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

[hmbld]

3 minutes ago, Butero said:

First of all, I need proof of everything they are claiming.  Here is what I need.  1.  I need the exact date and documentation to prove the exact date the canon was established.  2.  I need to see the exact books and contents of what was established as the canon. 

This article to me is worthless tripe.  Anybody could make up so-called historical facts, and I know from reading different articles from different places they don't agree.  I don't accept any of this as valid without proof.  But here is the bigger issue.  In order to try to defend the modern translations, you have to continue an assault on the KJV Bible, and even the manuscripts that became the T.R.  If I was to accept what you said as fact, and I don't, I would have no reason to believe the Bible is even the Word of God.  I would have to start looking at it as a bunch of letters that someone decided would make a nice volume to call God's Word and nothing more.  I would have no reason to believe anything in it, including the story of Jesus and how he came to die on a cross for our sins.  If I cannot accept a closed canon, looking at this objectively, I might as well toss the Bible aside and take the attitude of who cares if anyone reads it.  Everyone would just have to decide for themselves how they want to believe God to be.  Everyone would have to decide on their own standards based on their conscience, which is where I believe we are heading anyway. 

Just think about this for a moment.  Ask yourself if you believe that article is credible.  If you do, why in the world would anyone waste their entire life studying such a book and trying to live by it?  Why should we care that the Bible is easy to read, when it may not be God's Word in the first place?  Just from the standpoint of using logic and reasoning, I honestly don't know why anyone who holds to such views cares one whit about reading the Bible or hearing people preach or teach from it.  If it is no more reliable than this, who needs it?  I mean that in all sincerity too.  I am not being sarcastic.  Now you have a new challenge.  Explain why we should believe such an untrustworthy Bible?  How do we know it wasn't just the creation of Erasmus to control the masses as the unbelievers claim? 

There is a guy I was talking to recently who was having doubts about Christianity and the Bible.  I told him why I believe the Bible is the Word of God, and why I believe Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God.  If you ever convinced me the things you say are true, I could never say with any confidence anything to do with Christianity is for real, because our knowledge of Christ has been passed down through the pages of the Holy Bible.  We are believing the witness of those who walked with Jesus and who were part of the early church.  What if the Bible is just a bunch of letters thrown together, and not God's Word?  What if Erasmus was wrong in the books he included in the canon, and perhaps the gnostic gospels were the true Words of God?  Who is to say?  I don't know how a thinking person can be a Christian and believe what you say you believe. 

Butero, in my limited research, both several years ago, and recently, this is the information I come across, the Got Questions website seems to have some support for being middle of the road on most subjects, even though you reject it.  I am not saying the information is credible in that article, I am asking you when you declare the canon closed, as you keep bringing up that point.  

[ghtan]

2 hours ago, Butero said:

I read what you wrote, but I don't find it convincing.  The Latin Vulgate and a handful of Greek manuscripts included it.  It existed is what I am saying, so even if it was not in the majority of manuscripts, that doesn't mean it doesn't belong.

As to the question over when the canon was closed, if it is your position that the canon is open, I can at least understand where you are coming from.  If you are ok with an open canon, additions and subtractions are not that important, but it means that we can't fully trust anything in the Bible because new discoveries could come along that discredit portions of the Bible down the road, and they must be considered. 

At no time did I say the canon was still open. It was closed much earlier in the 4th century and not the 16th century, so how you can use that to support the KJV is beyond me. 

1 John 5:7 is proof that the KJV is not perfect. No surprise that you do not accept the facts. But my hope is that others who follow this thread will, especially new believers looking to buy their first bibles. I hope they will not be misled by you to think they must use the KJV because the modern translations are corrupted. Instead, if they use one of the modern bibles - I recommend the NIV and NLT - they will grow faster in their faith for the simple reason that they will find those bibles much easier to understand than the KJV.    

[ccfromsc]

2 hours ago, Butero said:

What good does it do to go back to that when you have already admitted you were trying to bate me into calling you something I am not supposed to call a brother?  I am able to call an atheist or non-believer that name, but not a brother in the Lord, so what is the point?  The modern translations say the same thing, but in context, none are making any claim but that a fool says there is no God.  You only make yourself look silly bringing that up again.

Again you miss the point. It is a metaphor of KJV Only. Y'all take a point out of context and harp on it to the nth degree with all rhyme and reason lost. That is the whole point.

[Guest Butero]

14 minutes ago, ccfromsc said:

One more time.... that is how the KJV Only with their agenda do things. That is the whole point.

No we don't.  The equivalent would be if I took something out of context on purpose from the NIV.  I haven't done that.  I could.  It wouldn't be hard, but I haven't done that.  I haven't needed to. 

[Guest Butero]

14 minutes ago, hmbld said:

Butero, in my limited research, both several years ago, and recently, this is the information I come across, the Got Questions website seems to have some support for being middle of the road on most subjects, even though you reject it.  I am not saying the information is credible in that article, I am asking you when you declare the canon closed, as you keep bringing up that point.  

What I am getting at is that we have been told that evangelicals believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God.  Then they make that of none effect by saying that only the original manuscripts were inerrant, and our translations are all full of mistakes.  We are told that we have a closed canon, and what we have is the complete Word of God.  Then that is made of none effect by supporting translations that remove some verses and add others.  Either this Bible I have trusted to be the Word of God is trustworthy or it is not.  Either I can have full assurance that verses I have read and believed are scripture or I can't.  If I can't, then throw the whole thing out, because it has no value.  We don't even know if we have the right canon.  How can we?  According to what you wrote Erasmus just threw a bunch of books together in a hurry to form an untrustworthy Bible. 

The lengths that you people go through to defend modern translations is incredible.  You would rather completely leave the Bible in disrepute in order to defend changes to the text than admit they have altered the canon and changed the meanings.  At the same time, I would imagine you expect people to still have faith in such a book?  I am beginning to think that my giving people the benefit of the doubt on their sincerity was the product of being naïve and Manuel was right.  Only God knows for sure. 

[ccfromsc]

2 hours ago, Butero said:

I would also point out that when you intentionally place a stumbling block in front of someone, you are committing a sin by doing so, and had I fallen into that trap, he would have shared in my guilt.  I would have been in danger of hell fire, but so would he.  This kind of tactic makes those supporting modern translations look desperate.  If cc thinks this is helpful to him, so be it, but I wouldn't recommend it.

Not my intentions at all. It is to show the mundane repetitive nature of KJV only harping on an item to no end, making a mountain out of a molehill.

[Guest Butero]

13 minutes ago, ghtan said:

At no time did I say the canon was still open. It was closed much earlier in the 4th century and not the 16th century, so how you can use that to support the KJV is beyond me. 

1 John 5:7 is proof that the KJV is not perfect. No surprise that you do not accept the facts. But my hope is that others who follow this thread will, especially new believers looking to buy their first bibles. I hope they will not be misled by you to think they must use the KJV because the modern translations are corrupted. Instead, if they use one of the modern bibles - I recommend the NIV and NLT - they will grow faster in their faith for the simple reason that they will find those bibles much easier to understand than the KJV.    

I hope they are not taken in by heretics supporting the changes to modern English translations, and that when they purchase their first Bible, they get a KJV Bible where they will get the true Word of God rather than a counterfeit.  You have not proven anything with 1 John 5:7.  There is no proof that doesn't belong.  It was in the Latin Vulgate and some Greek manuscripts.  I say it does belong and you claim it doesn't, along with many other scriptures in the New Testament.  Why in the world would they need to purchase any Bible?  Why would it even help them grow?  To hear you people, there is no reason to even be sure what we have is the Word of God. 

[Guest Butero]

1 minute ago, ccfromsc said:

Not my intentions at all. It is to show the mundane repetitive nature of KJV only harping on an item to no end, making a mountain out of a molehill.

I don't see how trying to get me to call you a fool does that.  Maybe others can see your point, but I don't. 

[hmbld]

Just now, Butero said:

What I am getting at is that we have been told that evangelicals believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God.  Then they make that of none effect by saying that only the original manuscripts were inerrant, and our translations are all full of mistakes.  We are told that we have a closed canon, and what we have is the complete Word of God.  Then that is made of none effect by supporting translations that remove some verses and add others.  Either this Bible I have trusted to be the Word of God is trustworthy or it is not.  Either I can have full assurance that verses I have read and believed are scripture or I can't.  If I can't, then throw the whole thing out, because it has no value.  We don't even know if we have the right canon.  How can we?  According to what you wrote Erasmus just threw a bunch of books together in a hurry to form an untrustworthy Bible. 

The lengths that you people go through to defend modern translations is incredible.  You would rather completely leave the Bible in disrepute in order to defend changes to the text than admit they have altered the canon and changed the meanings.  At the same time, I would imagine you expect people to still have faith in such a book?  I am beginning to think that my giving people the benefit of the doubt on their sincerity was the product of being naïve and Manuel was right.  Only God knows for sure. 

I am puzzled.  You claim only the Kjv is perfect, while I could claim another version is perfect, all I am doing is asking you to discuss the claims you have made, and you instead say I am attacking the Kjv and defending modern translations.  I am not defending changes made in modern translations, just as I am not defending changes made in Kjv.  Simply trying to discuss it.  I maintain there are manuscripts older than the Kjv that should be looked at.  

[Guest Butero]

Here is an example of what you did with your claim about the KJV saying there is no God.  That would be like me saying the NRSV tells everyone they must sell their cloak.  I give no further explanation, or context.  I have completely misrepresented what it says.  I haven't done that and neither has anyone else on my side of this discussion.  I refer to Luke 22: and part of verse 36.