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

[Guest Butero]

3 minutes ago, hmbld said:

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.  

What I am saying is that the T.R. was the manuscripts that were considered scripture by the church.  The KJV translators took those manuscripts and created the best possible translation by taking the Hebrew words and the Greek words and changing them to the best possible English words.  I recognize that there are issues where it might not be possible to come up with an English word that is as clear as it was in Hebrew or Greek because sometimes you might have 3 or 4 Greek words that can only be translated to one English word.  I get the issues with that.

With regard to the article you posted, it is really not relevant what Erasmus did.  That is because there was a group of books in Greek and Hebrew that were considered scripture.  Just because he took them in a careless manner to create a fast New Testament doesn't mean that there wasn't a Bible that existed in Greek and Hebrew, and that the complete Bible in Greek and Hebrew wasn't translated to English by the KJV translators. 

Once again, my problem with the modern translations is when they remove things out of the established text or add things to them.  That completely tears away at the credibility of what we thought was the Holy Bible.  Since it keeps getting thrown around, lets use 1 John 5:7 for example.  I wonder how many ministers have quoted from that, accepting it as scripture, only to have a bunch of heretics claim it isn't scripture?  Then there is the last part of Mark 16.  How many have preached the great commission from that passage, only to have the same heretics claim the "most reliable manuscripts" don't include it?  What is next?  I await on the next new discovery. 

[ccfromsc]

24 minutes ago, 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. 

Maybe this will help. Between the major "texts" that are used to comprise a bible translation they are about 97-98% in agreement. From about 2,000 years ago that is really an amazing track record of accuracy. That alone makes the Bible infallible. Not mistakes, but translation "issues." OK? it is like once was posted once here "did he hear" or "did he listen" which is it? Nothing wrong with the texts, just the English. There is a new translation called the Voice. I like it. It is very different. The NT does not use the word "Christ" at all. Why? Cause they felt so many versions were using Christ in English as a surname, aka last name, as in Jesus Christ.... not Jesus the Christ.

[Ezra]

7 minutes ago, Butero said:

With regard to the article you posted, it is really not relevant what Erasmus did. 

As I mentioned sometime back, Erasmus (who was really an outstanding scholar) is a straw man used by opponents of the TR and the KJB. Erasmus was only one of many editors of the printed NT, and in fact the 1550 edition of Stephanus is what we know as the Textus Receptus (very similar to that of the 1624 edition of the Elzivirs). In 1894 Scrivener created the actual TR used by the the KJV translators (which has minor differences with Stephanus). As an example let's take Romans 9:5 (with no change):

Scrivener's Textus Receptus 1894
ὧν οἱ πατέρες, καὶ ἐξ ὧν ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων, Θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας. ἀμήν.

Stephanus Textus Receptus 1550
ὧν οἱ πατέρες καὶ ἐξ ὧν ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα· ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας ἀμήν

King James Bible

Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

[Deborah_]

7 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. 

One of the main arguments of "KJV-only" is that the TR is based on "the majority of manuscripts" which include a lot of extra verses. Surely, by that argument, a verse that is in only a tiny minority of manuscripts should be rejected?

One of Manuel's posts included the Vulgate under the "corrupt Alexandrian" family of Bibles. So again, surely the fact that it includes this 'extra' verse should go against its veracity? 

You are right in that if older manuscripts are discovered, that could change our understanding of the text. Let's push that to its logical conclusion.  Theoretically, it is possible (though very unlikely) that we could discover an original document. If it proved to be slightly different from the TR, would you cling to the TR in preference to the original? Unlike you, I have confidence that there will be no material changes to the Bible no matter how many more documents are discovered. I'm not bothered by small changes; I simply rejoice that our understanding is getting better.

7 hours ago, Butero said:

If you can read French, German and Russian, as well as Welsh, then it seems strange to me you would have difficulty with the KJV Bible.  That should be a piece of cake for someone like you. 

I believe that verse belongs in the Bible.  It was clearly found in both the Latin Vulgate and some Greek manuscripts.  Luther choosing to ignore those sources means nothing to me, given the fact this is the same heretic that claims the book of James shouldn't be in the Bible.  I consider Luther a false teacher. 

I know the owner of a small chain of Christian bookstores, and he will only sell KJV Bibles.  He told me the same controversy exists with the Spanish Bible.  He only sells a Spanish Bible that was translated from the Textus Receptus. 

As a child, I was put off the KJV when I tried to read it and got confused in Genesis 6 when it spelt Noah as Noe. Was it the same person? At the time I had nobody I could ask. Such things are not likely to bother me now, but I would still find them intensely irritating. Also, I am now so familiar with the NIV that if I did read part of the KJV I would simply mentally 'translate' it into the modern English version.

Luther didn't "choose to ignore" other sources. Erasmus had done the manuscript work, the first edition NT Greek text had been printed and distributed, and all the Reformers were using it as authoritative. 

[Guest Butero]

5 hours ago, Deborah_ said:

One of the main arguments of "KJV-only" is that the TR is based on "the majority of manuscripts" which include a lot of extra verses. Surely, by that argument, a verse that is in only a tiny minority of manuscripts should be rejected?

One of Manuel's posts included the Vulgate under the "corrupt Alexandrian" family of Bibles. So again, surely the fact that it includes this 'extra' verse should go against its veracity? 

You are right in that if older manuscripts are discovered, that could change our understanding of the text. Let's push that to its logical conclusion.  Theoretically, it is possible (though very unlikely) that we could discover an original document. If it proved to be slightly different from the TR, would you cling to the TR in preference to the original? Unlike you, I have confidence that there will be no material changes to the Bible no matter how many more documents are discovered. I'm not bothered by small changes; I simply rejoice that our understanding is getting better.

As a child, I was put off the KJV when I tried to read it and got confused in Genesis 6 when it spelt Noah as Noe. Was it the same person? At the time I had nobody I could ask. Such things are not likely to bother me now, but I would still find them intensely irritating. Also, I am now so familiar with the NIV that if I did read part of the KJV I would simply mentally 'translate' it into the modern English version.

Luther didn't "choose to ignore" other sources. Erasmus had done the manuscript work, the first edition NT Greek text had been printed and distributed, and all the Reformers were using it as authoritative. 

I am not one of those who has made the argument that we simply go by what most manuscripts contained.  As a matter of fact, if you go back to early debates here at WB, the modern English translation defenders claimed their versions went by the majority of manuscripts.  They got away with that lie until I found documentations that shows that they were ignoring most manuscripts and going with the Egyptian and Alexandrian text.  Now they have done a 180 and don't care what the majority says since it doesn't help their case. 

I appreciate you admitting that there could be new discoveries that could come along and change things.  I would oppose any changes based on any new discoveries, period.  There is no way anyone could prove any discovery was an original document.  That would be as silly as when the NIV says their manuscripts are more reliable. 

I am just the opposite of you.  I am so familiar with the KJV, if I read a modern translation, I translate it into KJV language.  I can't even accept it as being a Bible. 

[Guest Butero]

9 hours ago, Ezra said:

As I mentioned sometime back, Erasmus (who was really an outstanding scholar) is a straw man used by opponents of the TR and the KJB. Erasmus was only one of many editors of the printed NT, and in fact the 1550 edition of Stephanus is what we know as the Textus Receptus (very similar to that of the 1624 edition of the Elzivirs). In 1894 Scrivener created the actual TR used by the the KJV translators (which has minor differences with Stephanus). As an example let's take Romans 9:5 (with no change):

Scrivener's Textus Receptus 1894
ὧν οἱ πατέρες, καὶ ἐξ ὧν ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων, Θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας. ἀμήν.

 

Stephanus Textus Receptus 1550
ὧν οἱ πατέρες καὶ ἐξ ὧν ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα· ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας ἀμήν

 

King James Bible

 

Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

 

 

 

I am amazed at some of the things people are saying to defend modern translations.  They are fine with the fact verses are added and removed, and are even open to continuing this practice with new discoveries.  They constantly claim that all Bibles have translation errors in order to defend their translations.  I don't know why people like that even bother to read any Bible.  You could memorize verses of scripture, stand on it, and then have the rug pulled out from under you by someone claiming that it was a scribal addition or not found in the more reliable manuscripts.  They go around saying the best Bible is the one people will read.  Why?  Why bother putting your faith in something so unstable? 

I can't tell you how many sermons I used to hear from the last part of Mark chapter 16 when I first started going to church back in the 80s.  Now we have people claiming it isn't even something that should be part of scripture.  I don't get this modern church.  I don't get these modern Bibles, and this way of thinking and I guess I never will.  I am thankful I don't. 

[Ezra]

15 hours ago, hmbld said:

 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,

We need to be careful when applying the term "perfect" to the KJV. Perfection is applicable to the original manuscripts, but faithfulness, accuracy, and reliability apply to translations.  Can the KJV be further improved? Yes, in a few places, but every effort to improve it has been a disaster (even the NKJV).

For all practical purposes, the KJV is the primary English translation which is completely reliable and accurate, since it is solidly based on the Majority Text of the New Testament (also called the Traditional Text, the Byzantine Text, or the Received Text (Textus Receptus) and it is a word-for-word translation for the most part. Where helping words have been added, they are italicised. It was THE English Bible for hundreds of years. It is also recognized by linguistic scholars are a literary classic, and indeed it molded the English language.

You will also note when you read the preface, that the language of the preface reflects English usage at that time, but the Bible language is different, and reflects the Hebrew and Greek (perhaps too closely in the Greek, since even the proper names are transliterated instead of translated, e.g. Jesus for Joshua).

In direct contrast, the NIV is translated from the "Critical Texts" which are based on corruptions of the Bible (see their preface) and is NOT a word-for-word translation, but is based on "dynamic equivalence" (a paraphrase).  In fact it is deemed to be the worst modern translation. 

Example (John 7:1)

Scrivener's Textus Receptus 1894
Καὶ περιεπάτει ὁ Ἰησοῦς μετὰ ταῦτα ἐν τῇ Γαλιλαίᾳ· οὐ γὰρ ἤθελεν ἐν τῇ Ἰουδαίᾳ περιπατεῖν, ὅτι ἐζήτουν αὐτὸν οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι ἀποκτεῖναι.

Literal: And after these things walked Jesus in Galilee; for he did not wish in Judaea to walk, because the Jews were seeking to kill him.

King James Bible
After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him.
New American Standard Bible 
After these things Jesus was walking in Galilee, for He was unwilling to walk in Judea because the Jews were seeking to kill Him.

New International Version
After this, Jesus went around in Galilee. He did not want to go about in Judea because the Jewish leaders there were looking for a way to kill him.

You will note that the NIV has used colloquial phrases twice ("went around" and "go about").  But then they have added something which is not even in the text! There is no mention of "Jewish leaders there looking for a way" even in the critical text, which means that the NIV played fast and loose with the translation.  

Furthermore the original NIV (1975) had a completely different wording -- "After this Jesus went around in Galilee, purposely staying away from Judea, because the Jews there were waiting to take his life".  This was simply a paraphrase.  

Why did the NIV revise itself, and why did it paraphrase Scripture?  You would have to ask their translation committee, but it is clear that the text is not very faithful to the original, and adds words on a whim. That is not permissible by what we read in Scripture.

[Deborah_]

1 hour ago, Ezra said:

We need to be careful when applying the term "perfect" to the KJV. Perfection is applicable to the original manuscripts, but faithfulness, accuracy, and reliability apply to translations.  Can the KJV be further improved? Yes, in a few places, but every effort to improve it has been a disaster (even the NKJV).

For all practical purposes, the KJV is the primary English translation which is completely reliable and accurate, since it is solidly based on the Majority Text of the New Testament (also called the Traditional Text, the Byzantine Text, or the Received Text (Textus Receptus) and it is a word-for-word translation for the most part. Where helping words have been added, they are italicised. It was THE English Bible for hundreds of years. It is also recognized by linguistic scholars are a literary classic, and indeed it molded the English language.

You will also note when you read the preface, that the language of the preface reflects English usage at that time, but the Bible language is different, and reflects the Hebrew and Greek (perhaps too closely in the Greek, since even the proper names are transliterated instead of translated, e.g. Jesus for Joshua).

In direct contrast, the NIV is translated from the "Critical Texts" which are based on corruptions of the Bible (see their preface) and is NOT a word-for-word translation, but is based on "dynamic equivalence" (a paraphrase).  In fact it is deemed to be the worst modern translation. 

Example (John 7:1)

Scrivener's Textus Receptus 1894
Καὶ περιεπάτει ὁ Ἰησοῦς μετὰ ταῦτα ἐν τῇ Γαλιλαίᾳ· οὐ γὰρ ἤθελεν ἐν τῇ Ἰουδαίᾳ περιπατεῖν, ὅτι ἐζήτουν αὐτὸν οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι ἀποκτεῖναι.

Literal: And after these things walked Jesus in Galilee; for he did not wish in Judaea to walk, because the Jews were seeking to kill him.

King James Bible
After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him.
New American Standard Bible 
After these things Jesus was walking in Galilee, for He was unwilling to walk in Judea because the Jews were seeking to kill Him.

New International Version
After this, Jesus went around in Galilee. He did not want to go about in Judea because the Jewish leaders there were looking for a way to kill him.

You will note that the NIV has used colloquial phrases twice ("went around" and "go about").  But then they have added something which is not even in the text! There is no mention of "Jewish leaders there looking for a way" even in the critical text, which means that the NIV played fast and loose with the translation.  

Furthermore the original NIV (1975) had a completely different wording -- "After this Jesus went around in Galilee, purposely staying away from Judea, because the Jews there were waiting to take his life".  This was simply a paraphrase.  

Why did the NIV revise itself, and why did it paraphrase Scripture?  You would have to ask their translation committee, but it is clear that the text is not very faithful to the original, and adds words on a whim. That is not permissible by what we read in Scripture.

If you want to start discussing the translation of individual verses, we shall never stop...  So much is a matter of personal opinion, and if you happen not to like a particular rendering, you will never accept it no matter how legitimate it is.

Why do you take issue with the NIV translation of peripateo? It really does mean - literally - 'walk around' (peri means 'around'). One might just as well ask why the KJV leaves out the 'around'! And 'seeking to do' something is not modern English, which is why they have 'paraphrased' it. Translators do a certain amount of paraphrasing all the time, as there are many expressions and idioms that really can't be translated word-for-word from one language to another. Why does the literal translation have 'Galilee' and not 'the Galilee', if being 'literal' is so important? 

The NIV is a 'dynamic equivalent' modern English translation; nothing wrong with that in itself, and why criticise it for doing what it sets out to do?  If that's not the kind of translation you want to use, then don't use it.

[hmbld]

4 hours ago, Ezra said:

We need to be careful when applying the term "perfect" to the KJV. Perfection is applicable to the original manuscripts, but faithfulness, accuracy, and reliability apply to translations.  Can the KJV be further improved? Yes, in a few places, but every effort to improve it has been a disaster (even the NKJV).

For all practical purposes, the KJV is the primary English translation which is completely reliable and accurate, since it is solidly based on the Majority Text of the New Testament (also called the Traditional Text, the Byzantine Text, or the Received Text (Textus Receptus) and it is a word-for-word translation for the most part. Where helping words have been added, they are italicised. It was THE English Bible for hundreds of years. It is also recognized by linguistic scholars are a literary classic, and indeed it molded the English language.

 

Thank you Ezra, I completely agree with you.  The penned manuscripts inspired by God were the perfect texts, since all translations are taken from more than one copy, including the Kjv, and the translators indicated by notations on the page edges that there were several different versions of certain verses, this is what I have been asking for Butero to prove the Kjv is perfect, and when was canon closed as he states nothing can be altered or corrected in closed canon, including when older manuscripts are found.  Claiming a translation is perfect while that same translation has been altered over the years is what I am asking about.  I am in agreement that Kjv may be the best translation, as my opinion.  Also, insisting a person must use the Kjv when they have difficulty reading it is not productive.  If one is after the most reliable version, well that would be the original languages they were written in.  

[ccfromsc]

20 hours ago, Butero said:

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. 

By the same token the lengths the KJV Only will go to to keep the KJV no matter what is incredible. No one has changed the meaning in the modern versions. IF something is being left out in one place it is there in another so the doctrine has not changed. Remember faith.