Which version of the Bible do you prefer?

[coheir]

What I would like to know about the NKJV specifically, is the places where these words are left out, so I can examine them and see if they used other language to say the same thing, or outright omitted them.  As of right now, I am reserving judgment.  Simply having a list like that doesn't impress me much, and I am KJV only.  Give some specific instances.  Show the verses side by side with the KJV Bible. 

http://www.angelfire.com/la2/prophet1/versioncomparisonchart.html

See if this works for you.

[coheir]

Thank you.  That is much better.  I will take a closer look at the specific examples.  I know most of the translations are full of serious omissions and changes, but I am specifically trying to see the problems with the NKJV.  It does appear there are far less examples of issues with that translation than the others.  Just to make it clear, I use only the KJV Bible, and that is what I recommend to everyone.  I only recommend the NKJV to those who flat out tell me they can't understand the KJV Bible, and if that is all they had, they won't read it.  I still think it is better than the other modern English translations, but I will look at the specific scriptures.  Thanks again.  That is what I was looking for.

yes all mine are kjv also

[other one]

the places I looked up the NKJV uses the base words instead of hell.....  Hades, Sheol,and the others.  Actually leads the reader to the correct meaning.  I don't have time for many of the others right now.

[Floatingaxe]

I love using the NKJV, the NLT (mostly) and the Amplified versions of the bible.

[coheir]

 

 

What I would like to know about the NKJV specifically, is the places where these words are left out, so I can examine them and see if they used other language to say the same thing, or outright omitted them.  As of right now, I am reserving judgment.  Simply having a list like that doesn't impress me much, and I am KJV only.  Give some specific instances.  Show the verses side by side with the KJV Bible. 

http://www.angelfire.com/la2/prophet1/versioncomparisonchart.html

See if this works for you.

 

Having had a chance to examine the changes, there does seem to be a pattern.  It appears that those translations don't like to mention hell, and like to remove verses that show us that Jesus is the Christ.  Honestly, I don't see any need for new translations.  Yes, it takes a little time to get used to the old English, but once you read a few books, it becomes obvious what it is saying.  It only took me reading through Genesis to be able to read the 1611 KJV Bible with the old spelling, and the letter u looking like a v.  At the same time, you know as well as I do that some won't take the time to do that, and all you are left with is a pile of new translations, none of which I have full confidence in.  I have to look for the best of the bad, and even after looking at that web-page, it appears the NKJV Bible is better than the alternatives.  The truth matters to me to the point where I won't settle for anything but the KJV Bible, but sadly, others don't feel that way.  I appreciate you giving me that link.  I don't keep a stack of translations lying around the house, because I don't need them.  I have considered buying some for reference sake, but I have no use for them as a study tool. 

 

Ill stay with my kjv also, the nkjv has not went as far as the others. I recommend the kjv but it is up to each person to read or not read about the changes before they decide.

I was able to learn to read the kjv so im surprised some same they can not.

[another_poster]

 I don't keep a stack of translations lying around the house, because I don't need them.  I have considered buying some for reference sake, but I have no use for them as a study tool. 

 

bible gateway means you don't need to keep them around. You can keep your KJV and then just use that website to look at others. You can also put passages side by side in there. Of course I always say one should never just compare one verse to another and make a judgment. Instead one should look at the extended passage to see if the meaning has been changed.

[another_poster]

http://www.angelfire.com/la2/prophet1/versioncomparisonchart.html

 

 

See if this works for you.

 

That link makes false claims. It claims certain things are removed from certain versions and I have found two so far where the versions include what they claim to have removed. So far I have only found one difference that could be argued to be significant although I don't believe it is. I hope you checked it all before posting the link.

 

Edit: I have only gone through the OT passages listed so far.

Edited July 27, 2014 by another_poster

[coheir]

 

http://www.angelfire.com/la2/prophet1/versioncomparisonchart.html

 

 

See if this works for you.

 

That link makes false claims. It claims certain things are removed from certain versions and I have found two so far where the versions include what they claim to have removed. So far I have only found one difference that could be argued to be significant although I don't believe it is. I hope you checked it all before posting the link.

 

Edit: I have only gone through the OT passages listed so far.

 

maybe this one is the one

http://av1611.com/kjbp/charts/themagicmarker.html

http://av1611.com/kjbp/charts/themagicmarker.html

[another_poster]

maybe this one is the one

 

 

 

 

http://av1611.com/kjbp/charts/themagicmarker.html

http://av1611.com/kjbp/charts/themagicmarker.html

 

It is worrying when you read a false claim in the first paragraph. Several texts were used in the KJV including the Latin Vulgate where the documents used were missing passages.

I will try to get to it later when I have time. I will say this for now though. One of the examples given should not be there according to the argument the website uses that if it has been around for a long time then it must be right which then means the example where stuff is removed should not actually be there because they were correct to remove it. Would be interesting to see if people know what I'm talking about.

Edited July 28, 2014 by another_poster

[another_poster]

Be my guest Another Poster, but the fact remains, we have an established canon we have been holding to for hundreds of years.  That canon is made up of 66 books and all of the contents, not some of the contents.  Everyone agreed that this was the Word of God.  Now you have people coming back claiming part of the established canon is wrong.  If that is the case, there is nothing to stop them from coming along down the road, with new discoveries, or perhaps after deciding that they have chosen different manuscripts to be "the most reliable" and they remove more of the text, perhaps entire books from the canon.  There is nothing to stop them from deciding some of the dead sea scrolls should be in the canon.  Suddenly, the canon means nothing.  There is no absolute truth.  There is no Bible as we know it.  If you can remove every verse from Mark 16:9 on and say it doesn't belong, you can remove entire books.  You can decide 3 John doesn't belong.  You can decide Paul's letter to the Ladodiceans should be included.  It was an oversight it didn't make the cut.  It can be decided that Enoch should be in the Bible.  There is no limit to what you can do once you accept the notion it is ok to remove part of the established text. 

this does not explain the double standard of your position of keeping to the KJV. Text was established before that. It is also fact that reasons the KJV has the position it does has very little to do with the quality of the translation. As I have said before you assume the KJV is correct and that anything that is different must be wrong. As I have said previously everyone agreed that having a genuine medical issue was actually demon possession once upon a time. Yet we don't teach that these days. Yet it was an established and accepted belief including at the time the KJV was written (both first and second time). 

 

You are also wrong in saying there are no limits. There obviously are limits as to what could be removed as justification has been given for that. What the KJV translators decided to do when certain texts they felt should be included were not in the documents they were translating from is they then went to a different source and translated it from that. Other translation have simply said we will stick to this document and if it is not in that document then we will not include it. That is more consistent than the KJV method. Of course that does not make it right but it is certainly a far cry from the whatever you like claim.

 

From the link provided in post #97 can you tell me which example should not be there according to the arguments made by that website. Just give the scripture reference. No need to type out the whole verse.