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

[Lavender]

11 hours ago, Butero said:

The NKJV Bible is in modern English, so what is the problem.  This seems like a good compromise between the KJV only and those who want something easy to understand.  Who is really being rigid here? 

Butero, I'm buying a NKJV next week.  I used BibleGateway yesterday and did a split screen comparison between NIV, NKJV and KJV from John Chapter 3 (NIV being my current bible).  I had no problems reading what was written in the NKJV.  I then compared the NKJV and the KJV and that helped me to learn what a couple of the old English words meant.  In the future I hope to also get a KJV and do the side by side reading as kwikphilly suggested.

[Snow]

12 minutes ago, Lavender said:

Butero, I'm buying a NKJV next week.  I used BibleGateway yesterday and did a split screen comparison between NIV, NKJV and KJV from John Chapter 3 (NIV being my current bible).  I had no problems reading what was written in the NKJV.  I then compared the NKJV and the KJV and that helped me to learn what a couple of the old English words meant.  In the future I hope to also get a KJV and do the side by side reading as kwikphilly suggested.

Hi Lavender

I think this is great advice, read on line the different versions first before buying..Praise the Lord

God bless

[ccfromsc]

12 hours ago, Butero said:

Why do we KJV only people step in when the devil is having such a good time spreading lies?  I do so to defend the truth.  The fact of the matter is that the church had an accepted text that was considered the Holy Bible, and a canon was established stating that 66 books and their contents were the Word of God.

*******But in so doing you denegrate other translations as by your statement here and following diatribe.

  There was a discovery down the road of manuscripts found preserved in caves.  These manuscripts were incomplete in that they left out portions of the established text.  The modern English translators jumped on them like they had found a new toy.  They fell in love with them above the manuscripts that were in use.  They all abandoned the Textus Receptus and started using these shiny new manuscripts as the starting point for their translations.  If they left something out, so did the translators, and they would simply claim that the "most reliable manuscripts leave out..."  They never say on what basis they are more reliable.  I had asked many why they were considered more reliable, and nobody knew.  Were they on time for work each day, while the others came in late?  Were they the first in and last to leave, while the others called in sick a lot?  What did the term "most reliable" mean?  It turns out that it was just their favorite, period.  If it is acceptable to take part of the text out, then the canon is discredited.  It is as simple as that.  I could claim John 3:16 or any other verse doesn't belong and I could add books or verses that were not in the canon.  This is important whether the modern English translation defenders like my pointing it out or not. 

Everything I said can be shown to be true.  As for all these so-called revisions in the KJV Bible, that is a lie too.  You had one KJV translation, the 1611 version.  The spelling is in old English and it uses Roman numerals which can be confusing to some.  As a result, the Authorized version came along that changed the spelling to more like we use today.  I have nothing to hide.  I recommend you get a 1611 KJV Bible and compare it.  It is my Bible of choice, but I admit it is difficult to read, and because of that, I use the Authorized KJV Bible when I post scripture.  The so called revisions are mostly  printing errors that were corrected.  The publisher might have made a spelling error in a copy of the Bible, and it would be corrected in the next edition.  They didn't have the ability to quickly and easily mass produce books as they do today, so those kind of mistakes were more common, but they had zero to do with changes in the translation.  The translation is what it is.  20 revisions with 3000 words added and deleted is a lie.  How about producing those 3000 words ccfromsc?  Are you including the Apocrypha that was completely removed from our Bible because it was never considered scripture?  I would like to see these added and deleted words.  I have a 1611 KJV Bible in my possession, so I will be looking to verify each claim you make. 

Beware of those who promote modern English translations 

I said 30,000 verses.

Which KJV Bible was God’s perfectly preserved translation in English? The one in 1611 or one of the revisions in 1613, 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1769, or the last one in 1850? Please specify which one.

What was God’s perfectly preserved translation in English before 1611? Please be specific in your answer.

If there was a perfectly preserved translation in English before 1611 why would God need to perfectly preserve a second one if the first one was perfectly preserved? Please give details and sources for these details.

If there was no perfectly preserved translation in English before 1611 why would God leave His people no perfectly preserved Word for 1611 years? Please give details and sources for these details.

Where does the Bible teach that God will perfectly preserve His Word in the form of one seventeenth-century English translation? Please give specific verses with proper exegesis and hermeneutics.

 

[Ezra]

1 hour ago, ccfromsc said:

Which KJV Bible was God’s perfectly preserved translation in English? The one in 1611 or one of the revisions in 1613, 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1769, or the last one in 1850? Please specify which one.

Since I have a reprint of the 1611 edition, rest assured that this is a strawman argument.  Let's compare a passage (John 3:14-21) and see that other then minor spelling and punctuation difference, we have the same Bible:

1611 AD

14¶ And as Moses lifted vp the serpent in the wildernesse: euen so must the Sonne of man be lifted vp:

15 That whosoeuer beleeueth in him, should not perish, but haue eternall life.

16¶ For God so loued þ^e world, that he gaue his only begotten Sonne: that whosoeuer beleeueth in him, should not perish, but haue euerlasting life.

17 For God sent not his Sonne into the world to condemne the world: but that the world through him might be saued.

2016 AD

14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:

15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

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.

17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

[Qnts2]

14 minutes ago, Ezra said:

Since I have a reprint of the 1611 edition, rest assured that this is a strawman argument.  Let's compare a passage (John 3:14-21) and see that other then minor spelling and punctuation difference, we have the same Bible:

1611 AD

14¶ And as Moses lifted vp the serpent in the wildernesse: euen so must the Sonne of man be lifted vp:

 

15 That whosoeuer beleeueth in him, should not perish, but haue eternall life.

 

16¶ For God so loued þ^e world, that he gaue his only begotten Sonne: that whosoeuer beleeueth in him, should not perish, but haue euerlasting life.

 

17 For God sent not his Sonne into the world to condemne the world: but that the world through him might be saued.

 

2016 AD

14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:

 

15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

 

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.

 

17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

 

I am quoting a web sites which has a pretty good list of changes. I am not sure if these are complete or not.

http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon10.html

https://rickbeckman.org/kjv-1611-vs-1769/

Of course the original 1611 KJV was in old English with a very difficult type font to understand.  

[ghtan]

18 hours ago, Butero said:

I will answer that.  It is not only more likely that the majority of those translations are wrong, but it is an absolute fact that the majority placing them in footnotes are wrong.  The reason they are wrong is because they are using a flawed foundation.  The KJV translators used the manuscripts that were in use as the basis for their translation.  That was the Textus Receptus.  The modern translations are using manuscripts that were discovered in caves that leave out portions of the original text.  In the NIV, they keep referring to them as "the most reliable manuscripts," but they never tell you what they are or why they are supposedly more reliable.  It turns out that they are the Alexandrian and Egyptian manuscripts.  Those two manuscripts are incomplete, but nearly all modern translations use them as their starting point.  The majority of known manuscripts out there include all the verses in the KJV Bible, but the modern translations ignore that and leave out anything not found in those two incomplete manuscripts.  When I bought a NKJV Bible to make a comparison, I noticed it tells you exactly what manuscripts include what verses.  You are absolutely wrong in what you are saying, and your position is not logical at all. 

Why do nearly all translators start with the Alexandrian and Egyptian mss (highlighted above)? Were all of them too ignorant to know any better? Or is there a conspiracy going on? Logic dictates that they, being experts in their field, start with those mss because they all recognise that those are the better mss. And it stands to reason. Since those mss are older, they are likely to have accumulated fewer copying errors and scribal additions than later mss. I believe I am right in saying that the mss that KJV is based on are more than 500 years later than those Alexandrian and Egyptian mss. Imagine how many more copying errors and scribal additions would have accumulated in those years. And perhaps the clearest of these is 1 John 5:7.        

[other one]

5 hours ago, ghtan said:

Why do nearly all translators start with the Alexandrian and Egyptian mss (highlighted above)? Were all of them too ignorant to know any better? Or is there a conspiracy going on? 

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

[hmbld]

12 hours ago, Qnts2 said:

I am quoting a web sites which has a pretty good list of changes. I am not sure if these are complete or not.

http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon10.html

https://rickbeckman.org/kjv-1611-vs-1769/

Of course the original 1611 KJV was in old English with a very difficult type font to understand.  

When reading from your second link posted, It seems the very thing kjv only folks are against, has happened with the kjv text.  

[Ezra]

14 hours ago, Qnts2 said:

I am quoting a web sites which has a pretty good list of changes. I am not sure if these are complete or not.

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?

[Ezra]

10 hours ago, ghtan said:

Why do nearly all translators start with the Alexandrian and Egyptian mss (highlighted above)?

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.