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

[saved34]

1 hour ago, Butero said:

And I am going to tell you that it doesn't matter if a single doctrine you consider important is missing.  They had no business removing any scripture.  Most people don't get a Bible to learn how to be saved.  They get saved and get a Bible to learn about God.  They need the whole council of the Word of God, not just selected portions you think are important.  So what if you don't consider it important that someone might need to pray and fast before facing a person who is demon possessed?  That could prove to be very important to them.  Who are you to say some scriptures are not important?  You could probably remove all of the Psalms and not remove anything you are suggesting, but I want the Psalms.  This is a crazy argument on your part, and since you asked your question, I must ask why the need to defend translations that remove portions of scripture?  You have a modern English translation that doesn't, so why not use it? 

Once again, I cannot get an answer to a direct question. You cannot point to any single Christian doctrine that is missing. Not just salvation, but any truth of the Christian faith. 

The only doctrine I can't find is the kjv as the only Bible we should read. I love it but its not the defacto English Bible. I do highly recommend it though

[ccfromsc]

On 4/18/2016 at 11:29 PM, 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.

The TR is not the only set of biblical documents. It also does not mean others that are not are corrupted or wrong. Ever heard of the Orthodox church? What bible do they use? Do you even know? Why do you spread discontent, confusion and discord?

[ccfromsc]

On 4/20/2016 at 5:25 AM, Butero said:

What I said was the majority text contains Mark 15:28.  The codex beza is not a complete work by itself.  That entire statement by you is misleading and it hardly shows you to be informed.  It shows you to be trying to deceive people.  I am not surprised you aren't interested in a one on one debate, because you cannot win.  I can look up information just as easily as you can and call you on it when you post something false or misleading, as is the case here.  Your comment isn't false, but it is misleading.  You are acting like the Codex Beza is the majority text and is a complete New Testament, but it just happens to leave out Mark 15:28, when that is not true.  The majority text does contain Mark 15:28, and what I said was the majority of the New Testament manuscripts that still exist today with the exception of the Alexandrian and Egyptian text do contain Mark 15:28.  Those that are well informed wouldn't fall for what you said. 

Actually you are wrong. The Stuggart manuscripts which are the bulk of the TR do NOT have Mark 15:28......

Is it not amazing how KJV ONly like to distort this and that to edify the KJV to that equal of God himself. Many churches have split. Many lives have been ruined by KJV Only. It is a disease.

[ccfromsc]

23 hours ago, Butero said:

I don't give any credence to the opinion of Wescott and Hort.  Opinions are a dime a dozen.  In the case of the NIV, the conspiracy is open for all to see.  The TNIV is the proof.  In the case of other modern translations, it is not a conspiracy of men, but of the devil.  He is just using men to discredit portions of God's Word.  Many of those people likely don't think they are doing anything wrong.  Here is what is going on, and those without scales over their eyes will recognize it.

1.  The new translations are the creation of Satan to cause confusion.  He does this because they don't say the same thing, and people know it.  Most will claim that portions of established scripture didn't belong, leaving people in doubt.  That is not of God.

2.  The new translations are used to allow individual churches to choose a version that will best back up their church's doctrine.  Some will even create their own official translation. 

So cute. Now you openly defame the Bible. You elevate a translation to equal status with God himself.  Do you even realize that the preface of the KJV says they did not have the ONLY bible and to seek others? So Churches tinted the version to their doctrine....do you realize the KJV did the same? As for slamming the TNIV, which I admit I like... What of the modern day KJV...Which one do you have? Do you have the Cambridge? The Oxford? Westminister? Each is different, very different.

[ccfromsc]

23 hours ago, Butero said:

3.  In order to defend modern translations, you have to begin with the presumption that all translations have error, which leaves the door open to defend something sinful in your life.  Don't like the Bible calling your actions sinful?  Find a translation that waters it down, or create one.  If you can't do that, just claim that it doesn't mean what it says, but it is the result of a poor translation from Greek to English. 

4.  Ministers have an easier time creating false doctrine by cherry picking verses from various translations. 

In the past, those who defended modern English translations would say they did so because there are so many people that won't read old English or cannot understand it.  Then I find out from Ayin Jade that the NKJV includes all the original text, so I look into it and she was right.  It appears to be an honest attempt to give us a modern translation without removing the text, so I don't attack it.  I suggest those in the can't or won't read old English use it, but that isn't good enough.  Why?  Because it is too rigid.  The devil wants us to have wiggle room to reject what is written.  If we limit ourselves to the KJV or NKJV and nothing more, it limits the deception.  If we actually trust our Bible as accurate, he has less ability to question if key doctrines really belong. 

That is your fallacy. What modern translations say is that English is a horrible language to translate into from the biblical languages. For Example: LOVE on word in english. In greek you have eros, agape and phileo. So when you read the bible in english which greek word of "love" is it referencing? Also is now how we now use words, example "did he hear" versus "did he listen."

[ghtan]

2 hours ago, ccfromsc said:

On 4/20/2016 at 5:25 PM, Butero said:

What I said was the majority text contains Mark 15:28.  The codex beza is not a complete work by itself.  That entire statement by you is misleading and it hardly shows you to be informed.  It shows you to be trying to deceive people.  I am not surprised you aren't interested in a one on one debate, because you cannot win.  I can look up information just as easily as you can and call you on it when you post something false or misleading, as is the case here.  Your comment isn't false, but it is misleading.  You are acting like the Codex Beza is the majority text and is a complete New Testament, but it just happens to leave out Mark 15:28, when that is not true.  The majority text does contain Mark 15:28, and what I said was the majority of the New Testament manuscripts that still exist today with the exception of the Alexandrian and Egyptian text do contain Mark 15:28.  Those that are well informed wouldn't fall for what you said. 

Actually you are wrong. The Stuggart manuscripts which are the bulk of the TR do NOT have Mark 15:28......

Is it not amazing how KJV ONly like to distort this and that to edify the KJV to that equal of God himself. Many churches have split. Many lives have been ruined by KJV Only. It is a disease.

Don't bother, ccfromsc. He will just shift the goal posts again until only the TR qualifies. Maybe he will eventually say that any mss without Mark 15:28 is not a complete work and therefore disqualified. Of course the absurdity is that if one of the original books of the NT is found, i.e. the autographs, he will still disqualify it because it is not a complete NT.

Btw, what version do you like? I use the NIV most of the time for study purposes but I like the NLT for devotional reading especially for the Psalms. Its predecessor, the Living Bible, was my first bible and I grew up enjoying it. 

 

[Deborah_]

'Missing verses' again... they are only a problem if you are already used to the KJV. Mark 15:28 (and other verses like it) is duplicated elsewhere in the gospels; they are not missing from the Bible as a whole. I don't miss Mark 15:28 because I can read the same words in Luke 22:37.

If such things annoy or upset you, use the KJV. I don't mind at all. But please don't try to convince me that I'm missing lots of verses that I know I can find and read perfectly easily. 

 

I've met no-one who has suffered spiritually as a result of using a modern translation. I have met people who were seriously shaken in their faith because someone cast doubt on a Bible version they and their church were using. The controversy does far more harm than good, in my opinion.

[Guest Teditis]

Plenty of non-English versions of the Bible were translated using sources other than the TR and

many of those churches are flourishing while Western-churches are floundering.

[ccfromsc]

22 hours ago, ghtan said:

Btw, what version do you like? I use the NIV most of the time for study purposes but I like the NLT for devotional reading especially for the Psalms. Its predecessor, the Living Bible, was my first bible and I grew up enjoying it. 

 

I do like the NIV 2011, one I most like right now is the HCSB, then the ESV.

[gdemoss]

On 4/21/2016 at 9:26 PM, saved34 said:

Once again, I cannot get an answer to a direct question. You cannot point to any single Christian doctrine that is missing. Not just salvation, but any truth of the Christian faith. 

The only doctrine I can't find is the kjv as the only Bible we should read. I love it but its not the defacto English Bible. I do highly recommend it though

Greetings friend!

The only concern or grey area I have seen in the bible version debate that gives me real reason to think twice is one of authority.  It depends strictly on the authority God gives men in the earthly realm.  King James was the official King of the English at the time he authorized the use of the KJV for English speaking peoples.  Whatever weight God places behind the authority of that mans words I suppose may reign.  I, myself, am not certain.  I do love my KJV