is that it is translated from the Textus Receptus, as are all the King James Version Bibles. That is what makes them superior to the new translations.

I have heard all the arguments from the defenders of new translations, and I reject them. You are relying on historical information you believe, and I don't. I have my own books that claim historical information, and they are at odds with the people you would look to in order to support your claims. There is such a thing as revisionist history, and it comes down to who we trust? Once again, I will state for the record that new translations are of the devil, and I believe that those who would say otherwise have an attitude that is of the devil. See how we just go around in circles?

C'mon B -

You really read the 1611 Version of the King James Bible?

Where Genesis reads like this:

In the beginning God created the Heauen, and the Earth. And the earth was without forme, and voyd, and darkenesse was vpon the face of the deepe: and the Spirit of God mooued vpon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God diuided the light from the darkenesse. And God called the light, Day, and the darknesse he called Night: and the euening and the morning were the first day.

Now if you really read that, then it's gotta be slow going as you spend so much of your time translating the old English words.

But if you didn't mean to say that you read the 1611 version, but rather something else, then I gotta wonder what other things do you write that you really didn't mean to say ... ?

I did mean just that. About 10 years ago, a man at my church gave me a copy of the 1611 King James Bible, which has old English spelling and the Apocrypha. I was already familiar with the Authorized Version, as I had been reading it for years. I have read the Authorized Version cover to cover more than 10 times. After getting this Bible, I began reading through it. I had a little trouble adjusting at first, but by the time I had finished Genesis, I had little problems with it. The only thing that sometimes gives me trouble is the Roman numerals, but that is no big deal. If you don't believe me, here is an example, right out of my 1611 King James Bible.

PSAL. LXXV

VNto thee, O God, doe we giue thankes, vnto thee doe we giue thanks: for that thy name is nere, thy wonderous works delcare.

What is so hard about that? I have no trouble at all translating old English words. I will demonstrate right now.

Unto thee, Oh God, do we give thanks, unto thee do we give thanks: for that thy name is near, thy wonderous works delcare.

I do this all the time. If that isn't plain enough, how is this?

To you, Oh, God, we give thanks, to you we give thanks, for your name is near, your wonderous works delcare.

As for definitions, I have an Abington-Strongs Exhaustive Concordance with a Greek and Hebrew Bible Dictionary, which I have also studied for years when a word was unclear.

Well my friend,

That was just my point.

I have no trouble at all translating old English words.

You have to translate your translation!

How effective can that really be?

But, I challenged your statement and you held your ground.

Regardless of how profitable I believe it might be (or not ), you actually do read the 1611 KJV.

[~Clay]

It takes a bit getting use to, but it is well worth the headache in the end!

Words You Love And Hunger For And Read Over And Over Again Are Not Only A Joy But Meat For The Soul.

It's Easy Peasy And Much More Valuable That Say.... Klingon, HIja'?

A big AMEN to that Joe !

[Guest Butero]

Since you asked, I use the 1611 Version of the King James Version Bible, and believe it is the most accurate. The main thing is that it is translated from the Textus Receptus, as are all the King James Version Bibles. That is what makes them superior to the new translations.

I have heard all the arguments from the defenders of new translations, and I reject them. You are relying on historical information you believe, and I don't. I have my own books that claim historical information, and they are at odds with the people you would look to in order to support your claims. There is such a thing as revisionist history, and it comes down to who we trust? Once again, I will state for the record that new translations are of the devil, and I believe that those who would say otherwise have an attitude that is of the devil. See how we just go around in circles?

C'mon B -

You really read the 1611 Version of the King James Bible?

Where Genesis reads like this:

In the beginning God created the Heauen, and the Earth. And the earth was without forme, and voyd, and darkenesse was vpon the face of the deepe: and the Spirit of God mooued vpon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God diuided the light from the darkenesse. And God called the light, Day, and the darknesse he called Night: and the euening and the morning were the first day.

Now if you really read that, then it's gotta be slow going as you spend so much of your time translating the old English words.

But if you didn't mean to say that you read the 1611 version, but rather something else, then I gotta wonder what other things do you write that you really didn't mean to say ... ?

I did mean just that. About 10 years ago, a man at my church gave me a copy of the 1611 King James Bible, which has old English spelling and the Apocrypha. I was already familiar with the Authorized Version, as I had been reading it for years. I have read the Authorized Version cover to cover more than 10 times. After getting this Bible, I began reading through it. I had a little trouble adjusting at first, but by the time I had finished Genesis, I had little problems with it. The only thing that sometimes gives me trouble is the Roman numerals, but that is no big deal. If you don't believe me, here is an example, right out of my 1611 King James Bible.

PSAL. LXXV

VNto thee, O God, doe we giue thankes, vnto thee doe we giue thanks: for that thy name is nere, thy wonderous works delcare.

What is so hard about that? I have no trouble at all translating old English words. I will demonstrate right now.

Unto thee, Oh God, do we give thanks, unto thee do we give thanks: for that thy name is near, thy wonderous works delcare.

I do this all the time. If that isn't plain enough, how is this?

To you, Oh, God, we give thanks, to you we give thanks, for your name is near, your wonderous works delcare.

As for definitions, I have an Abington-Strongs Exhaustive Concordance with a Greek and Hebrew Bible Dictionary, which I have also studied for years when a word was unclear.

Well my friend,

That was just my point.

I have no trouble at all translating old English words.

You have to translate your translation!

How effective can that really be?

But, I challenged your statement and you held your ground.

Regardless of how profitable I believe it might be (or not ), you actually do read the 1611 KJV.

I translated it for your benefit. I understand it. It would be like reading in Spanish. If you understand Spanish, you aren't translating it while you are reading it. You understand it. You only translate it for the benefit of those who don't understand it.

[hmbld]

Thanks joi, i did stop last week in a book store, and looked at chronological but only briefly. I am leaning towards KJV or NKJV, i have tried e-sword, need more practice using it. Now i got blue letter online, but prefer a hard copy book. The Blue letter online looks great to use, i will have to put some time into it.