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

[ghtan]

17 hours ago, Butero said:

Only someone like you could spin something like that.  Are you a politician or a used car salesman?  You would likely excel at both. 

There is no proof the KJV added anything after the canon was established.  To prove they did, you would have to verify the exact age of the canon, and show the exact text of the canon.  You cannot do that.  I can on the other hand show that verses have been added and subtracted from the canon since 1611. 

Why do you insult politicians and used car salesmen? Nothing wrong with either job if performed honestly.

Strange logic you are using. There is then also no proof the modern translations have added or removed words from the text in use when the canon was closed. On the other hand, it is obvious the KJV added “the brother of” to 2 Sam 21:19.

 

[Guest Butero]

19 hours ago, hmbld said:

If your talking to me, well, on canon being closed, I agree, it is closed.  Everything I have stated has been around the Kjv being perfect, yet has been changed many times.  Did the 1611 version include the Apocrypha?  In your definition of canon being closed, has the Kjv ever been changed?  

You stated "There is no proof that the KJV Bible added or subtracted any verses after the canon was closed."  I ask again, when was canon closed?  After the Kjv was printed?  When reading about the Kjv, I find it was admitted that they translated from later manuscripts, while earlier manuscripts were available that did not have all the verses that the later manuscripts did.  

Nothing was added to or taken out of the canon of the KJV Bible.  The Apocrypha was not part of the canon.  What manuscripts they translated from has no bearing on whether or not they removed or added text from what was considered a closed canon.  When I speak of things being added or removed, I mean verses being added or removed, and no such changes were made to the KJV Bible.  Saying they translated from later manuscripts has no bearing on whether or not changes were made to the canon. 

You keep asking me to find out when the canon was closed to prove that no changes were made.  It doesn't work that way.  Unless you have proof that changes were made to the text of the established canon by the KJV translators, you have no argument.  You would have to prove that the established canon included or exclude verses that the KJV Bible didn't place in the Bible as a result of using later manuscripts, and you cannot do that.  I can however prove that the modern English translators have altered the established text, meaning that those who defend them believe we should have an open canon whether they acknowledge that or not. 

As such, lets start considering possible additions or subtractions to the canon.  How about we consider replacing Song of Solomon with Wisdom of Solomon?  Another book we might take a look at is "The Apocalypse of Paul."  The reason I find this book worthy of discussion is that it brings more light to heaven and hell.  It describes Paul's vision of both places, and is quite frightening.  Again, considering whether to add or remove books from the established canon is not doing anything more than modern translators are doing in removing verses or adding to verses, just on a larger scale. 

[Guest Butero]

18 hours ago, Teditis said:

I'm unaware of anything that happened in 1611 that had to do with the canonization of the Bible. The canonization

of the Bible has occurred several times by councils but I wasn't aware that there was one in 1611.

It also concerns me that with the editing for the TR, Erasmus basically scrubbed up the common Latin into

a "higher-Latin", thereby altering the words in the text. It seems to me that he thought his common Latin was

too vulgar for the Word of God? idk.

I'm also wondering when God would have thought His Word was sufficiently translated for the entire world population?

It seems illogical to conclude that He would limit it to one language... therefore, imho, there is no single source or "correct"

version. Rather, God still inspires people who are translating bibles into all languages.

Of course the Bible is being translated into more languages.  I would just hope that when they do so, the entire text that was there in the 1611 KJV Bible is available in those languages as well. 

The canonization of the Bible did take place prior to 1611, but that is not my point.  My point is that once we had a closed canon, that is it.  Whatever it said is all there is or ever will be.  You can't come along later on and add verses or take away verses based on anything, including new discoveries.  If you do that, you have an open canon.  There is no proof that any changes were made to the verses of the Bible from the time the canon was established to the creation of the 1611 KJV Bible, but there is proof the canon has been altered since by many modern English translations. 

[Guest Butero]

2 hours ago, ghtan said:

Why do you insult politicians and used car salesmen? Nothing wrong with either job if performed honestly.

Strange logic you are using. There is then also no proof the modern translations have added or removed words from the text in use when the canon was closed. On the other hand, it is obvious the KJV added “the brother of” to 2 Sam 21:19.

 

There is nothing to show that the KJV translators added anything to 2 Samuel 21:19 after the canon was closed.  The only thing this shows is the corrupt manuscripts used by the modern translators didn't contain that portion of the text. 

As for my comment about politicians and used car salesmen, if you feel that way, why assume it was an insult?  Take it as a compliment if you would like. 

[kwikphilly]

Quote

Why do you insult politicians and used car salesmen? Nothing wrong with either job if performed honestly.

Strange logic you are using. There is then also no proof the modern translations have added or removed words from the text in use when the canon was closed. On the other hand, it is obvious the KJV added “the brother of” to 2 Sam 21:19.         gtan

Butero insulted none of these ,,,,,,,,he commended each profession & added you would do well as such(in this world) I have noticed your "skill" with a sales pitch,,,,,,,,,,,,,if the shoe fits wear it without twisting anyone's words or assuming their intent,if not-then it does not apply & accusatory comments are not necessary,,,,,,,,it is not a nice thing to do,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

There is much to learn from others that have spent much time in research,study & PRAYER,,,,,,,,,,,,they have done their due diligence & are not merely talking off the top of their heads,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,"consider" these things with a teachable heart,you may learn something

                                                  To God be the Praise & Glory                          With love-in Christ,Kwik

 

  

 

[ghtan]

11 hours ago, Butero said:

There is nothing to show that the KJV translators added anything to 2 Samuel 21:19 after the canon was closed.  The only thing this shows is the corrupt manuscripts used by the modern translators didn't contain that portion of the text. 

As for my comment about politicians and used car salesmen, if you feel that way, why assume it was an insult?  Take it as a compliment if you would like. 

Why then does the KJV put those words in italics? It is to indicate they have added those words. So now there are two things that KJV has clearly added - these words in 2 Sam and 1 John 5:7. So much for a 'perfect' translation. But to be fair to the KJV, it never claimed to be perfect. Only people like you claim that.

You related politicians and used car salesmen to spinning; do you regard spinning as a compliment?

[Guest Butero]

3 hours ago, ghtan said:

Why then does the KJV put those words in italics? It is to indicate they have added those words. So now there are two things that KJV has clearly added - these words in 2 Sam and 1 John 5:7. So much for a 'perfect' translation. But to be fair to the KJV, it never claimed to be perfect. Only people like you claim that.

You related politicians and used car salesmen to spinning; do you regard spinning as a compliment?

It doesn't matter if they added words for clarity.  We know they did that.  If they didn't, you couldn't understand certain parts.  It has to do with that issue of translating from one language to another.  When I spoke of words being added or removed, I meant in reference to a closed canon.  I wasn't referring to whether or not things were added to what was in the manuscripts for the sake of understanding it in English.  1 John 5:7 was not added by the KJV translators.  It is not in italics.  It was in some of the manuscripts.  In the case of 2 Samuel 21:19, the KJV translators got it right.  It is not in italics in 1 Chronicles 20:5 where it makes it clear it was the brother of Goliath.  I could argue this shows possible divine inspiration on the KJV translators in that God wanted it correct.  This once again go back to your spin.  You are actually arguing against the fact the KJV translators got this right while the others got it wrong, and giving an argument to defend the fact the others got it wrong as something positive. 

As a politician or used car salesman, you have to be good at spin.  I meant exactly what I said.  You have a unique way of spinning things, which would make you an excellent politician or used car salesman.  It all depends on how one views a politician or used car salesman whether they would consider that a complement or something negative. 

[ghtan]

1 hour ago, Butero said:

It doesn't matter if they added words for clarity.  We know they did that.  If they didn't, you couldn't understand certain parts.  It has to do with that issue of translating from one language to another.  When I spoke of words being added or removed, I meant in reference to a closed canon.  I wasn't referring to whether or not things were added to what was in the manuscripts for the sake of understanding it in English.  1 John 5:7 was not added by the KJV translators.  It is not in italics.  It was in some of the manuscripts.  In the case of 2 Samuel 21:19, the KJV translators got it right.  It is not in italics in 1 Chronicles 20:5 where it makes it clear it was the brother of Goliath.  I could argue this shows possible divine inspiration on the KJV translators in that God wanted it correct.  This once again go back to your spin.  You are actually arguing against the fact the KJV translators got this right while the others got it wrong, and giving an argument to defend the fact the others got it wrong as something positive. 

As a politician or used car salesman, you have to be good at spin.  I meant exactly what I said.  You have a unique way of spinning things, which would make you an excellent politician or used car salesman.  It all depends on how one views a politician or used car salesman whether they would consider that a complement or something negative. 

Ah...so you finally admit the KJV has added words to the text. It does not matter if it is for clarity - modern translations can claim that too - but the fact remains the KJV has done EXACTLY what you complain about modern translations. So, together with 1 John 5:7, that makes the KJV the main culprit. No spin in that.

[ccfromsc]

Why does the KJV have mythological creatures?

Satyr = one of a class of lustful, drunken woodland gods. In Greek art they were represented as a man with a horse's ears and tail, but in Roman representations as a man with a goat's ears, tail, legs, and horns.

The term “unicorn” is found nine times in the King James Version of the Bible (Num. 23:22; 24:8; Dt. 33:17; Job 39:9-10; Psa. 22:21; 29:6; 92:10; Isa. 34:7).

Soon there will be Zues in the KJV and Hades instead of Satan!!

[other one]

39 minutes ago, ccfromsc said:

Why does the KJV have mythological creatures?

Satyr = one of a class of lustful, drunken woodland gods. In Greek art they were represented as a man with a horse's ears and tail, but in Roman representations as a man with a goat's ears, tail, legs, and horns.

The term “unicorn” is found nine times in the King James Version of the Bible (Num. 23:22; 24:8; Dt. 33:17; Job 39:9-10; Psa. 22:21; 29:6; 92:10; Isa. 34:7).

Soon there will be Zues in the KJV and Hades instead of Satan!!

Because those things existed pre flood.....   those old gods were fallen angels and their offspring.....   not really figments of people's imaginations.....   embellished to be sure, but still reality......    and one of them is returning before long.....   one of those who are in the pit........