Which version of the Bible do you prefer?

[Guest Butero]

That is not the point.  The point is that a canon was established, and the established canon included the entire 16th chapter of Mark and 1 John 5:7.  It doesn't even matter which manuscripts people today think are best, because that determination was already made when the canon was created.  Again, lets go back to my example of the book of Esther.  If all one is concerned with is that the books of the canon are included in the Bible, rather than being concerned with the contents of those books, someone could go back and put "The Rest Of Ester" back in Esther and claim it should have been there all along.  It would be quite proper to do so, as long as Esther is represented.  You can remove from it and you can add to it based on personal preference because all that is required to claim to be faithful to the canon is to have the book of Esther in the Bible.  I could add to Proverbs by including "The Wisdom of Solomon" and "Ecclesiasticus," and it would be ok because Proverbs is part of the canon.  I have only made it longer.  I could add "The Prayer Of Manneseh" to Kings and Chronicles, because Kings and Chronicles are canon, and the text itself is open to change.  Of course on the other side, I can delete anything I wish.  Since I don't believe in OSAS, I could remove the verse that says no man can pluck us out of God's hand.  Then I don't have to contend with it, and I am still ok because it is the book that is canon, not it's contents. 

 

The problem lies in the fact that once you accept it is ok to remove portions of the text, you no longer have a Bible you can trust.  While I personally am KJV only, I can at least see a reasonable argument that can be made for a new translation that includes all of the text in the canon, but puts the Bible in modern English.  I could find common ground there.  I would still have concerns over the possible agenda behind the new translations, and how they could be open to serious abuse, but we still have our Greek and Hebrew Dictionaries to compare what they say to, and if we see obvious changes to the original meaning, like with the TNIV, we could immediately reject the translation based on that.  In the case of most new translations, they are actually removing portions of the established scriptures in the canon. 

 

BTW, the older is better argument doesn't work for the New Testament unless Shiloh doesn't know what he is talking about. He stated that the new discoveries are all of OT scriptures, and the New Testament manuscripts being used by the modern translators were available at the time the Geneva Bible and KJV Bible were created.  They are not older manuscripts. 

[Qnts2]

That is not the point.  The point is that a canon was established, and the established canon included the entire 16th chapter of Mark and 1 John 5:7.  It doesn't even matter which manuscripts people today think are best, because that determination was already made when the canon was created.  Again, lets go back to my example of the book of Esther.  If all one is concerned with is that the books of the canon are included in the Bible, rather than being concerned with the contents of those books, someone could go back and put "The Rest Of Ester" back in Esther and claim it should have been there all along.  It would be quite proper to do so, as long as Esther is represented.  You can remove from it and you can add to it based on personal preference because all that is required to claim to be faithful to the canon is to have the book of Esther in the Bible.  I could add to Proverbs by including "The Wisdom of Solomon" and "Ecclesiasticus," and it would be ok because Proverbs is part of the canon.  I have only made it longer.  I could add "The Prayer Of Manneseh" to Kings and Chronicles, because Kings and Chronicles are canon, and the text itself is open to change.  Of course on the other side, I can delete anything I wish.  Since I don't believe in OSAS, I could remove the verse that says no man can pluck us out of God's hand.  Then I don't have to contend with it, and I am still ok because it is the book that is canon, not it's contents. 

 

The problem lies in the fact that once you accept it is ok to remove portions of the text, you no longer have a Bible you can trust.  While I personally am KJV only, I can at least see a reasonable argument that can be made for a new translation that includes all of the text in the canon, but puts the Bible in modern English.  I could find common ground there.  I would still have concerns over the possible agenda behind the new translations, and how they could be open to serious abuse, but we still have our Greek and Hebrew Dictionaries to compare what they say to, and if we see obvious changes to the original meaning, like with the TNIV, we could immediately reject the translation based on that.  In the case of most new translations, they are actually removing portions of the established scriptures in the canon. 

 

BTW, the older is better argument doesn't work for the New Testament unless Shiloh doesn't know what he is talking about. He stated that the new discoveries are all of OT scriptures, and the New Testament manuscripts being used by the modern translators were available at the time the Geneva Bible and KJV Bible were created.  They are not older manuscripts. 

 

Let me start by saying, your examples come mostly from the OT. Because they come from the OT, they are not valid.

 

Just to review, there was a master copy of the OT in the Temple, so any copies were compared to the master copy to ensure accuracy. In Judaism, canon is the books, language, words and individual letters. Canon scripture is only in Hebrew and Aramaic.

 

When the Temple was destroyed in 70 ce, the master copy was lost. After some time, Judaism became extremely concerned because it started to see variations due to scribal error, with no master copy to verify. So, some scholars got together, compared various versions, to determine the original text, and which were scribal error. They came up with a master and only that master defines canon. If a copy of the OT, is not in the original languages, it is not canon scripture. If it has one letter added or lost, it is not canon scripture. If the printing of the letters is not perfect, it is not canon scripture. So, your proposal of altering the Hebrew text as examples, is already answered as canon for the OT, has very narrow specific definitions. Judaism has a master copy by which every other is compared. 

 

There is no master copy for the NT. There is no Greek manuscript which is accepted by Christians as authoritively the closest or the same as original. And that is the point. Maybe there is no recognized master, simply because, the NT was translated into so many languages and very few people can read Greek. In Judaism, most children are taught the basics of Hebrew, because canon scripture is only in Hebrew. Only translators, and historians cared that much about preserving the original Greek. God is in control, as it is the Holy Spirit who teaches and reveals. But, if you are going to argue for or against adding or deleting words, we must have a Greek NT, which is affirmed as canon scripture, word for word and letter by letter. That, does not exist in the Christian world. It does for the OT, but not for the NT.

 

In the end, you have chosen a Greek text which you consider canon, so any other Greek text which does not agree with your chosen text, is viewed as having changed canon, which should never be done. Then someone else comes along with a Greek text and looks at your prefered text, and they say your text added words, so yours is false, as it changes canon. Protestant Christianity, other then the books, does not have a word for word, letter by letter canon for the NT.    

[Guest]

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.

 

~

 

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

 

 

A Very Good One Indeed~!

 

For God loved the world in this way: so much that he would give up his Son, The Only One, so that everyone who trusts in him shall not be lost, but he shall have eternal life.  John 3:16 (Aramaic Bible in Plain English)

[Guest Butero]

I have some new information to add to this discussion.  As I mentioned earlier, I bought a NKJV Bible to compare it with the KJV Bible.  I wanted to do my own research into it because there have been so many things said about it.  It was a NKJV Gift Bible and I purchased it at Wal-Mart.  The reason I am mentioning this is so anyone who questions what I am telling them can easily purchase the same NKJV Bible for themselves and authenticate my claims.  I don't think all NKJV Bibles give all the information this one does. 

 

From what I can see, this seems to be an honest attempt to get it right.  They seem to include all the original text, but they do something more that was very helpful to me.  I have mentioned how that in the NIV and other translations I have encountered, they will remove the established text and make the bogus claim that "the most reliable manuscripts don't include..."  One of those claims was regarding Mark 16 and every verse after verse 8.  I have questioned what they mean by "most reliable," as they never tell us.  I hear people claim they are older manuscripts, which turns out to be a complete lie, as they are not new discoveries at all.  They were always available.  The older manuscripts found in caves are all OT books and the Dead Sea Scrolls.  As such, that means that making the claim that they are older therefore better is not true.  The other claim people made is that the majority of the manuscripts leave all those things out, so "most reliable" means those verses found in the majority of the manuscripts.  That turns out to be a lie.  The NKJV Bible actually tells us what manuscripts don't include those verses.  There is nothing to wonder about anymore. 

 

In the case of 1 John 5:7, they verify that this verse was only found in 4 or 5 manuscripts.  The NKJV Bible includes it, but they give us that information.  On the other hand, I found something very interesting about Mark 16 and most of the other deletions from modern translations.  It states that most of the manuscripts include all the verses that were in the KJV Bible.  There are however two manuscripts that don't, thus these have to be the manuscripts that the new translations call "the most reliable."  They are the Alexandrian and Egyptian manuscripts.  All the others include the verses in question.  Why do they call these "the most reliable?"  They aren't older.  They don't match up with most of the manuscripts that are available.  They stand alone as the only ones leaving out most of the text that is being removed.  I would imagine it is because if they came out and said they are translating from the Alexandrian and Egyptian manuscripts over all the rest, including the received text and the majority text, they would not be so readily accepted, but when you go around claiming the manuscripts are older and better, most are fine with that.  After all, these are supposed to be new discoveries and with new information, we are supposed to be able to come up with superior translations. 

 

As a result of my search for truth, I have come to two conclusions.  First, I feel better about the NKJV Bible.  Most of the claims I have seen against it appear to be unfounded.  Second, I am more convinced than ever that most of the new translations are not reliable, and are demon inspired to discredit the trustworthiness of scripture and cause confusion.  As for me, I am sticking with the KJV Bible, but if you absolutely tell me you cannot read the old English and must have a new translation, I will continue to recommend the NKJV Bible.  I guess that puts me at odds with the KJV only die hard group and the all new translations are fine group.  I find myself somewhere in the middle.  In my personal search for truth, I have gone from all translations are fine to KJV only to KJV preferred and NKJV if you insist you won't read an old English translation.  I am still comparing the text, but for now, that is where I come down on this issue. 

[another_poster]

 

In the case of 1 John 5:7, they verify that this verse was only found in 4 or 5 manuscripts.  The NKJV Bible includes it, but they give us that information. 

so whats the problem with other translations which also include this information? 

[Guest Butero]

They are not providing that information.  They are misleading people by claiming that "the most reliable manuscripts don't include...," when in reality, what they are calling the most reliable manuscripts are the Alexandrian and Egyptian manuscripts.  In the case of mark 16, most manuscripts included the entire chapter, but those two did not.  They are not older manuscripts like people are claiming.  This has been one huge deception.  They aren't just mentioning questions about 1 John 5:7 in footnotes, but they are taking it out of the text, along with other verses that appear in the majority of the manuscripts.  I was very plain in my objections to most new translations, but you chose to only include two sentences about my findings. 

[Guest]

As a result of my search for truth, I have come to two conclusions.  First, I feel better about the NKJV Bible.  Most of the claims I have seen against it appear to be unfounded.  Second, I am more convinced than ever that most of the new translations are not reliable, and are demon inspired to discredit the trustworthiness of scripture and cause confusion.  As for me, I am sticking with the KJV Bible, but if you absolutely tell me you cannot read the old English and must have a new translation, I will continue to recommend the NKJV Bible.  I guess that puts me at odds with the KJV only die hard group and the all new translations are fine group.  I find myself somewhere in the middle.  In my personal search for truth, I have gone from all translations are fine to KJV only to KJV preferred and NKJV if you insist you won't read an old English translation.  I am still comparing the text, but for now, that is where I come down on this issue.

 

 

These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. Acts 17:11

 

My New KJV (Replaces My Old Taped Together Small Print KJV)

Is A Walmart $25.00 Super Giant Print By Holman

 

I Am Blessed

 

Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever. Psalms 119:160

 

And It's Good For Those With The Fire In The Old Eyes To See

And The Hunger In The Old Heart To Know

Jesus At Any Turning Of Any Page

 

I Am Blessed

 

Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee. Psalms 119:11

 

[another_poster]

They are not providing that information.  They are misleading people by claiming that "the most reliable manuscripts don't include...," when in reality, what they are calling the most reliable manuscripts are the Alexandrian and Egyptian manuscripts.  In the case of mark 16, most manuscripts included the entire chapter, but those two did not.  They are not older manuscripts like people are claiming.  This has been one huge deception.  They aren't just mentioning questions about 1 John 5:7 in footnotes, but they are taking it out of the text, along with other verses that appear in the majority of the manuscripts.  I was very plain in my objections to most new translations, but you chose to only include two sentences about my findings. 

actually I was talking about translations that include the information that some include it and some don't. That means one can decide for themselves. So they are providing the information

[FreeinChrist]

I find myself more inclined toward the TR (Textus Receptus), and any Translation based upon it, and would never recommend any Bible not based on the TR.  But neither would I tell someone who reads anything from the NA (Nestle Aland) to stop reading it, although I do consider it somewhat watered down, it still contains much of the Word of God.

 

My favorite Bible Translations to read are 1)  Webster Bible Translation (Noah Webster took the KJV Bible in 1833 an updated the words, to more modern English, and I love the fact that he changed Easter to Passover in Acts 12:4:   2)  The KJV, 3)  The Geneva Bible, 4)  The Amplified Bible and finally the 5)  NKJV.

 

I also enjoyed reading the Complete Jewish Bible, but would not recommend it as it leaves out most of I John 5:7,   And although many are right in stating that I John 5:7 is not contain in the NA which especially omits them with the oldest are best argument, we must remember that Cyrian quote this verse in it entirely just as the TR does:

For there are three that bear testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.

I John 5:7  Webster Bible

 

We also see that Cyprian quotes this verse in 250 AD, many years before the oldest manuscripts.

And again concerning the Father and Son and the Holy Spirit it is written: and the Three are One.

Vol. V, 418, 423, Ante-Nicene Fathers

The only different in Cyprian quote and the TR, is Cyprian changes the Word to Son.  I guess my biggest argument against the oldest are best manuscripts is that most if not all of the Oldest Manuscripts that we have came from the Church era, when Arianism was being taught as the Basic Doctrine of the Christian Church (Arianism was somewhat the Ancient version of what we now consider Jehovah Witnesses).  Basically Arius taught that Jesus was similar (that is similar substance) to God, but wasn't completely like  the Father concerning His being God, so of course any Arians would have no problem omitting this verse; thus corrupting the Word of God, just as Paul stated, II Corinthians 2:17.   But fortunately God knew this and gives another proof of the complete Trinity in Isaiah:

16)  Come ye near to Me, and hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; form the time that it was, there Am I: and now the LORD God, and His Spirit, hath send Me.

17)  Thus saith the LORD thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel; I am the LORD thy God, who teacheth thee to profit, who leadeth thee by the way that thou shouldest go.

Isaiah 48:16-17

 

So I find myself overall in agreement with Butero, Coheir, and CountingSheep;  but especially Williamina, and Fresno Joe.

[Guest Butero]

Those who have been promoting modern English translations have been claiming that there are new discoveries of manuscripts, and that they are older and therefore better.  They have been saying that these are the ones being used by the modern English translators.  In reality, that has been a lie.  It was certainly a lie when it comes to the New Testament.  They were also claiming that the modern translators were leaving out portions of the text because they were not found in the majority of the manuscripts, only the TR.   That was a lie.  In reality, they were choosing to use the Alexandrian and Egyptian manuscripts over all the rest, even if the majority of the available manuscripts included the text, as was the case in Mark chapter 16.  This whole argument has been a huge deception perpetrated against the church.  Why are the Alexandrian and Egyptian manuscripts considered "the most reliable" by so many of the translations?  Why do these manuscripts leave out portions of the original text that is found in both the majority text and the received text, and why do they choose to remove those verses rather than include them and just mention that they were not in the Alexandrian and Egyptian manuscripts in the footnotes?  If you read those translations, and aren't paying attention to the footnotes, you are completely missing portions of the established text. 

 

I still believe that 1 John 5:7 belongs in the Bible.  There is an established canon consisting of 66 books and all their original contents.  It is only in modern translations that you see this verse removed.  It was decided long ago it belongs.  I am just acknowledging the fact that according to every source I have found, this one verse was only found in 4 or 5 manuscripts.  Perhaps those 4 or 5 are really the most reliable?  Why not say that, if the NIV can claim the Alexandrian and Egyptian manuscripts are?  What is the basis for their claim?