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

[Willa]

We have been saved and are assured of heaven by the witness of the Holy Spirit in us crying Abba Daddy!

We are being saved or delivered from daily sins, imperfection of the flesh, bad habits such as angry outbursts or critical spirit.  

We await the salvation of our bodies.  

So salvation is past, present and future.  Nothing to get into a huff about.  Something is wrong if God isn't still changing us to be more like Jesus.  

 

The truth has not been left out of these Bibles.   Remember that there were no capitals in the original Hebrew and they lacked our punctuation if I remember rightly.  YHWH was translated LORD In many translations.  

Erasmus' greek manuscripts were corrupted.  The best Greek Byzantine texts most closely resemble the Siniaticus and the American Standard Version of 1901.  No Greek texts are exactly alike due to slight copying errors, but the Gospel and all important doctrines remain in tact.  Most differences have to do with word order and the like.  If something was left out in one place in the NT,  you will most often find it in another.  If there are gross differences between the best Byzantine Greek texts and the KJV, I would probably favor the translations from the Byzantine texts.  I do not trust Alexandrinus which they claimed was actually from the 300s so the "earliest and best" and leaves out things like the last of Mark 16 and other missing verses quoted in the letters of the early church fathers.  It differs more from the Byzantine texts than the others.   Even Jerome made a lot of translating errors when he translated the Greek text into Latin Vulgate.  So I will stick to protestant versions.

The fact is that the literal translations are all much more alike than the thought to thought versions or the paraphrases.  I found some portions of NIV to be more literal than NASV and most portions were much less.  It probably depends on the translator when many took part. But if a person will read it or the NASV they will still get more truth than the person who keeps the bible on the shelf.  

While I prefer the NKJV and rely on it, I probably possess most of the translations but have eliminated Good News, Living Bible, and others.  I like the NIV Study Bible for its notes.  Otherwise I stick mostly to literal translations.

 

[Deborah_]

1 hour ago, Butero said:

It is just incorrect, and narrows the meaning of the word. 

How so? Most gay men are not obviously effeminate, so in so far as the terms do overlap (which isn't much), 'men who have sex with men' is surely the broader one. 

[Esther4:14]

22 hours ago, ccfromsc said:

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.

The Wycliffe's Bible was based solely on the Latin Vulgate because he was unable to translate from the Greek texts, which is a very sincere attempt made by a man who wanted people to read the Bible.  Erasmus consulted the Vulgate, but the ultimate decisions in translation were made by translating the Text from Greek to English, not from Greek to Latin to English.  These were later used by Tyndale, then the KJV translators.  However, the Latin Vulgate is pretty useless today except as a relic of the history of bringing the scriptures back to the people.  

[ghtan]

16 hours ago, Butero said:

I find the arguments of people like yourself to be unconvincing to say the least.  You cannot defend the removal of verses from the modern translations.  At this point, there isn't even any unity in regard to what is being removed.  If it wasn't for the fact modern translations continually come along and question this scripture or that scripture, you wouldn't have people thinking in the mode like the guy did over John 1:1.  Yes, I do blame them for that kind of thing happening.

Interestingly enough, we do have one modern translation, the NKJV Bible, that doesn't remove any of the text that I am aware of.  That is another thing I haven't seen anyone on your side explain.  Why not use that modern translation if clarity is all you are concerned about?  Why choose the worst of the worst, like the NIV? 

There comes a point where all the evidence can be shown, and there are just people like you that are so far gone, you are just given over to deception.  You are beyond hope.  I get that.  I am not doing this to try to persuade you, Saved34 or ccfromsc.  I realize how futile that is, but the one thing I want to point out to you is that you have failed to convince anyone to your side.  I am as firmly on the KJV or TR side as ever and so is Ezra, so you haven't won anyone.  The only person I have seen that was not fully on one side or the other has at least decided to go to the NKJV over the worse modern translations, so I am thankful for that.  It is not as good as the KJV, but it is much better than the other alternatives.  You haven't persuaded anyone, and I don't plan to back down.  I plan to continue my assault on the modern translations that remove part of the text.  I also continue to challenge anyone on your side to a Soap Box debate, but so far, there have been no takers.  I wonder why, given how arrogant and sure of themselves most of them are. 

Rest assured, it never crossed my mind to try to 'convert' you. As you well know, I do not believe there is only one correct translation; so there is nothing for me to try to convert you to. I just wanted to see if you did have any good argument to support your faith in KJV-only.

[ghtan]

 

16 hours ago, Butero said:

16 hours ago, Deborah_ said:

Well, good luck to finding a mention of the virgin birth in Mark, or of Jesus changing water into wine in Luke. You don't bother looking for them if you know from the start that they aren't there, and it doesn't worry you either.

There are websites that list every single one of the "missing verses"... I've seen them all before. The vast majority are just removal of duplications, like the ones above.

They really have no business removing anything from God's Word, not one jot or one tittle.  Unless there was already an account of those things in Mark and Luke, I don't expect to find them there.  I do expect to find what used to be there still there. 

Anyway, thanks for your contribution to this debate.  I know you weren't here to fight for the right side, but you still confirmed that the verses were removed where I said they were.  My other issue with the NIV is that abomination they created called the TNIV that intentionally altered the text to create a gender neutral Bible. 

Now that we have gotten past that, the next time someone asks if you are saved, you can tell them no but you are being saved. 

It is false to say that the translators of the modern versions removed those verses from the text. Unlike the KJV translators, the modern ones did not start their work by using the TR as their base text.  This was because older, and thus better, manuscripts had been found since the TR was compiled in the 16th century. So they started, as it were, with a clean sheet. Those 'missing' verses just weren't in those older mss and so they did not make it into the modern translations.

The implication is that those missing verses were actually not in the originals but were added later by copyists. It is easy to see how later copyists might have added those verses - they were trying to harmonise the texts with the other gospels. It is far harder to explain why any copyist would remove those verses if they were already in the text. Therefore, the modern translations are actually preserving what is closer to the originals.

Edited April 26, 2016 by ghtan
Clarification

[gdemoss]

19 hours ago, Butero said:

First of all, legalism isn't even a Biblical concept.  Just like I was willing to take on anyone in the Soap Box on Bible translations, I am willing to take on all comers on legalism.  I can prove from the Bible that the anti-legalism charges and doctrine is false. 

I can prove that the majority of modern translations have been removing part of the text.  When they do that, they are tearing away at the Biblical canon.  I can show they are causing confusion.  As a matter of fact, I have done all of that, and I have lots more examples to post.  When I see people cry legalism, I see desperation because they have no substance. 

I have no desire to enter into a soapbox debate with you.  You are a self proclaimed legalist who truly beleives that legalism is the legitimate method by which to interpret and live out that which God has written.  Your truth is not debatable because you have every argument against it defeated in your mind with logic that fits your understanding. Not even Jesus himself could persuade you to change.  So God will hold you accountable for living up to the standard by which your laws set but don't be suprised when he does not require the same of me or others. 

Be careful though, the lawless one will be a legalist.  He will have no respect for Gods law though.  He will destroy those who hold to a legalistic veiw by their own laws.  This is why Jesus said unto them that they had one who accused them, even Moses in whom they trusted.

What you can't prove is that God is a kjv onliest. Good day friend.

[ccfromsc]

19 hours ago, Butero said:

It was never about one false version, but many.  That has been the case from the start.  The NIV is too easy anyway.  We have a translation where a lesbian was involved in the translation.  We have them taking us to a gender neutral abomination that was attacked by main stream Christian leaders like James Dobson.  I can destroy the NIV on that alone because it is so obvious what is wrong with it.  It was also the first translation where I started noticing them taking scriptures and putting them in footnotes.  I know for a fact they are doing it.  I just don't have the NIV with me, but if you are going to challenge me on it, I will be glad to return to it and start showing all of it's flaws.  Perhaps I will devote an entire week to it. 

I can tell you what I hate.  I hate what the devil has done to the Holy Bible.  I hate the confusion he has caused. 

We have go at it with the NIV and funny how you dropped it when I posted from the NIV the verses you said were missing. Then you jumped translations because I proved it.

Here is my question: the KJV was NOT the first bible nor the first English bible. So what makes it the "Bible?" You do realize that ole King James wanted the new bible cause he did not like the Geneva bible. He believed the Geneva challenged the "divine right" of kings and wanted his own to counter it. The main bible in use for the English was the Bishop's bible and still the Great bible was the "authorized" bible by a king of England. Even when first here in America, Pilgrims, etc did not use the KJV and in fact hated it.

[ccfromsc]

20 hours ago, Butero said:

First of all, legalism isn't even a Biblical concept.  Just like I was willing to take on anyone in the Soap Box on Bible translations, I am willing to take on all comers on legalism.  I can prove from the Bible that the anti-legalism charges and doctrine is false. 

I can prove that the majority of modern translations have been removing part of the text.  When they do that, they are tearing away at the Biblical canon.  I can show they are causing confusion.  As a matter of fact, I have done all of that, and I have lots more examples to post.  When I see people cry legalism, I see desperation because they have no substance. 

REALLY? Do you really believe that drivel you just penned? I ask again why is the KJV the "set" version to judge by? There were versions before and since, Even the church of England which first had the KJV has dropped it.....You are beginning to sound like a modern day pharisee.

[ccfromsc]

14 hours ago, Butero said:

Thank you so much for having the courage to come in here and take a stand for the pure Word of God.  You will find that there are angry wolves among the sheep who will attack you, but even though you are in the minority, you are not alone.  I remain KJV only and so does Ezra.  You entered into a battlefield, but the Lord will uphold you if you trust in him. 

By the way, that was a rather important distinction in the text of the KJV and the text in those other translations, including the NKJV.  I have looked at the NKJV as the least corrupt modern English translation, but it is far from perfect, and we would all do better to remain using the 1611 KJV or the Authorized KJV Bible.  God bless you for your faithfulness to stand up for what is right. 

"Pure word of God?" Have you ever read the preface to the King James? It is by the group of men who comprised the translation. First off they stated undeniably to look for other translations/versions to learn. 2nd even they acknowledged it was not pure!

[ccfromsc]

OK here is one for the logic of KJV Only.

Butero and Manuel did y'all realize the KJV says not once but twice "There is no God?"