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

[hmbld]

5 minutes ago, Butero said:

I understand, but lets suppose we do that.  If we in any instance turn around and alter the established text of the canon, it ceases to be closed, but it is an open canon.  I will give you an example.  The Bible itself mentions that Paul wrote an epistle to the church of Laodicea.  I have seen this epistle, and it seems to be in line with the other epistles of Paul.  Why not come along and add it to the Bible?  This seems innocent enough on the surface, but once you do that, you have destroyed the idea that we have a complete Bible.  You have opened up a Pandora's box to change anything you wish.  I feel like if we really hold to faith that the canon is right, we have to be willing to defend it, as is.  We cannot accept any changes for any reasons.  Once you do that, there is no reason for anyone to put their trust in what it says.  Anyone that looks at it with a critical eye at all will have to doubt it. 

You are still presenting a separate issue.  What do you consider is closed canon content, I would say the original manuscripts, as (I am told) there are not either enough or the proper words in English that are equivalent to the original language.  I am not proposing an open canon, I am saying unless one learns to read the bible in the original language, you have a man's best attempt to explain it.  

[ccfromsc]

10 hours ago, manuelf324 said:

KJV IT'S THE ONLY BIBLE NOT ENDORSED by the VATICAN  OR COPYRIGHTED. THE ONLY BIBLE NOT DERIVED FROM the Alexandria, Westcott and Hort, Vaticanus Seanticus, Jerome Latin Vulgate. THE KJV is from the Antioch texts.

Accept fact! that 2+2=4 you can believe in your heart its 5 all you want. I know the heart is DECIETFUL and DESPERATELY wicked who can know it? 

Dude you can't be serious? OK check this out https://ivarfjeld.com/2012/03/01/the-vatican-claims-king-james-bible-is-catholic/

The Vatican claims the KJV is Catholic!!

The KJV is copyrighted. Seriously, where do you come up with this stuff? Do you even know what Wescott & Hort did?

Please without all of the mumbo jumbo Please state it as simple as you know.

[saved34]

13 minutes ago, Butero said:

I understand, but lets suppose we do that.  If we in any instance turn around and alter the established text of the canon, it ceases to be closed, but it is an open canon.  I will give you an example.  The Bible itself mentions that Paul wrote an epistle to the church of Laodicea.  I have seen this epistle, and it seems to be in line with the other epistles of Paul.  Why not come along and add it to the Bible?  This seems innocent enough on the surface, but once you do that, you have destroyed the idea that we have a complete Bible.  You have opened up a Pandora's box to change anything you wish.  I feel like if we really hold to faith that the canon is right, we have to be willing to defend it, as is.  We cannot accept any changes for any reasons.  Once you do that, there is no reason for anyone to put their trust in what it says.  Anyone that looks at it with a critical eye at all will have to doubt it. 

It would have to fit doctrinally. Most of the so called excluded books of canon fly so far out in left field that they are immediately recognized as fakes. Because the Holy Spirit is the author it is impossible for the human mind to harmonize with our current canon. 

All 66 books of our canon harmonize to perfection, even in the modern versions. With all the so called missing verses, we still have all the great foundational Christian doctrines intact.

The Bible is tamper proof at this point. The versions that intentionally alter fundamental Christian doctrine are spotted and rejected immediately. Usually they attack the Lord Jesus and his true nature in some form, like thr New World translation, etc.

 

[saved34]

13 hours ago, manuelf324 said:

They shall fall upon their own tongues the kjv says. The times are here for God to show you  Lukewarm Christian Philosopher with your Alexandria school of thought a serious lesson in who God is. You need a book to know him but your obviously smarter than the kjv translators and God himself may God have mercy on your soul neighbor 70th week of Daniel is coming soon! ! 

People like you have to have "saved"  in your screen name to positively reinforce your DELUSION that your saved when DEEP DOWN your not. Spirit of truth know the spirit of error keep lying to yourself(cognitive dissocance)  your on the path to damnation. Im still waiting for which Bible is Gods perfect Word. If its not Kjv then which one is it?

Those on the fence Satan will pull you to his side very soon. How long shalt ye be between two opinions? If it be God follow him if it be Baal follow him 

A double minded man is unstable in ALL HIS WAYS

Don't tell me there isn't A PERFECT BOOK that means God's not all powerful he cant even preserve his word. What Catholic bible is his infallible word? Its cowardly to say there isnt one because it limits your opposition . Tell me will I get criticized more or less if I stood by one book like a MAN would?Or will I be more  liked by all to say there is no perfect book? These posts speak for themselves. STAND FAST IN THE FAITH QUIT YE LIKE MEN BE STRONG 

Thats all fine and good, but if you have placed your faith and hope in Christ's finished work, then we are members of his body and brothers.

My trust is in him, not my particular translation. The whole point of the scripture is to lead us to the Living Christ. Not just words on a page.

"John 5:39-40 NIV
You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me, [40] yet you refuse to come to me to have life."

[ghtan]

12 hours ago, Butero said:

I have verses I listed that are missing from some modern translations.  In one translation, I saw two verses included that were not in the other, and in the other translation, I saw one verse missing that was included in the other.  If they all began at the same starting point, that means that they are picking and choosing what to add or delete.  As for adding to the text, look at Psalm 145:13.  The modern translations have added to the original text.  You can thank hmbld for pointing that out, because I wasn't aware of it till yesterday. 

As for 1 John 5:7, it was in the Geneva Bible that came out before the KJV Bible which proves you are wrong in what you are claiming about the KJV translators.  Be my guest and look for yourself.  Everything you said about the history of how it got there is a complete lie.  It was in the Vulgate as well as a handful of Greek manuscripts.  The KJV translators didn't just add it.  Again, anyone can simply look at the Geneva Bible and see that is false. 

LOL! Are you saying the devil is trying to confuse christians by getting some modern translations to add the words "The Lord is faithful to all his promises and loving toward all he has made"? I think his war strategist must be a double agent. 

Erasmus introduced 1 John 5:7 into the 3rd edition of his Greek NT in 1522. Subsequent English translations would have used Erasmus' Greek NT as their base text. The Geneva Bible came out in 1560, so it is no surprise that it included this error. Later translations like the KJV followed suit. 

It is telling that Erasmus did NOT have 1 John 5:7 in his earlier editions. Why not? Because he knew that it did not belong in the original text. But he was pressured to add it into his 3rd edition.

I have nothing against using the KJV. As I said previously, I use it some of the time. But for you to claim it is perfect is simply to blind yourself to its shortcomings. 

[Deborah_]

4 hours ago, ghtan said:

LOL! Are you saying the devil is trying to confuse christians by getting some modern translations to add the words "The Lord is faithful to all his promises and loving toward all he has made"? I think his war strategist must be a double agent. 

Erasmus introduced 1 John 5:7 into the 3rd edition of his Greek NT in 1522. Subsequent English translations would have used Erasmus' Greek NT as their base text. The Geneva Bible came out in 1560, so it is no surprise that it included this error. Later translations like the KJV followed suit. 

It is telling that Erasmus did NOT have 1 John 5:7 in his earlier editions. Why not? Because he knew that it did not belong in the original text. But he was pressured to add it into his 3rd edition.

I have nothing against using the KJV. As I said previously, I use it some of the time. But for you to claim it is perfect is simply to blind yourself to its shortcomings. 

It's interesting that Luther made his classic German translation from the first edition of Erasmus' text. So ever since that time, all German Bibles have been missing that disputed text in I John 5:7.

[gdemoss]

Thank you, Butero, for reminding me that we need to consider that what we think we see in others may be that which resides in us.  Classic Romans 2.  May we all do as we were admonished earlier and examine ourselves.  Salt and light full of grace and truth?  Or reprobates full of envy, debate, murder and deceit?  Ouch!  

Thank God for brethren who care enough to lead me to what matters most, an honest self appraisal of Christ in me rather than deadly poison under my tongue!

 

[saved34]

38 minutes ago, Deborah_ said:

It's interesting that Luther made his classic German translation from the first edition of Erasmus' text. So ever since that time, all German Bibles have been missing that disputed text in I John 5:7.

Most of the scholars I have read that say that verse was added, are staunch Trinitarians. If there were some kind of conspiracy against God, and the Kjv, it would stand to reason that they would be fighting against the true nature(Triune) of God. On the contrary, most of them are the biggest defenders of that Biblical truth.

 

[Guest Butero]

8 hours ago, Deborah_ said:

It's interesting that Luther made his classic German translation from the first edition of Erasmus' text. So ever since that time, all German Bibles have been missing that disputed text in I John 5:7.

Luther is the same guy who claimed that the book of James shouldn't be in the canon.  He has no credibility as far as I am concerned. 

It is amazing to me how people that are too reading challenged to understand the KJV Bible read German!  I suppose you have a copy of that translation too, or know someone that does? 

[Guest Butero]

7 hours ago, gdemoss said:

Thank you, Butero, for reminding me that we need to consider that what we think we see in others may be that which resides in us.  Classic Romans 2.  May we all do as we were admonished earlier and examine ourselves.  Salt and light full of grace and truth?  Or reprobates full of envy, debate, murder and deceit?  Ouch!  

Thank God for brethren who care enough to lead me to what matters most, an honest self appraisal of Christ in me rather than deadly poison under my tongue!

 

I am glad we have been able to put differences aside and be able to discuss our differences as brothers in the Lord rather than enemies.  I appreciate you taking the time to post this.  God bless.