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

[ghtan]

17 hours ago, other one said:

Considering Satan pretty much runs roughshod over the power structure of thebworld, I would say a conspiracy is not out of the question.

Ha! Ha! If you believe that, you'd believe anything. Wouldn't it be far more simple for the devil to mislead the translator of one bible version that many christians worship? It seems to be working...

[other one]

1 minute ago, ghtan said:

Ha! Ha! If you believe that, you'd believe anything. Wouldn't it be far more simple for the devil to mislead the translator of one bible version that many christians worship? It seems to be working...

Ha! Ha! you seem not to have much of an understanding of Satan, what he's capable of, and what he's up to....

[ghtan]

7 hours ago, Butero said:

The only reason those manuscripts were older is because they were not in use.  Those that were in use would naturally have to be continuously copied.  That means that simply saying they were older means nothing.  There is no way all of those verses in the T.R. are the result of scribal additions to the text.  To believe that, you have to think they wrote most of the last chapter of Mark 16.  It is not text that clarifies something.  It is a continuation of the story.  1 John 5:7 is the only example of any verses found in the KJV that was not found in most of the manuscripts.  In every other case, all of the other manuscripts included those entire verses except for the Egyptian and Alexandrian manuscripts, so these people ignored that fact and left anything out that was not in those two. 

As for 1 John 5:7, I reject that as having been a scribal edition.  Even though it was not in the majority of the manuscripts, when the canon was established, it was determined to be part of the text.  To remove a single verse after establishing the canon is to cease to have a closed canon.  That means we have an open canon that can be changed upon the next discovery of manuscripts that leave out portions of the text or perhaps have additional text. 

Responding to what I highlighted above. Don't know how to do multiple quotes.

Is it true that all other mss include the missing verses except the Egyptian and Alexandrian ones? I find that hard to believe. Take the case of Mark 15:28. Unless I am reading it wrong, Nestle Aland says it is also missing in the Beza Codex, which is a Western text. If that is correct, then what you claim is plainly wrong.

I am not suggesting that ALL those missing verses are due to scribal additions but that SOME of them are likely to be. The onus is on you to prove that NONE of them are, otherwise the KJV is not perfect. Can you do that?

The clearest case is that of 1 John 5:7. It is no use you simply rejecting what is likely a scribal addition. You must explain why the early church fathers did not quote it against those who oppose the doctrine of the Trinity when it would have been the best scriptural proof text in favour of it. The obvious implication is that the verse did not exist in the text of 1 John at that time; it was added later. And the KJV continues to propagate that error...

[Qnts2]

13 hours ago, Butero said:

The point is that none of the text could be removed after the canon was completed whenever that occurred.  If you have a passage like Mark 16:9-20, and it was canon when the canon was closed, it should be eternally canon.  That is the point, whether it be the 1611 KJV, the Authorized KJV, or the NKJV.  By the way, the T.R. was just the accepted manuscripts that were considered scripture.  It is the exact same text that was used going back to the early church, but it is just the name given to those particular copies.  It wasn't written in the 1500s.  It was a copy from the 1500s of something already in existence.  Nice try.

Yes, the Textus Receptus was compiled in the 1500s, from scraps of manuscripts they found at that time. Prior to the Textus Receptus, the only complete NT was the Latin Vulgate. At the time the Textus Receptus was compiled, there seems to have been a lot of activity to translate the bible into English. Anyway, the 1500s is an accurate date. With the scraps of manuscripts, for some sections, they had to rely on the Latin vulgate as they did not have all of the scriptures in the other partials so had to translate from Latin back to Greek to fill in the gaps. So, it was not the same text used by the early church.

Since that time, additional Greek sections have been found, and some much older then were used for the Textus Receptus.

[ccfromsc]

On 4/17/2016 at 6:23 PM, Butero said:

If being able to easily understand the text is your issue, why not turn to the modern translation that doesn't have a lesbian translator and didn't create a gender neutral abomination called the TNIV?  Why not use the NKJV Bible?  At least it doesn't leave out any of the text.  They are not compatible when they leave out verses.  That is completely ludicrous.  They are completely different.  They also discredit the supposedly closed canon. 

One she was not a translator, two she handled the english syntax.

 

Scripture Reference	KJV	NIV
Matt 9:28, Matt 13:36, Matt 17:20,  Matt 17:22, Matt 18:2, Matt 24:2,  Mark 5:13, Mark 7:27, Mark 11:14,  Mark 14:18, Luke 7:22, John 4:16,  John 4:46, John 8:20, John 9:1,  John 11:14, John 11:39, John 20:15,  John 21:5	Jesus	he
2 Cor 4:11	Jesus	his
Matt 8:29	Jesus, thou Son of God	Son of God
Matt 16:20	Jesus the Christ	the Christ
Romans 15:8, 2 Cor 4:6, 2 Cor 5:18	Jesus Christ	Christ
Col 1:28, Phile 1:6, 1 Pet 5:10,  1 Pet 5:14	Christ Jesus	Christ
Luke 7:19, Luke 10:39, Luke 10:41	Jesus	the Lord
Acts 19:10, 1 Cor 5:5	Lord Jesus	Lord
Rom 16:18	Lord Jesus Christ	Lord Christ
1 Cor 16:22, 2 Tim 4:22	Lord Jesus Christ	Lord
John 19:38	the body of Jesus	the body
Acts 3:26	Son Jesus	servant
Rom 1:3	Son Jesus Christ our Lord	Son
Acts 7:45, Heb 4:8  (Jesus,Joshua: What's the difference?)	Jesus	Joshua
Acts 8:37, Romans 16:24, Col 1:2	Jesus	[not present, but it is in the footnote]
John 21:21, Acts 9:29, Gal 6:15,  Eph 3:9, Eph 3:14	Jesus	[not present

 

[ccfromsc]

OK here is some more:

 

Scripture Reference(s)	KJV	NIV
Matt 4:4, Matt 4:19, Matt 4:21,  Matt 8:24, Matt 9:1, Matt 11:20,  Matt 12:22, Matt 12:46, Matt 13:24,  Matt 15:3, Matt 15:10, Matt 15:23,  Matt 15:39, Matt 16:4, Matt 16:23,  Matt 19:8, Matt 19:11, Matt 19:17,  Matt 20:23, Matt 21:10, Matt 21:23,  Matt 22:34, Matt 24:3, Matt 26:20,  Matt 26:23, Matt 26:25, Matt 27:3,  Matt 27:14, Mark 1:10, Mark 1:16,  Mark 1:21, Mark 1:35, Mark 1:38,  Mark 1:43, Mark 2:4, Mark 2:13,  Mark 2:14, Mark 2:23, Mark 3:3,  Mark 3:4, Mark 3:13, Mark 3:23,  Mark 4:1, Mark 4:9, Mark 4:13,  Mark 4:33, Mark 4:28, Mark 5:2,  Mark 5:8, Mark 5:9, Mark 5:18,  Mark 5:32, Mark 5:35, Mark 5:38,  Mark 6:1, Mark 6:6, Mark 6:39,  Mark 6:45, Mark 7:14, Mark 7:24,  Mark 7:31, Mark 7:33, Mark 7:36,  Mark 8:5, Mark 8:15, Mark 8:23,  Mark 8:25, Mark 8:26, Mark 8:30,  Mark 8:33, Mark 9:9, Mark 9:12,  Mark 9:19, Mark 9:21, Mark 9:28,  Mark 9:30, Mark 9:35, Mark 10:1,  Mark 10:17, Mark 10:46, Mark 11:1,  Mark 11:12, Mark 11:27, Mark 12:15,  Mark 12:28, Mark 12:38, Mark 12:43,  Mark 13:3, Mark 14:16, Mark 14:17,  Mark 14:32, Mark 14:61, Mark 15:2,  Mark 15:44, Mark 16:11, Mark 16:12,  Mark 16:14, Luke 4:23, Luke 4:38,  Luke 4:42, Luke 5:12, Luke 5:13,  Luke 5:14, Luke 5:16, Luke 5:20,  Luke 5:27 (twice), Luke 5:34, Luke 6:1,  Luke 6:5, Luke 6:8, Luke 6:12,  Luke 7:1, Luke 7:11, Luke 7:15,  Luke 7:21, Luke 7:24, Luke 7:43,  Luke 7:48, Luke 7:50, Luke 8:1,  Luke 8:22, Luke 8:27, Luke 8:29,  Luke 8:42, Luke 8:49, Luke 8:52,  Luke 8:55, Luke 9:1, Luke 9:18,  Luke 9:21, Luke 9:28, Luke 9:51,  Luke 9:55, Luke 10:28, Luke 11:1,  Luke 11:14, Luke 11:17, Luke 11:27,  Luke 11:29, Luke 11:37, Luke 11:38,  Luke 11:46, Luke 11:53, Luke 12:1,  Luke 12:14, Luke 12:22, Luke 13:10,  Luke 13:18, Luke 13:22, Luke 14:1,  Luke 14:12, Luke 14:16, Luke 15:3,  Luke 15:11, Luke 16:1, Luke 17:1,  Luke 17:11, Luke 17:20, Luke 18:1,  Luke 18:9, Luke 18:27, Luke 18:29,  Luke 18:31, Luke 18:35, Luke 19:4,  Luke 19:28, Luke 20:17, Luke 20:41,  Luke 20:45, Luke 21:1, Luke 21:5,  Luke 21:37, Luke 22:8, Luke 22:13,  Luke 22:14, Luke 22:25, Luke 22:34,  Luke 22:35, Luke 22:39, Luke 22:67,  Luke 23:3, Luke 23:7, Luke 23:9,  Luke 24:28, Luke 24:35, John 9:22,  John 11:43, John 11:57, John 12:9,  John 12:37, John 13:28, John 18:6,  John 19:41, John 20:9, John 21:15,  John 21:16 (twice), John 21:17, John 21:19,  Acts 1:22, Acts 9:20, Hebrews 2:11,  Hebrews 7:24, Hebrews 8:6, 1 John 2:6,  1 John 3:16	he	Jesus
Matt 8:31, Matt 9:32, Matt 12:10,  Matt 12:14, Matt 14:35, Matt 16:1,  Matt 17:3, Matt 17:14, Matt 18:21,  Matt 19:13, Matt 19:16, Matt 20:20,  Matt 21:7, Matt 26:62, Matt 27:18,  Matt 27:34, Matt 27:48, Mark 1:30,  Mark 1:32, Mark 1:34, Mark 2:4,  Mark 2:18, Mark 3:2, Mark 3:6,  Mark 5:10, Mark 5:12, Mark 5:17,  Mark 5:22, Mark 6:54, Mark 7:1,  Mark 7:5, Mark 7:26, Mark 8:11,  Mark 8:22, Mark 9:15, Mark 9:20,  Mark 10:10, Mark 10:13, Mark 11:21,  Mark 12:13, Mark 14:1, Mark 14:10,  Mark 14:45, Mark 14:46, Mark 14:51,  Mark 15:10, Mark 15:16, Mark 15:22,  Mark 15:36, Mark 15:39, Luke 4:38,  Luke 4:40, Luke 5:1, Luke 5:18,  Luke 5:29, Luke 6:7, Luke 7:17,  Luke 7:20, Luke 7:36, Luke 8:4,  Luke 8:32, Luke 8:37, Luke 9:10,  Luke 10:25, Luke 13:1, Luke 13:31,  Luke 14:15, Luke 14:25, Luke 16:14,  Luke 18:15, Luke 18:43, Luke 19:39,  Luke 20:27, Luke 22:2, Luke 22:4,  Luke 22:6, Luke 22:66, Luke 23:3,  Luke 23:55, John 1:40, John 7:43,  John 8:4, John 10:42, John 11:3,  John 13:2, John 19:12, John 19:32,  Acts 3:16, Acts 13:27, Hebrews 13:15	him	Jesus
Luke 20:20, Acts 3:16, Acts 13:24	his	Jesus
Matt 17:24, Matt 20:29, Luke 10:38	they	Jesus and his disciples
2 Cor 11:4	whom	Jesus
Acts 10:48	the Lord	Jesus Christ
Acts 18:25	the Lord	Jesus
Mark 16:19, 2 Thess 2:8	Lord	Lord Jesus
Acts 16:7	Spirit	Spirit of Jesus
Acts 24:24, Romans 8:34, 1 Cor 4:17,  Gal 5:24, Eph 3:6, Col 4:12	Christ	Christ Jesus
Acts 9:22	this	Jesus
Acts 13:38, Heb 3:3	this man	Jesus
Mark 3:20, Mark 7:19,  Luke 9:31, John 10:40	[not present]	Jesus
Romans 1:4	[not present]	Jesus Christ our Lord
Jude 1:25	[not present]	through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages

 

 

[ghtan]

13 hours ago, Butero said:

I am just going to give a brief response to this for now.  According to my source, a NKJV Bible printed by Thomas Nelson publishers, Mark 15:28 is part of the majority text.  The Alexandrian and Egyptian text leave it out.  In the case of 1 John 5:7, it is found in 5 late manuscripts, but is not in the majority of the manuscripts.  My position is that every jot and tittle found in the KJV belongs, including 1 John 5:7, and there is no way you or anyone else can prove it was a scribal edition.  That is nothing but speculation.  The onus is not on me to defend something being included that was part of the Bible from the first English translation, the Geneva Bible, all the way up to late in the 20Th century with the influx of numerous modern English translations that all use the same source, the Egyptian and Alexandrian text.  I would say the onus is on them to prove those verses don't belong before they remove them, and they cannot do that.  The KJV is not propagating any errors.  1 John 5:7 is Holy scripture, and once again, there is no way to prove it is not. 

Sometime back, I was in a debate with another member of WB in the Soap Box on this topic, which was basically a draw.  The thread mysteriously disappeared, and I have been desiring to find someone to debate on this topic in the Soap Box.  The more I look into this subject, the more evidence I have compiled to show the modern translations are not to be trusted, and I believe I am now able to not only fight to a draw, but to discredit the modern translations.  I just need someone as confident of themselves on the other side to go up against.  I don't want someone who can be easily defeated, because I want it to be known I have defeated the best possible representative of the new translations.  I don't know if that is you or not, but you seem so sure of yourself, perhaps it is.  Maybe it would be Qnts2?  It really doesn't matter to me, but I would like to take on your version of Goliath.  We have been going around in circles too long at WB on this subject.  I want to destroy the credibility of the new translations once and for all, to where only those who want to be deceived will accept them.  This is an open challenge to anyone. 

By the way, to you or anyone else that wants to continue the slanderous accusation KJV only folks worship a book, I would suggest you worship a host of false gods, the multitude of modern translations.  The way people on your side gush over how wonderful they are along with the brilliant translators is almost sickening.  If we are idol worshippers worshipping one false god, you are idol worshippers worshipping a multitude of false gods.  Just making a point.  Obviously, I don't believe anyone on either side are idol worshippers, but if KJV only folks are, then defenders of modern translations certainly are. 

As to the comments by Qnts2, every English Bible back to the Geneva Bible contained the verses now being left out.  All those verses were considered Holy Scripture till late in the 20th century with the rise of the modern translations.  They were even included in the 1979 NKJV Bible and the New American Standard Bible.  I am going to have to verify that, and  see if the American Standard Bible still includes the verses in question.  I guess I have another Bible to purchase.  Regardless, when modern translators come along and remove part of the established text, it discredits the Bible and the canon.  A precedent was set, and in the future, if there are new discoveries, they are free to delete even more scripture.  I am going to continue to stand against any Bible that removes portions of the text.  Once again, these passages stood the test of time, and were preached from pulpits with full confidence from the earliest English translation all the way up to late in the 20th century.  The onus is on the modern translators to defend this practice, which they have not done.  I have read the opinion of people defending and opposing what they did, and the excuses hold no water.  As a matter of fact, I was amazed at some of the verses that were removed when a complete list was compiled.  Just that alone proves we are not dealing with scribal additions.  My open challenge applies to you to Qnts2, as I feel like you would give me a serious fight. 

I find it amazing that you would invite others to enter a debate when the only argument you keep presenting about those missing verses is that they are in the KJV and that the latter must be correct. I doubt your invitation would interest anyone; it certainly does not interest me.

Btw, I checked the Codex Beza and sure enough it does NOT have Mark 15:28. So your claim - that all mss other than the Alexandrian ones reflect the missing verses - is patently false. You really should not make such bold claims. You may mislead those who are less well informed.

As for 1 John 5:7, even the Scofield Reference Bible, which is based on the KJV, admits that the verse is an insertion. Evidently, there are those who like the KJV but with the good sense to know that it is not perfect. Those like me who like other translations do not claim our preferred translations are perfect; so we cannot be accused of worshiping them.  

Thanks for the conversation anyway.  

[saved34]

On 4/18/2016 at 0:17 AM, Butero said:

I didn't say no Christian doctrine is missing.  Doctrine only means something that is taught, and the entire New Testament is Christian doctrine, but I am not suggesting there is so much left out you couldn't figure out the plan of salvation.  If that is all anyone is looking for, all they need is a Bible tract or a church manual of basic doctrine.  They don't need to have a Bible because that is not what they are looking for.  They aren't interested in being a student of the Word.  They just want to know how to be reconciled to the Father through his Son Jesus Christ.  You can lead a person to the Lord without a Bible, but if you are a student of scripture, and you want to know what thus saith the Lord about everything, I would think you would want a Bible with the complete text.  Most people that are saved today didn't just buy a Bible, read it and get saved.  Most people had an instructor bring them the plan of salvation, and they only got a Bible to learn more about God afterward.  If all this is about is how to get saved, the easiest method is to go down to the Christian Book store and buy tracts. 

So now the new versions only teach the plan of salvation? Lol ok. I am going to ask for the 20th time to any and all hardcore Kjv onlyist, what fundamental Christian doctrine is missing? I'm not just talking about the plan of Salvation(which is the most important) what else? The Lord's Deity, his humanity, the Virgin birth, the blood atonement? What? 

[ccfromsc]

11 hours ago, Butero said:

The original NIV wasn't gender neutral.  The gender neutral TNIV is where they were trying to take us, and where they eventually did take us.  They had an agenda from the start.  That is what I said.  Your list was a complete waste of everyone's time.  No matter her exact job, there was a lesbian involved in the making of the NIV which you have just admitted.

The original KJV had a "he" version and a "she" version.....

[ccfromsc]

11 hours ago, Butero said:

later does nothing to prove you to be right.  There is one thing that may be useful about it.  The idea of gender neutral is that they stop referencing God as male, and even in what you posted, most references to God as male are changed.  One might say, so what?  It changes he to Jesus.  What is the big deal?  The big deal is what is behind the changes and whether or not the original Greek manuscripts used the word that would translate to he or to Jesus.  Even if something would seemingly not change the meaning, or would even clarify something, that doesn't justify making changes that weren't in the original text.  If this was done for clarity, at least I could give them credit for being well intentioned, but that is not why they made the changes.  We know what their agenda was. 

No what was their agenda as you put it? You never answered my posts earlier on Wescott & Hort, Which were ministers in the church. The KJV has a lot of the "Alexandrian"texts involved in it. So this conspiracy stuff is for the birds.