Which version of the Bible do you prefer?

[other one]

 

KJV, something tells me God wants it to be hard to understand. That way you learn about all those strange words. It expands your mind and ability to comprehend. Go look up Mark 9:29 in the KJV then check the NIV and ESV and see what word is missing.

Does it matter that its missing? I only ask because everytime a KJV only person has used that argument I have never once found the meaning to have changed. If the meaning is the same then squabbling over which specific word is used seems a bit pointless to me. Do you think the meaning of the overall passage has changed? Of course then one also needs to prove that the KJV was accurate in including whatever it was that they included and others were not accurate by leaving it out. Often the assumption made by people is that if it is in the KJV then it must be correct. That is not a reasonable assumption in my opinion.

 

John 3:16

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.

KJV

 

John 3:16-17

16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.

NLT

 

John 3:16

16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

NIV

 

Shall not is an absolute negative, it's definitely not going to perish.   The actual Greek word is a qualified negative  Might not or should not....   but not definitely not.

 

Meaning if you believe you don't have to perish, but you are not promised not to perish for there is more to it than that.......    and you can use this mistranslated verse to think you are saved simply because you believe and feel good all the way to hell.

 

That's why it's dangerous.     I'm not a KJV only person, but you really do need that Interlinear Bible to look these kinds of things up.   Even the latest NASB mistranslates this verse.

So I use the early 1970's version NASB to read, but keep the KJV to compare.    I have not found anywhere in that version of the NASB that would disagree with the two sets of manuscripts in my Interlinear Bible program. that is not the same in the KJV.

 

John 21:15-17 where Jesus is asking if Peter loves him has two separate Greek words that are translated Love.....   they are not the same meaning and the third time Jesus asks him if he loved him, he uses a different Greek word with a much less affectionate meaning than the first two times he asked.        It would be similar to asking if you love me and me getting the answer that we are good friends, and the last time asking if we are really good friends.  This is in every Bible I've ever read.

Doesn't really matter toward salvation, but is just an example of needing to be aware that any time you translate things between two languages sometimes little things get lost.

[Willa]

I prefer the Byzantine Majority text used by Tyndale and the KJV translators. The Critical text was very good as in the American Standard Version which used the alexandian text Codus Vaticanus (also used by Jerome in translating the catholic bible). It is very close to the Majority text. I consider Young's translation of Textus Receptus to be one of the most literal, and The American Standard Version the most literal of the Codus Vaticanus.

But for the New American Standard Version and the Revised Standard Version they used the Codus Alexandrinus from Alexandria Egypt, which left out major portions and changed others to fit the doctrine of a gnostic-christian cult that was predominate there. While this is the oldest most complete text, it is also the most corrupt and major portions are omitted; this is the basis for the Nestle-Aland 21st edition greek text used by most new Bible versions.. The basis for calling the text of the newest versions the "best" is also partly because it is shorter and leave things out, which is ludicrous to me. I find the versions based on Nestle-Aland 21 to be less reliable, even though NASV is the most literal translation of that text. It is worth comparing to other texts and I used it for many years.

I most often read the NKJV, but do refer to the NASV occasionally. I more often compare to Amplified Version, Youngs Literal Transation, Analytical-Literal Translation third edition, and Wuest's Expanded Translation. The latter 2 are only New Testaments but do more to translate the greek tenses and grammer more correctly into English.

[other one]

what I read you saying here is that the Bible is not trustworthy...

[digitalinchrist]

 

KJV, something tells me God wants it to be hard to understand. That way you learn about all those strange words. It expands your mind and ability to comprehend. Go look up Mark 9:29 in the KJV then check the NIV and ESV and see what word is missing.

Does it matter that its missing? I only ask because everytime a KJV only person has used that argument I have never once found the meaning to have changed. If the meaning is the same then squabbling over which specific word is used seems a bit pointless to me. Do you think the meaning of the overall passage has changed? Of course then one also needs to prove that the KJV was accurate in including whatever it was that they included and others were not accurate by leaving it out. Often the assumption made by people is that if it is in the KJV then it must be correct. That is not a reasonable assumption in my opinion.

 

 

When I come in here and give the truth, you will know why the KJV is the one.

[digitalinchrist]

 

 

 

KJV, something tells me God wants it to be hard to understand. That way you learn about all those strange words. It expands your mind and ability to comprehend. Go look up Mark 9:29 in the KJV then check the NIV and ESV and see what word is missing.

Does it matter that its missing? I only ask because everytime a KJV only person has used that argument I have never once found the meaning to have changed. If the meaning is the same then squabbling over which specific word is used seems a bit pointless to me. Do you think the meaning of the overall passage has changed? Of course then one also needs to prove that the KJV was accurate in including whatever it was that they included and others were not accurate by leaving it out. Often the assumption made by people is that if it is in the KJV then it must be correct. That is not a reasonable assumption in my opinion.

 

 

Does it mean Jesus can't or won't save you by using a non kjv bible?  No, but many will sware by the KJV, that its almost positively spiritually charged.  I dunno about why the other verses are changed, but I do have some reasoning for mark 9:29. This is refering to the man with son with a dumb spirit (devil) that the disciples could not cast out. So the man took his son to christ personally to cast him out. Afterwards the disciples privately went to Christ and asked him why not. Mark 9:29 was your answer. The word FASTING is in the KJV, but it is removed from many of the other bibles.  I have heard it said the NIV and ESV are devil bibles.  What does wikipedia say about fasting?  "Fasting is primarily an act of willing abstinence or reduction from certain or all food, drink, or both, for a period of time."  This could mean no food for a period of time like food fasting.  It could also mean fasting from drugs, or pornography, or any addiction.  In essense, Jesus is telling you it requires prayer AND fasting to remove some demons.  Now why would Satan not want that info out there? There are webpages out there that will prove to you the KJV is the infallible non perverted word of God. Its worth looking into if you have never checked it out.  I imagine any truly saved christian will have the discernment to know it is the one.

 

However you have not justified that the word fasting should be there. (I did look up the passage in the end before I came back to look at these forums). Even then your comment does not make much sense to me because several other translations include the word fasting. So either way the KJV then is no better or worse than any other translation.

 

I have heard the argument that the NIV is the devils bible. This is based on the parent company of Zondervan which publishes and owns the NIV has the same parent company as the company that publishes the Satanic bible. This is an issue for some. To me it is just Rupert Murdoch recognises there is money to be made and so purchased the different companies at separate times and put them under his book publishing arm of Harper Collins. Some seem to want to think there is something sinister about it but I just don't see it. 

 

If there is a particular website you would like me to look at I will be happy to look at it and consider its arguments. I have seen several different websites making these arguments and have not been convinced by any of them. I have found many of their claims to be the equivalent of clutching at straws or meaningless such as number of words being different. It is not unusual for word counts to be different in old english and modern english, That's just the way it is. The KJV may be hard to understand today but when it was written it was not. It was using normal everyday language of the time. So that is why I dismiss word count arguments. I also dismiss any argument where the meaning of the passage is not changed. For example one of the more common arguments is that the word Lord is removed from one verse and they argue that it could then be talking about anybody. however when reading that verse with surrounding verses there is no doubt it is talking about Jesus. As I said I am happy to look through a website if you would like me to. Just provide a link or tell me the name and I can search for it.

 

 

I have not justified the why the word fasting is there?  I will get to that one day, but even then, certain folks who call themselves christians will not want to hear or believe this truth. And I will be ran out of this forum just like Jesus or Paul when they cast out a devil. The KJV is very careful not to step over the line by name calling. Like drawing 3/4 of a picture and leaving the last quarter to be drawn by us. Thats free will, not forcing an answer on you. For example.  Mathew 6:24 KJV - "No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon"  ESV - “No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money.^"                  

 

^{Mammon in the KJV , money in the ESV,  IMO this stuff is done to promote drama, Satan loves drama by giving direct names.}        

[digitalinchrist]

 

 

 

KJV, something tells me God wants it to be hard to understand. That way you learn about all those strange words. It expands your mind and ability to comprehend. Go look up Mark 9:29 in the KJV then check the NIV and ESV and see what word is missing.

Does it matter that its missing? I only ask because everytime a KJV only person has used that argument I have never once found the meaning to have changed. If the meaning is the same then squabbling over which specific word is used seems a bit pointless to me. Do you think the meaning of the overall passage has changed? Of course then one also needs to prove that the KJV was accurate in including whatever it was that they included and others were not accurate by leaving it out. Often the assumption made by people is that if it is in the KJV then it must be correct. That is not a reasonable assumption in my opinion.

 

 

When I come in here and give the truth, you will know why the KJV is the one.

 

If that is true, you will have accomplished something I have been trying to do for years.  You got my attention. 

 

 

I will try to find the correct part of this forum to post this document in. And hope I have privaledges to post there.

[The_Patriot21]

if its not the original 1611 version of the KJV then it is an abomination in Gods eyes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

no just kidding. I prefer literal translations such as the KJV and the NASB, the more literal the more accurate. Ill study out of the ESV on occasion to, it is a bit easier to understand. There are a lot of different translations out there, some better then others. Many do water it down, I won't say dont use them as long as they get the important parts right-such as the NIV. Its watery, but it does have the core message there. Other translations, such as the message, id just as soon burn as call them translations. I do have a copy of the message-right next to my copy of the Koran.

[Willa]

what I read you saying here is that the Bible is not trustworthy...

I am saying that where there are differences between the New American Standard Version (and other newer versions) and the New King James version, I will take the NKJV, or Young's or the 1910 American Standard Version. I will take litteral translations over thought for thought versions like NIV.

But I would urge people to read any bible that they can understand. The Gospel is included in most of them. No translation is perfect but the Holy Spirit can still use them.

I do not trust the New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses or paraphrases like The Message..

[OakWood]

 

what I read you saying here is that the Bible is not trustworthy...

I am saying that where there are differences between the New American Standard Version (and other newer versions) and the New King James version, I will take the NKJV, or Young's or the 1910 American Standard Version. I will take litteral translations over thought for thought versions like NIV.

But I would urge people to read any bible that they can understand. The Gospel is included in most of them. No translation is perfect but the Holy Spirit can still use them.

I do not trust the New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses or paraphrases like The Message..

 

 

What exactly is the New World translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses?

[Trinitron]

Short of burning in a lake of fire for eternity, do yourself a favor and pick up God's breathed inspired word, the KJV.  If you have any other versions, throw them away, burn them, bury them, or throw them in the ocean so at judgement day, you won't be accountable for the effects of letting the Devil's bibles get into unsuspecting hands of innocent souls that could have had eternity in heaven.