Which version of the Bible do you prefer?

[Qnts2]

Just for the record, I just went back to take a look at the Geneva Bible, and looked up 1 John 5:7, which most of the new translations leave out to see if it was there.  Lo and behold it was.  It seems that the KJV translators didn't choose to add to what was already the established Word of God in that instance.  That is what is different about the new translations today.  They are leaving out part of what was established text, and to justify this, they are making claims that the KJV translators added to the TR.  Even if they technically did, they did not add to the established canon, nor did they remove portions of the text established as the canon. 

 

My understanding of the process in establishing canon in Christianity, was that it was done at book level, not word level. 

[Guest]

Yes, you still have a book called romans, but it has been gutted.  These people today are doing that with portions of the canon.  They certainly have done it with Mark chapter 16.

 

 

And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.

And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun.

 

And they said among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulchre?

And when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away: for it was very great.

 

And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted.

 

And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him.

But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you.

 

And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid.

 

Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.

And she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept.

 

And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not.

 

After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country.

And they went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them.

 

Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.

And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

 

And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. Mark 16 (KJV)

 

~

 

When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus’ body. Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb

 

and they asked each other, “Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?” But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away.

 

As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed.

 

 “Don’t be alarmed,” he said. “You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him.But go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.’”

 

Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid. Mark 16 (NIV)

 

~

 

The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

 

Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. Psalms 12:6-7 (KJV)

[another_poster]

The KJV did not add to the canon.  That is what you are claiming, but that is a lie.  You say the KJV added words to the text they were translating from.  First of all, that is nonsense.  The words came from some of the material they had.  They didn't add things out of thin air.  Second, those words were considered canon.  What I mean by that is, lets suppose they placed some words in there that came from the Vulgate.  It was agreed upon those words belong.  Nobody was disputing it, so it is irrelevant.  There are some words that were only added so the text makes sense, and they are in italics.  Everyone understands that.  None of that is the same as going back and removing words and entire paragraphs that were part of the established canon as most new translations do.  The canon included the entire 16th chapter of Mark. 

    

The link that you did not want to look at because you didn't provide it has proof that the KJV added words.  Why do you think I was saying look at it. Do you see? Probably not because it shatters your illusion. I am not talking about words in italics to make sure it makes sense. I realise they have done that and as you say it is well known. You did comment on it being a good link. So did you make a mistake and it is not or what?

Earlier I said why not trust the catholic church then since they came up with the canon. Yet you reject the catholic churchs version of the canon and instead accept the protestant one. If that is not the same picking and choosing then I don't know what is. What has been added in your KJV is not included in catholic bibles. Of course you have your go to verses for comparison that you have decided are important. 

The only issue I have with the latin being used is that many KJV people claim it was translated from one text. Glad you acknowledge that. 

[Guest Butero]

When I said the link was good, I meant it was good in that it gave me more of what I was looking for.  I didn't mean I had carefully scrutinized it.  I meant that it was better than the link that only said that the NKJV left out this word a certain amount of times and that word a certain amount of times.  It gave specific examples.  I wasn't endorsing the link.  I hope that clears that question up. 

 

How can anyone prove the KJV added words?  Even if they were to make the claim, how can they prove it?  What I suspect you are speaking of is that when the canon was established, which pre-dates the KJV Bible as you already noted, there may have been a few things in the text that were missing in the Greek or Hebrew manuscripts that remained, and they could have been found in Latin at the time the KJV was written.  I say could have because I have no proof any of this took place, but lets suppose it did.  The canon was established, meaning those verses were established already as part of canon.  They existed in the Geneva Bible.  They had to be included or the canon was being gutted, so if they used something from the Latin Vulgate to make sure the entire canon was included, so what?  That is better than removing part of the established canon. 

 

I am picking the protestant canon as the correct canon.  I am a protestant, so in that sense, I have already picked and chosen what I believe is right.  I had a choice.  I could have been Catholic like my Grandmother was, or I could be Protestant.  That is picking and choosing.  If it is not picking and choosing, I don't know what it is.  I could have chosen to be a Buddhist, but I chose Christianity.  If that is not picking and choosing, I don't know what is.  I went with what is right over what is wrong, as I am doing with the canon.  I am choosing the canon that was established by the protestant church as the correct one.  Do you prefer the Catholic canon?  It seem to me you are saying there is no certainty when it comes to the canon, so you are fine with them taking away part of it. 

 

BTW, I have read many things about the KJV Bible and it's origins.  I haven't heard anyone claim it came from a single "text."  What text might that be?  We say it came from the TR, and that is its foundation.  The TR is made up of many manuscripts.  They were the ones in use at the time.  They apparently had the same manuscripts available the translators have today according to Shiloh, at least with regard to the NT.  They had the Latin Vulgate to reference.  With all those manuscripts, before the KJV Bible was created, a canon was established with 66 books and all their contents, and the Geneva Bible stuck with that canon, as did the KJV translators.  In many of today's translations, they have departed from the established canon by removing portions of it.  Is it possible small portions of the text that was already established as canon could have been inserted by the KJV translators from the Latin Vulgate because they couldn't be clearly read in the Greek or Hebrew?  I suppose it is possible, but what are the alternatives?  The canon was set.  It was established that this is the Word of God.  Do you just leave out part of the canon when you are creating this new translation because you can't read it anymore?  It is still God's Word.  You would have to use what you have.  Again, I say this in theory, because I have no way to verify any of this is true, as I wasn't there. 

[gray wolf]

to me it depends on the original manuscripts that are used for the translation.

 

I personally use the NASB that was published in the 1970's.   However they republished it in the mid to late 90's and changed some things that I personally just can't accept.

What do you find objectionable?  I've never done a comparison.

[Guest Butero]

I somehow over looked that comment, and I find it interesting.  The NIV changed things and even changed the name to the TNIV for a time.  They corrupted the text even further by taking all references to God as he out of the Bible to cater to radical feminists.  There was a backlash against it, and now they call it the NIV again.  I don't see how anyone can trust that translation, based on their obvious agenda.  Also, there was a lesbian among the translators.  I hadn't heard about changes to the NASB,  but all of this further shows how we no longer have a canon.  People feel they can continuously change the text.  They delete things, and I see no reason that if they take away, they can't add things. 

[coheir]

I somehow over looked that comment, and I find it interesting.  The NIV changed things and even changed the name to the TNIV for a time.  They corrupted the text even further by taking all references to God as he out of the Bible to cater to radical feminists.  There was a backlash against it, and now they call it the NIV again.  I don't see how anyone can trust that translation, based on their obvious agenda.  Also, there was a lesbian among the translators.  I hadn't heard about changes to the NASB,  but all of this further shows how we no longer have a canon.  People feel they can continuously change the text.  They delete things, and I see no reason that if they take away, they can't add things. 

Butero I thought you might like this

http://baptisthistoryhomepage.com/1.google.books.links.html

[other one]

 

to me it depends on the original manuscripts that are used for the translation.

 

I personally use the NASB that was published in the 1970's.   However they republished it in the mid to late 90's and changed some things that I personally just can't accept.

What do you find objectionable?  I've never done a comparison.

 

I look at John 3:16 and if it says "shall not perish" or "will not perish" instead of "should not perish"   or "might not perish"   I do not use that translation for anything.

[coheir]

The venerable KJV uses shall. Seems pretty cut and dried.

kjv

john 3:

16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

[gray wolf]

oooops!  Don't know what version was floating around in my head!