Which Bible Version can you recommend (KJV, NIV, NKJV, etc)

[Qnts2]

14 minutes ago, Ezra said:

Since there is a whole raft of anti-KJV propaganda, please look at what I quoted and tell us what these so-called "changes" are.  Making spellings and punctuation up-to-date is NOT changes to the text.  Or do you want me to quote even more to prove that all these attacks on the KJV are baloney?

I provided 2 sites which offer quotes. It is up to individuals to decide if they are changes.

I will also say that defining something as changed, in light of KJV onlyism, would depend on the variety of KJV onlyism. If you believe like Peter Ruckman, that the KJV is advanced revelation and is the final preserved word of God, then any need for changes are proof that Ruckman is wrong. If the KJV is a revelation from God, God would not need to alter spelling or punctuation. If the KJV corrects the original Hebrew or Greek, no change would be allowed and any need for a change would mean the KJV can not correct anything as it was not perfect.

[ccfromsc]

31 minutes ago, Ezra said:

Because Westcott and Hort did an excellent snow job in the 19th century.  They hated the Received Text and the KJV, so they elevated THE MOST CORRUPT manuscripts and called them THE BEST, and then made up a yarn about how the Received Text was corrupt!  And almost everyone bought this foolishness hook, line and sinker.  I have documentary evidence, so this is not merely an opinion.

Wescott & Hort were biblical scholars. They did not hate the Received Text. Do you even know what they did?

[saved34]

Lol its a shame that this thread has broke out into a KJV only debate. The KJV is a fine translation, maybe even the best in many areas, but it amounts to a hill of beans if the reader is lost on some of the way it reads. 

Many passages are just unnecessarily rendered in old english and could and should be brought out in modern english. The whole point is to get understanding of God's word. 

Whats more understandable?:

"For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.
2 Thessalonians 2:7 KJV"

"2 Thessalonians 2:7 NIV
For the secret power of lawlessness is already at work; but the one who now holds it back will continue to do so till he is taken out of the way."

Or how about this doozy?

"Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body; not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh.
Colossians 2:23 KJV"

"Colossians 2:23 NIV
Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence."

To me the most inportant thing is readability along with preservation of what God is lilterally saying to us. If the reader can grasp what God is saying to him or her in whatever language they speak, then they can hear and practice what God's word is telling them.

"Acts 2:6-11 NIV
When they heard this sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment, because each one heard their own language being spoken. [7] Utterly amazed, they asked: “Aren't all these who are speaking Galileans? [8] Then how is it that each of us hears them in our native language? [9] Parthians, Medes and Elamites; residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, [10] Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene; visitors from Rome [11] (both Jews and converts to Judaism); Cretans and Arabs---we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!”

I believe God has perserved his word through the many different versions and manuscripts. They are all doctrinally compatible despite the differences as far as missing verses or punctuation. At this point its an impossibility to add or corrupt doctrine. Any false doctrine at this point will be spotted as spurious and rejected by the Church, "the Pillar and ground of the truth".

[Ezra]

1 hour ago, Butero said:

If you examine their second link, they show minor changes, but they are changes. 

As from that link, there are just four verses which you could classify as "changed" (reflecting access to manuscripts not seen in 1611).  Here they are.  

CHANGED MEANING – 4 VERSES

Jeremiah 51:30 – “burnt their dwelling places” vs. “burned her dwellingplaces”

Ezekiel 24:7 – “powred it vpon the ground” vs. “poured it not upon the ground”

Ezekiel 6:8 – “that he may” vs. “that ye may”

Ezekiel 24:5 – “let him seethe” vs. “let them seethe”

=====================================

UNCHANGED MEANING

Joshua 3:11 – “Arke of the Couenant, euen the Lord” vs. “ark of the covenant of the Lord”

2 Kings 11:10 – “in the Temple” vs. “in the temple of the LORD”

Isaiah 49:13 – “for God” vs. “for the LORD”

Jeremiah 31:14 – “with goodnesse” vs. “with my goodness”

Ezekiel 48:8 – “which they shall” vs. “which ye shall”

Daniel 3:15 – “a fierie furnace” vs. “a burning fiery furnace”

Matthew 14:9 – “the othes sake” vs. “the oath’s sake” [spelling]

1 Corinthians 12:28 – “helpes in gouernmets” vs. “helps, governments”

1 Corinthians 15:6 – “And that” vs. “After that”

1 John 5:12 – “the Sonne, hath” vs. “the Son of God hath”

So essentially it is pure propaganda when compared to the THOUSANDS of difference between the KJV and the modern versions:

[Qnts2]

2 hours ago, Butero said:

It would only prove that the Authorized Version was not perfect.  It would not prove that my Bible of choice, the 1611 KJV Bible is not the perfectly preserved Word of God in English.  I have personally gone back to the original with no changes, and just learned to read the old spelling. 

Ok, To me what you wrote sounds like a contradiction. If the KJV 1611 translation is not perfect, then it can not be the perfectly preserved word of God in English.

[Qnts2]

4 minutes ago, Butero said:

I am comparing it to the Authorized Version.  They are not the same.  I am saying that I use a reprint of the original translation of 1611, and that I believe it to be the perfectly preserved Word of God in English, not the Authorized Version.  As such, all of those minor changes you are referring to have no bearing on my Bible.  I can't prove it is absolutely perfect, so I am just saying that is how I view it. 

The Authorized Version is another name for the KJV. So ignoring the term 'authorized version', you believe that the cleaned up 1611 KJV is perfect?

[Qnts2]

2 minutes ago, Butero said:

The 1611 Edition KJV Bible is not the same as the Authorized King James Version Bible.  I have a copy of both.  What you and others have been doing is showing changes that occurred in the KJV Bible from 1611 to what we have today, and I am saying that I am not holding to what we have today as perfect.  I am holding to the original 1611 Edition as perfect without those changes.  If you go back a few posts, you can see an example I used of how John 3:16 looks in the 1611 Edition as compared to the Authorized Version. 

I'll repeat what I said. You are arguing against the standard use of a term. Authorized version refers to the fact that King James authorized the translation from Greek and Hebrew into English, so the KJV is consistently referred to as the AV. The translation started in 1604 and was completed in 1611. If you believe that translation completed in 1611 is perfect, then you have an issue as there have been corrections to spelling and grammar, as well as others. 

[Qnts2]

7 minutes ago, Butero said:

There have been no corrections to spelling or grammar in my Bible.  When I post, I will generally use the Authorized Version, which I admit is slightly less than perfect as there are minute changes that have taken place, but when I am wanting the most reliable translation for my personal use, I use the 1611 KJV Bible.  They are not the same.  I have a copy of both of them side by side right now.  One is called "The Holy Bible, 1611 Edition, King James Version"  The other one is the King James Version: 1873 Edition.  I can give you numerous examples of how they differ.  I will use one of my favorite verses.  First, the 1611, KJV Bible.

Romanes VIII:28  And wee know that all things worke together for good, to them that loue God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.

Romans 8:28  And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.

The first example was from the 1611 King James Version, and the second from the 1873 Authorized King James Version.  I am saying that I believe the first edition that was completed is the perfect English translation.  The other one is close enough where I have no problem using it for posting or things like that, but the perfect version is the 1611 Edition. 

 

Good grief. Now go to the list of changes to make sure you actually get a verse which had a spelling error or other kind of error and was changed.

The following are corrections in the book of Matthew

	4:25	great great	great
	5:47	do you	do ye
	8:25	awoke, saying	awoke him, saying
	21:20	away?	away!
	26:34	might	night

[Qnts2]

http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611-Bible/

Matthew 4:25 And there followed him great great multitudes of people, from Galilee, and from Decapolis, and from Hierusalem, and from Iudea, and from beyond Iordane.

The duplicated 'great great' was an error and in corrected versions the second great was eliminated. In the original Greek, the word translated as 'great' only occurs once in the Textus Receptus. 

 

[Qnts2]

5 minutes ago, Butero said:

Here is how it appears in my 1611 Bible.

IV :25  And there followed him great great multitudes of people, from Galilee, and from Decapolis, and from Hierusalem, and from Judea, and from beyond Iordane.

V :47 And if yee salute your brethren only, what do you more then others?  Doe not euen the Publicanes so?

VII :25  And his Disciples came to him, and awoke, saying, Lord, saue vs:  we perish.

XXI :20  And when the Disciples saw it, they marueiled, saying, How soone is the figge tree withered away?

XXVI :34 Iesus said vnto him, Verily I say vnto thee, that this might before the cocke crow, thou shalt denie me thrise. 

You can see my Bible hasn't had any changes, but here is the thing.  These are not translation errors.  They are typos and punctuation errors done by the printers.  The original manuscripts didn't even have punctuation.  We use that in English.  To fix a spelling error is not to correct a translation error.  I am saying the job of translation was perfect.  That doesn't mean someone couldn't make a typo in copying it.  It is obvious that the translators didn't intend for something like "great great" to appear or they didn't mean to mix up might for night.  I knew that when I read it.  I am saying the translation itself was perfect. 

You said the 1611 KJV was perfect. Typos and punctuation errors are not perfect. Duplicated words are not perfect. That is why corrections had to be made, because the 1611 was not perfect.