Which version of the Bible do you prefer?

[jmlusa2000]

I like the NIV.

[another_poster]

My position is there is an established canon, and any translation that leaves out any of the original canon is of the devil, period.  I am not limiting that to the KJV Bible.  If there are other translations that include every word in the original canon, I am open to them, but I personally don't need them, as I have no problem understanding the KJV Bible and fully trust it.  I will be happy to check out your link, but I feel confident I already know what my answer will be before looking.  And no, there are no limits to what can be added or taken away once we establish the idea we can remove portions of the original canon. 

How do you know the KJV has included every word in the original canon? It is based on what the catholic church says as being correct in which case one then has to ask why you would not accept the apocrypha like they do.

 

Your argument on medical breakthroughs is irrelevant.  We are talking about what everyone claims is the Word of God.  We are not talking about advancements in science.  It has already been pointed out that all the NT manuscripts were available when the canon was established, so they were well aware of the concerns you made, yet they still established 66 books with all the contents and said this is it, the Biblical canon.

 

 if you think it is irrelevant then you are not reading what I'm saying properly. You have used the argument that because something was believed for a long time then it must be correct. I used the example to show something that was believed by christians for a long time and you would have believed as well if you lived in the 1600's or 1200's. It is a belief that only dissapeared from the church last century sadly. However if long established belief makes something right then you must logically follow that belief. If you choose not to then you can not rely on that argument.

 

 

I just went to check out the links, and I have already been there.  My answer is simple.  I don't care where the original text came from, once it was included in the canon, that's it.  If that is not the case, we have no canon, and anything goes.  People that believe that have no business saying anything about those who preach from the Apocrypha, dead sea scrolls or anything else.  Anything goes, because there is no established canon.  You have discredited it.  If you can remove part of the text, you can remove entire books or add books. 

 

Just to be clear I did not provide a link. You claimed the link was a good one and set things out well. So I simply wondered if you had actually looked at the link properly to find the error in the claim it makes. 

In any case when was the original text included in the canon? Why did previous views get decided as being wrong. Which KJV is correct? Is it the protestant version or the catholic version? What is wrong with making changes if a discovery is made that shows the understanding is wrong. That is what they did with the medical example I gave. They used to actually mention it by name. Now they no longer do.

[CurtisCWilson]

Amp, ESV, KJV  KJV mostly for memorizing scripture.

[other one]

this is the bible I use to really study

 

[another_poster]

We are talking about different things here.  You are stuck on the KJV Bible.  I am willing to move past that and say that I won't dismiss any Bible out of hand that includes the entire text that was originally established as part of the original canon.  Your comment about which KJV Bible is irrelevant to that, unless you are speaking in terms of the Apocrypha, and that carries no weight either, as it was not part of the canon.  It was in the center of the KJV Bible, but was not part of the canon.  The canon was comprised of 66 books and all of their contents.  I am not speaking of the Catholic canon, but the canon that was fully accepted by the protestant church.  It can be any translation that includes the entire text.  Again, church authorities got together and agreed upon a canon.  They had all the New Testament texts that are available today, yet they established that the canon includes all of Mark 16 as is found in the KJV Bible, while they rejected the latter part of the book of Esther.  There are no new discoveries, as Shiloh admitted, when it comes to the New Testament text, so that argument doesn't work either.  There were people that attempted to exclude books from the canon, like Luther who wanted some books taken out, but it was not successful.  Today, we have translators doing it on their own. 

 

I still consider your argument on medical breakthroughs irrelevant.  This is the established Word of God we are talking about.  If I accept what you are saying, nothing is absolute.  It would be quite proper for us to re-consider entire books that were included, and others that perhaps should be added.  We could have a legitimate discussion here at WB to decide on each book and whether it should be in the canon, and whether we should add other books.  Perhaps we should add Paul's letter to the Laodiceans, especially since it was mentioned in the Bible.  Was it an oversight leaving it out?  I personally like Ecclesiasticus.  Perhaps we should consider having it follow Proverbs.  If it is ok to remove part of Mark's gospel, why not at least consider it?  We can't keep living in the past.  I have actually heard people on talk shows that believe the dead sea scrolls are equal to scripture, and they teach them as doctrine.  What is wrong with this picture? 

 

If you do this, you are saying the Bible is not the inerrant Word of God and never was.  It is a collection of books that men decided should become the Bible, but they could be wrong.  They could be wrong about one book's inclusion and another book's exclusion.  They could be wrong about individual verses or complete passages.  No more Word of God.  Just a book with good ideas, and in the case of some people, perhaps bad and antiquated ideas. 

So the canon was determined by the catholic church and when they say the apocrypha is part of that then you reject that and instead go to what was later decided by protestants. It doesn't make sense to me. The canon was decided on before the KJV was decided on. The original texts also do not include something which the website provided by coheir critcises other translations for not including. So the KJV doesn't keep strictly to original texts in that regard either. 

 

If you are going to reject the point I made using medical breakthrough as an example as irrelevant could you at least explain why. See i think you are missing what I am saying. I am simply saying that arguing that because something has been believed for a long time that it must be correct is not a valid argument. 

[Qnts2]

 

We are talking about different things here.  You are stuck on the KJV Bible.  I am willing to move past that and say that I won't dismiss any Bible out of hand that includes the entire text that was originally established as part of the original canon.  Your comment about which KJV Bible is irrelevant to that, unless you are speaking in terms of the Apocrypha, and that carries no weight either, as it was not part of the canon.  It was in the center of the KJV Bible, but was not part of the canon.  The canon was comprised of 66 books and all of their contents.  I am not speaking of the Catholic canon, but the canon that was fully accepted by the protestant church.  It can be any translation that includes the entire text.  Again, church authorities got together and agreed upon a canon.  They had all the New Testament texts that are available today, yet they established that the canon includes all of Mark 16 as is found in the KJV Bible, while they rejected the latter part of the book of Esther.  There are no new discoveries, as Shiloh admitted, when it comes to the New Testament text, so that argument doesn't work either.  There were people that attempted to exclude books from the canon, like Luther who wanted some books taken out, but it was not successful.  Today, we have translators doing it on their own. 

 

I still consider your argument on medical breakthroughs irrelevant.  This is the established Word of God we are talking about.  If I accept what you are saying, nothing is absolute.  It would be quite proper for us to re-consider entire books that were included, and others that perhaps should be added.  We could have a legitimate discussion here at WB to decide on each book and whether it should be in the canon, and whether we should add other books.  Perhaps we should add Paul's letter to the Laodiceans, especially since it was mentioned in the Bible.  Was it an oversight leaving it out?  I personally like Ecclesiasticus.  Perhaps we should consider having it follow Proverbs.  If it is ok to remove part of Mark's gospel, why not at least consider it?  We can't keep living in the past.  I have actually heard people on talk shows that believe the dead sea scrolls are equal to scripture, and they teach them as doctrine.  What is wrong with this picture? 

 

If you do this, you are saying the Bible is not the inerrant Word of God and never was.  It is a collection of books that men decided should become the Bible, but they could be wrong.  They could be wrong about one book's inclusion and another book's exclusion.  They could be wrong about individual verses or complete passages.  No more Word of God.  Just a book with good ideas, and in the case of some people, perhaps bad and antiquated ideas. 

So the canon was determined by the catholic church and when they say the apocrypha is part of that then you reject that and instead go to what was later decided by protestants. It doesn't make sense to me. The canon was decided on before the KJV was decided on. The original texts also do not include something which the website provided by coheir critcises other translations for not including. So the KJV doesn't keep strictly to original texts in that regard either. 

 

If you are going to reject the point I made using medical breakthrough as an example as irrelevant could you at least explain why. See i think you are missing what I am saying. I am simply saying that arguing that because something has been believed for a long time that it must be correct is not a valid argument. 

 

 

Just a point of information. The aprocrypha are non-canonical books which were added to the OT. While you are claiming the first canon was determined by the catholic church, that is not historically true. For the OT, the first group to determine what was canon scripture was Judaism, and Judaism rejected the apocrypha hundreds of years before the Catholic church, so the catholic church included what had already been rejected. Protestants agree with Judaism, So Protestants did not later decide to reject biblical books, but rather agreed with Judaism.  

[other one]

I remember seeing that web-site before.  What is the name of it, and can you provide a link?  Thanks. 

it's a Bible program, its not on the web.....   there may be one on line that I am not aware of......   it was kind of pricy at the time I bought it, I don't have a clue what it costs now.   It's Bible Soft's "PC study Bible"   I have version 4, but that is several years old, but since the Bible really isn't changing I figure why update.....   There are .

 

The part I posted is from the Nestle manuscripts, but the TR is a mouse click away.

a list of things in the Library::::

 

[Guest]

I just read your comments carefully, so I can make sure I am answering your question fully about medical advances. 

 

Your point is that just because something has been accepted as true, it can be wrong, as was the case with beliefs on mental illness. 

 

All that can mean is that if you are going to compare that to the canon, you must be saying it is possible that just because we believed for hundreds of years that 66 books and their content is the Word of God doesn't make it so. 

 

The Bible could be a bunch of man-made hogwash. 

 

If that is your point, I reject it. 

 

:thumbsup:

 

A Point

 

You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God that I command you. Deuteronomy 4:2 (ESV)

 

Or Two

 

Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.

 

Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. Proverbs 30:5-6

 

And A Fellow Can Either Believe

 

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

 

Or Not

 

What if some were unfaithful?

 

Does their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God?

 

By no means!

 

Let God be true though every one were a liar, as it is written,

 

“That you may be justified in your words,

and prevail when you are judged.” Romans 3:3-4 (ESV)

[another_poster]

Just a point of information. The aprocrypha are non-canonical books which were added to the OT. While you are claiming the first canon was determined by the catholic church, that is not historically true. For the OT, the first group to determine what was canon scripture was Judaism, and Judaism rejected the apocrypha hundreds of years before the Catholic church, so the catholic church included what had already been rejected. Protestants agree with Judaism, So Protestants did not later decide to reject biblical books, but rather agreed with Judaism.  

excellent point

[another_poster]

@ Another Poster, the Catholic Church doesn't hold to the entire KJV Apocrypha today, but they have removed half of those books.  The Apocrypha was never accepted by the protestant church as part of the canon.  I am not Catholic.  I am holding to the books, with their text, that the protestant church established as the canon. 

So there is nothing wrong with people deciding to make their own version of the canon despite you arguing the opposite. Got it. See the canon was already established before protestantism started. Therefore there should be no discusssion by protestantism as to what the canon contains. It already existed and therefore should be kept the same. I am aware you are not catholic but that makes no difference.

 

I don't care what the web-site says.  I didn't provide the web-site.  

 

but it is okay to add to the canon though in your opinion. Why is it okay to add but not take away? See the KJV adds words that were not in the texts they translated from.

 

 

I just read your comments carefully, so I can make sure I am answering your question fully about medical advances.  Your point is that just because something has been accepted as true, it can be wrong, as was the case with beliefs on mental illness.  All that can mean is that if you are going to compare that to the canon, you must be saying it is possible that just because we believed for hundreds of years that 66 books and their content is the Word of God doesn't make it so.  The Bible could be a bunch of man-made hogwash.  If that is your point, I reject it. 

 

pretty close that I was tempted just to leave it. My point was simply that the argument you used as evidence that the KJV and any other translations that contain the same material must be correct becuase it was believed for a long time is not a legitimate argument. I never said the bible is not the inspired word of God.