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

[saved34]

Just now, Butero said:

For one thing, I know to fast and pray before tying to cast out a devil.

Even the verse you are holding to doesn't teach that. At the time not every demon was cast out that way. I know you do not have a legitimate answer, I just ask that question to show the pure nonsense that is Kjv onlyism. Nothing wrong with reading the kjv only, but creating division and sectarianism over it without any scriptural backing or real explanation is unacceptable.

 

[ccfromsc]

4 hours ago, Esther4:14 said:

While I would that there has been a modern attempt to corrupt the Bible and that some of the Bibles are about as useful as the Vulgate, I think the Christian community has responded to this threat in many ways that have required this attempt to corrupt the Bible to become more concealed.  So, I agree that it is still there hidden in the shadows, but I am not as concerned for it's manifestation in the year 2016 when there have been so many complaints necessitating even newer translations accommodate the market who want an accurate translation.  Technically, we still do have the numbers to create the pressure for accuracy to do this.  

No modern attempt to corrupt the bible. You do realize the Vulgate was one of the prime pieces to make the KJV? Look it up. A guy named Erasmus did it...BTW he was a Roman Catholic!!! So where is the conspiracy there? Even the RCC calmed him down with some of the Vulgate manuscripts he had... due to additions to scripture. One the the primary is 1 John 5:7. It has been called the "comma Johanum" and in the 1611 version was not there....but is in side notes.

[ccfromsc]

5 minutes ago, Butero said:

Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.  Matthew 12:47

For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.  Matthew 18:11

And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken:  but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.  Matthew 21:44

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!  for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer:  therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.  Matthew 23:14

Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.  Matthew 17:21

(Mat 12:47 NIV)  Someone told him, "Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you."

(Mat 18:11 NIV)  The Son of Man came to save what was lost.

(Mat 21:44 NIV)  He who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces, but he on whom it falls will be crushed."

(Mat 23:14 NIV)  Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You devour widows' houses and for a show make lengthy prayers. Therefore you will be punished more severely.

(Mat 17:21 NIV)  But this kind does not go out except by prayer and fasting.

ok it is there in the NIV......

 

[ccfromsc]

Why don't we all refer to the NET? it has over 16,000 notes on tranalstion. Available for free on the net. Even tell you why the KJV did what it did.

[Ezra]

3 hours ago, Butero said:

I do believe that those who choose modern Bibles are deceived by Satan. 

I concur. 

19 minutes ago, ccfromsc said:

You do realize the Vulgate was one of the prime pieces to make the KJV? Look it up.

Yeah, look it up, and read "The Translators to the Reader" written by the KJV translators. They clearly DO NOT  rely on the Latin Vulgate (although they did consult the Vulgate and all existing translations).  The KJV is translated directly from the Hebrew and Greek.

If we should tell them that Valla, Stapulensis, Erasmus, and Vives found fault with their vulgar Translation, and consequently wished the same to be mended, or a new one to be made, they would answere peradventure, that we produced their enemies for witnesses against them; albeit, they were in no other sort enemies, then as S. Paul was to the Galatians, for telling them the trueth: and it were to be wished, that they had dared to tell it them plainlier and oftner. But what will they say to this, that Pope Leo the tenth allowed Erasmus Translation of the New Testament, so much different from the vulgar, by his Apostolike Letter & Bull; ...

[ghtan]

3 hours ago, saved34 said:

3 hours ago, Butero said:

For one thing, I know to fast and pray before tying to cast out a devil.

Even the verse you are holding to doesn't teach that. At the time not every demon was cast out that way. I know you do not have a legitimate answer, I just ask that question to show the pure nonsense that is Kjv onlyism. Nothing wrong with reading the kjv only, but creating division and sectarianism over it without any scriptural backing or real explanation is unacceptable.

Butero, you mean the devil deceived the translators of the modern bible versions to conspire against the KJV and remove all those 'missing' verses just so that christians would not think of fasting in order to cast out his demons? Amazing!

[Ezra]

And not by the dozens, but by the hundreds and thousands.  People need to do their own research, since  it would take a book or two to show all the deviations from Scripture and explain their doctrinal significance.  Just one example (Acts 8:37).  You won't find it in the modern versions.

[hmbld]

17 minutes ago, Ezra said:

And not by the dozens, but by the hundreds and thousands.  People need to do their own research, since  it would take a book or two to show all the deviations from Scripture and explain their doctrinal significance.  Just one example (Acts 8:37).  You won't find it in the modern versions.

Got Questions?

 

Question: "Why are the newer translations of the Bible missing verses?"

Answer: If you compare the King James and New King James Versions with the newer translations (e.g. the New International Version, New American Standard, New Living Translation, etc.) - you will notice that several verses are entirely missing from the newer translations. Examples are John 5:4, Acts 8:37, and 1 John 5:7. Mark 16:9-20 is another example, although it is always placed in the text or in footnotes. Why do these translations not have these verses? Are the newer translations taking verses out of the Bible? 

The answer is that the translators did not believe these verses should have been in the Bible to begin with. Since the KJV was translated in A.D. 1611, many Biblical manuscripts have been discovered that are older and more accurate than the manuscripts the KJV was based on. When Bible scholars researched through these manuscripts, they discovered some differences. It seems that over the course of 1500 years, some words, phrases, and even sentences were added to the Bible (either intentionally or accidentally). The verses mentioned above are simply not found in the oldest and most reliable manuscripts. So, the newer translations remove these verses or place them in footnotes or in the margin because they do not truly belong in the Bible.

It is important to remember, however, that the verses in question are of minor significance. None of them change in any way the crucial themes of the Bible, nor do they have any impact on the Bible’s doctrines—Jesus’ death, burial and resurrection, Christ as the only way of salvation, heaven and hell, sin and redemption, and the nature and character of God. These are preserved intact through the work of the Holy Spirit, who safeguards the Word of God for all generations.

[hmbld]

More Got Questions

 

Question: "Does the inerrancy of the Bible only apply to the original manuscripts?"

Answer: Only the original autographs (original manuscripts written by the apostles, prophets, etc.) are under the divine promise of inspiration and inerrancy. The books of the Bible, as they were originally written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:20-21), were 100% inerrant, accurate, authoritative, and true. There is no Biblical promise that copies of the original manuscripts would equally be inerrant or free from copyist errors. As the Bible has been copied thousands of times over thousands of years, some copyist errors have likely occurred.
 

 

God's Word is inspired and perfect.  Kjv, not so much.  

[ghtan]

4 minutes ago, Butero said:

There is a lot more going on than that.  I just posted a few missing verses, and I have a whole lot more I plan to post during the week.  The main reason the devil has created all these translations is to cause confusion and doubt as to the reliability of scripture.  Of course, removing a key verse regarding casting out devils does work to the devil's advantage, but it goes much deeper than that.  It is about destroying the credibility of the Biblical canon.  It is about bringing into question whether or not to trust any Bible completely, as those who promote modern translations claim they all have some degree of error.  They are able to claim they believe in the inerrancy of scripture while making that belief of none effect.  If you claim that only the original manuscripts that have long since decayed from age were perfect, you have made the belief in inerrancy of no value.  What is taking place here goes much deeper than just the lack of ability to cast out some devils, though that is rather important. 

So now you think the devil got the bible translators to remove those verses so that we would not trust our bibles? If that were his plan, he has failed miserably. I don't think those who like the modern versions distrust their bibles. If they did, they would not be reading them! Face it; you cannot find good reasons for the devil to trick bible translators to remove those verses. So your conspiracy theory has no motive. Which means there is likely no conspiracy.