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

[other one]

On 4/28/2016 at 8:36 PM, ccfromsc said:

The KJV states twice there is no God plain and simple. You are in denial.

the KJV does not state that there is no God......   it reports that only a fool says there is no God.....    you are perverting scripture....   and there are long term consequences for that...

[hmbld]

39 minutes ago, other one said:

the KJV does not state that there is no God......   it reports that only a fool says there is no God.....    you are perverting scripture....   and there are long term consequences for that...

Right, and if you read the last post he added, "The point with the "there is no God" is to show the nuttiness of the KJV Only. They take one item and stay on it irregardless of whether another version says it."  I believe he agrees, but is trying to make a point about people who get stuck on Kjv only regardless if other versions agree, they still can only see Kjv only.  I think I understand what he is trying to say, but it does not seem like a good argument in my opinion, it is too easy to miss what was intended, and get stuck arguing about the 4 words he picked out.  

[RustyAngeL]

1 hour ago, bopeep1909 said:

1 Corinthians 1:18 "those who are being saved" and "those who are saved". No difference. You are grasping at straws.

Amen bopeep and you can be saved without someone reading the KJV of the Bible to you.  

[RustyAngeL]

On 4/8/2016 at 4:10 PM, ((Michael)) said:

Though I have a King James Version, I prefer reading out of the New American Standard Bible. I would recommend no commentary. Pray that the Holy Spirit opens your eyes and teaches you before each reading. There are so many study bibles and commentaries, which for doctrines rely on the opinion of men. This is one of many areas Jews went wrong.  They started relying on the teachings of men in the Talmud instead of the word of ADONAI.

Luke 24:27 Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.

Luke 24:44-45 ⁴⁴ Now He said to them, “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” ⁴⁵ Then He opened their ^[a]minds to understand the Scriptures,

Both of the passages above are from New American Standard

 

Michael, you may read any version you wish.  It's about the study of the One who wrote it.  His Word does not change.  I myself have a NKJV, and somewhere I have an Amplified.  I"m fed and blessed in both.  God Bless you brother.

[omegalamed]

I like Dr. Lamsa's Middle East Text the Peshita from the original Aramaic. It is light to semantics and idioms. I also like the KJV which is melodious and is easy to memorize. I also like the Sacred name bible of the Rotherham version revised. They use Yahwah instead of Yahweh. My favorite is the Sacred Scriptures of Assembly of Yahweh from Bethel, PA, USA. It is the sacred name restored a very crisp, concise translation. You can understand what you are reading for yourself. Blessings 

[other one]

36 minutes ago, RustyAngeL said:

Amen bopeep and you can be saved without someone reading the KJV of the Bible to you.  

you can be saved and never see a Bible...

[Esther4:14]

Recently, I have been reading Tyndale's New Testament.  For anyone who has never read this work, I would highly recommend it.  It is a truly special experience.  If the language seems difficult to read, what you can do is listen to an audiobook version of The Canterbury Tales following along with a print copy.  It would only take maybe a couple hours to acclimate yourself to some differences in the English language because it is essentially the same language.  

I was inspired by the integrity of his translation.  His intention in translating the Bible comes through and you can sense the only thing he wanted to do was write the Bible in English so people could understand it.  English, at the time, of Tyndale's translation was not a language that was respected for scholarship.  If you spoke English and did not go to school, there would be no real books that you would read for recreation.  This is essentially one of the first books written in the English language, and this seems to be understood by Tyndale who appears to have taken some liberty in composing a written English language that would reflect the language he would use with the people of his country since there were no dictionaries to consult for spelling at the time.  

However, English would still not be a respected language because of Tyndale's achievement.  Language was a mechanism of separating social class, so the elite would learn Latin and Greek and be able to spend time reading classical literature for recreation, while the people were excluded from this if there social positions did not allow them the time needed to learn these languages.  

Then, there was Geoffrey Chaucer who comes along and for whatever reason, decides to write in English rather than in a classical language and with his wit and popularity, there is the beginnings of literature written in English.    

Next comes Protestant reformation and the invention of the printing press, which re-fires the same desire in the people that Tyndale had, and the Geneva Bible is born.  The Geneva Bible included a commentary surrounding the text.  It is no different in some ways then some of the Bible we are familiar with today that have footnotes or devotional type comments included.  

And, there was great religious controversy and the pull and push of the Catholic church and the Protestants, and the tide over this social conflict would ebb and flow depending on the spiritual position of the Monarch.  

Enter stage left, King James of Scotland who was the nephew of the childless Queen Elizabeth who was responsible for the execution of King James mother, Mary Queen of Scots.  

Upon taking the throne, there is an attempt to kill him known as "The Gunpowder Plot."  Nevertheless, King James was changed in disposition towards his position as monarch.  He was one of the most politically strategic monarchs that have probably ever been, which is how the King James Version was born-as a political strategy.  

The King James Version would serve as a method of making both parties happy by removing the commentary that was included in the Geneva Bible for one.  Then, by giving the people a Bible written in the English language for two.  Then everyone would be happy and say that King James was the best king ever and shout "long live the king," every time they left the house and he could peacefully have his 17-course dinner parties where he would entertain guests with poetry and prose and beef.  

At the time, the English language was still not established.  There would still not be a English dictionary till the 18th century, so the translators are still taking liberty in translating a English version of the Bible for the King.  

The king himself was even an aspiring writer himself.  It is said that his piece "A Counterblaste to Tobacco," was originally written anonymously so that he could see whether the public would approve of him as a writer if they didn't know he was king.  No one paid attention to this piece, but because the king had a passion to tell the people that smoking was bad for them, he eventually placed his name on the writing, and it was recognized by the public.  

As a result, I am even of the opinion that Malcolm X was correct in saying that King James was actually Shakespeare.  There are many suggestions that Shakespeare didn't exist and that someone else was actually the author of his plays, and if you will notice in the original paintings taking depicting King James and Shakespeare, King James is always shown from facing left and Shakespeare is shown facing right, and they bear many other facial similarities.  

Shakespeare and the King James Version are also frequently credited with the development of the English language that we know today.  

So, the motivation to compose the King James Version was never comparable to the motivation that brought about the Tyndale New Testament or the Geneva Bible.  The control over translation of this version was also in the control of the monarchy.  

This control can be seen as we begin to see the English language further evolve into the 18th century when the last revisions to the language in the King James Bible were made.  Our modern version is based on these last changes to language in the 18th century.  

The 18th century is also noted for the development of the first English Dictionary composed by Samuel Johnson in 1755.  Jonathon Swift is also another familiar writer of the 18th century most known for writing Gulliver's Travels.  

In the book Gulliver's Travels, the English language has already transitioned to looking very different than the 1611 King James Version and the writings of Shakespeare.  

" My father had a small estate in Nottinghamshire: I was the third of five sons. He sent me to Emanuel College in Cambridge at fourteen years old, where I resided three years, and applied myself close to my studies; but the charge of maintaining me, although I had a very scanty allowance, being too great for a narrow fortune," (Gulliver's Travels, chapter one).  

Jane Austen is another well known author of the early 19th century.  Pride and Prejudice is even one of my favorite books of all time.  The English language as it appears in the writings of Jane Austen is  very different than the writing from the 1611 King James Version and the writings of Shakespeare as well.  

"IT is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife.

However little known the feelings or views of such a man may be on his first entering a neighborhood, this truth is so well fixed in the minds of the surrounding families, that he is considered as the rightful property of some one or other of their daughters," (Pride and Prejudice, chapter one).  

Now, why wasn't the King James Version modified to reflect the language of 18th century English in it's last days of modification.  I believe that this is because the monarchy had control of the publication of the King James Version, which was never about having a version that would be easy for the people to understand.  So, the English language continued to change, and the translators of the King James Version did not feel the need to accommodate this change.  

So, I am a firm believer that there is an attempt to corrupt the scriptures.  However, I do not believe that the KJV is as innocent as it appears.  Maybe they are innocent in the light of the modern translations, but that does not mean they are not without guilt.  

Inevitably, the debate concerning translating the Bible into the strange language of English is strange to me because whether or not the KJV is accurate or not does not prove whether or not there is not a believer in Christ today with the same integrity Tyndale had in translating the Bible.  Why should a person not be able to translate the Bible into a more common English language if that is what God lays on their hearts just because we have the KJV and consider it an accurate translation? 

I believe there are people capable of doing this in the body of Christ today that will put an end to these sort of debates in the future.  

 

[angels4u]

6 minutes ago, other one said:

you can be saved and never see a Bible...

Amen

[missmuffet]

2 hours ago, RustyAngeL said:

Amen bopeep and you can be saved without someone reading the KJV of the Bible to you.  

Absolutely

[Guest Butero]

On ‎4‎/‎30‎/‎2016 at 10:42 PM, ghtan said:

I think you are scraping the bottom of the barrel. When was the nt canon closed? The person regularly credited with it was Athanasius in the 4th century. He listed the accepted books of the nt but who knows what texts he was using. It certainly was not the TR. He was from Alexandria and more likely than not he was using the Alexandrian texts which you distrust!

I already said a 16th century mss was conveniently produced to pressure Erasmus to add the verse. Either you honestly did not read that or you are pretending not to have.

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.