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

[Sister]

1 hour ago, ghtan said:

2 Samuel was probably written around 1,000 BC. Readers were not confused for 2,600 years before the KJV came along. Why should they be confused now?

I prefer my bible to tell me what the original text said and leave the resolving of difficulties to us. Thanks for bringing up this verse though; I was not aware of the difference. I now have more confidence in the modern translations.

Oddly, there was someone on this thread who protested that modern translations have no business adding or removing words from the text. That principle is fair. Only thing is it now appears the main culprit is the KJV.

Hi ghtan

Readers are more confused now more than they ever were. 

Is God not capable of getting his Word out to the gentiles by using a King with authority to get the wheels in motion?  Is he not capable of drawing together a team of skilled men using them only for their expertise, and not beliefs, so that we can have his Word in our hands today?  Did he not warn us that wolves would come into the church especially during the last days when evil has flourished?

Were men all deceived from the 1600's and only have truth today?  Is that how we got truth?  Did God send out his Word not true, to purposely deceive us for all those years? Now we have to rely on men to improve what God was always trying to say?  What about those who received the Word back then?  God must of tricked them!  Maybe they were not worthy of truth back then, but we are now?  All these questions I ask myself from a spiritual point of view.  I look around and see all the lies and evil going on today, and after everything, I can't possibly fathom the truth in the scriptures just starting today.  How do we compare truth to lies?  How do we need to be aware?, most of us are not scholars, and what do we have to compare to what?  Use what man says he's got?  Trust in man to guide us? 

Ezekiel 13:22   Because with lies ye have made the heart of the righteous sad, whom I have not made sad; and strengthened the hands of the wicked, that he should not return from his wicked way, by promising him life:

So the main translation into English that went out on a huge global scale, to the gentiles, the KJV, was there first.  As promised, God's Word went out, and because of Jesus name, the truth started shinning on men who were once in darkness, and who never heard of this Jesus.  There were not all these different doctrines and beliefs like we have today.  It was simple.  God's word is simple, and he keeps it hidden from the wise.  Who are the wise?  Are they not our scholars who shape our opinions, and acting just like the scribes and pharisees did back in Jesus' day?, ...men respected by men?  Who do these scholars work for, and their institutions, who funds them?  Did God establish them, or the world?  We have to ask these questions.

There is only one version that holds the same doctrine, unchanged, and God will lead us to whatever version according to our hearts.  If we want to trust men who commend themselves, then so be it.  Keep in mind that the KJV is copyrighted and if one wants to bring out another version, there has to be a difference of so many words.  This speaks volumes to me for starters, not to mention the amounts of money that is being made by selling their new translations.  I also see many revised versions correcting their mistakes, and I see a forever changing word that constantly needs improving.  

 Isaiah 56:11   Yea, they are greedy dogs which can never have enough, and they are shepherds that cannot understand: they all look to their own way, every one for his gain, from his quarter.

Ezekiel 34:10   Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I am against the shepherds; and I will require my flock at their hand, and cause them to cease from feeding the flock; neither shall the shepherds feed themselves any more; for I will deliver my flock from their mouth, that they may not be meat for them.

I personally see man's hand on that doing what he does best, replacing good for evil, and evil for good.

We can't trust anything that man says, but we can put our trust into the Word of the Lord 100% and that he first delivered it to the gentiles pure and undefiled.  Now we have something to compare with whatever comes out after this, and not the other way round.  

That's my personal view, lets not try to use man's wisdom to work this out but take a good look at it spiritually, and see what would Satan gain today in attacking God's Word?

 Nahum 3:1   Woe to the bloody city! it is all full of lies and robbery; the prey departeth not;
 

 

 

[other one]

On 5/5/2016 at 7:12 PM, Scylth said:

I believe that the NASB is the best english translation.  I wonder, are there people asking which are the best japanese translations, or spanish translations, or braille translations?  Do we think the word of God is hindered by the quality of the translation?  I don’t think so.  The Holy Spirt can move through the “Good News Bible” as well as he can through a 450 a.d. greek transcript.

the 1972 version, I would agree.....   not the latest two...

[Guest Butero]

On ‎5‎/‎5‎/‎2016 at 8:30 PM, hmbld said:

I told you long ago I like the Kjv, it was when you started saying it was perfect that i started asking how, when there have been changes, and you stated when canon is closed you can't have any changes, so I asked when was canon closed because even the Kjv had changes.   You also claim other versions leave out verses, but actually the verses that are included in the Kjv are only found in later manuscripts, while the earlier manuscripts do not have them, which looks to me like the Kjv is based off versions that have "added" verses.  At any rate, these are questions I have, not meant to discredit the Kjv, but after everything I've read on the history of Kjv and comparison to modern translations, I'm left with believing the Holy Spirit revealing the meaning of scripture is a whole lot more important than the version one chooses.  

There is no proof that the KJV Bible added or subtracted any verses after the canon was closed.  All of that is speculation.  On the other hand, I can prove that the modern translations have been adding and subtracting verses since the canon was supposedly closed.  That means the canon is actually open. 

Since so many are ok with an open canon, why don't we begin debating additional books we can add or remove?  I would not be doing anything the modern translators aren't already doing but on a larger scale.  Lets begin.  I suggest we begin discussing the merits of adding the following books:  1.  Enoch  2.  Prayer of Manneseh  3.  Ecclesiasticus  4.  Epistle of Paul to the Laodiceans

That is a good jumping off point for additions.  Now, what to remove?  We have had people question whether or not Paul is truly an Apostle, so how about we start with his epistles?  If you like Paul, perhaps you don't like James, Peter and John.  Maybe Revelation isn't to your liking?   The book of John is different from Matthew, Mark and Luke.  Maybe we should question if it belongs in the canon?  I am left with the conclusion that people that defend the practice of adding to or subtracting from the text of scripture hold to an open canon, so we should begin this discussion. 

[Guest Butero]

On ‎5‎/‎5‎/‎2016 at 8:33 PM, hmbld said:

Duet 4:29  But if from thence thou shalt seek the LORD thy God, thou shalt find him, if thou seek him with all thy heart and with all thy soul.

Kjv out of respect for our friends here.

I agree with your point about The Holy Spirit, God bless you!

I do believe that if you begin with the wrong starting point, you will have a poor translation to any language.  As I mentioned earlier in this thread, I know a man who runs a Christian Book store that won't sell any English translation besides the KJV, and he also sells a Spanish version that has the T.R. as it's basis.  He won't sell any of the other Spanish translations. 

[Guest Butero]

On ‎5‎/‎6‎/‎2016 at 9:00 PM, Word-Sword said:

Look at 2Sam 21:19 and see if it reads that Elhanan killed Goliath, which would conflict with 1Chron 20:5.

And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, here Elhanan, the son of Jaaer-or-egam, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gitite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.  2 Samuel 21:19

And there was war again with the Philistines;  and Elhanan, the son of Jair slew Lahmi, the brother of Goliath the Gitite, whose spear staff was like a weaver's beam  1 Chronicles 20:5

You are correct.  The KJV got it right, but when I looked it up in the ESV, they got it wrong. 

[Guest Butero]

On ‎5‎/‎6‎/‎2016 at 6:58 AM, Deborah_ said:

The NIV of II Samuel 21:19 says that Elhanan killed the brother of Goliath. Which version says otherwise?

A footnote informs me that the word 'brother' is absent from the Hebrew manuscript, but is included in the I Chronicles account of the same incident. 

The English Standard Version has it wrong.  I just looked it up in that translation. 

[Guest Butero]

17 hours ago, ghtan said:

2 Samuel was probably written around 1,000 BC. Readers were not confused for 2,600 years before the KJV came along. Why should they be confused now?

I prefer my bible to tell me what the original text said and leave the resolving of difficulties to us. Thanks for bringing up this verse though; I was not aware of the difference. I now have more confidence in the modern translations.

Oddly, there was someone on this thread who protested that modern translations have no business adding or removing words from the text. That principle is fair. Only thing is it now appears the main culprit is the KJV.

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. 

[hmbld]

19 minutes ago, Butero said:

There is no proof that the KJV Bible added or subtracted any verses after the canon was closed.  All of that is speculation.  On the other hand, I can prove that the modern translations have been adding and subtracting verses since the canon was supposedly closed.  That means the canon is actually open. 

Since so many are ok with an open canon, why don't we begin debating additional books we can add or remove?  I would not be doing anything the modern translators aren't already doing but on a larger scale.  Lets begin.  I suggest we begin discussing the merits of adding the following books:  1.  Enoch  2.  Prayer of Manneseh  3.  Ecclesiasticus  4.  Epistle of Paul to the Laodiceans

That is a good jumping off point for additions.  Now, what to remove?  We have had people question whether or not Paul is truly an Apostle, so how about we start with his epistles?  If you like Paul, perhaps you don't like James, Peter and John.  Maybe Revelation isn't to your liking?   The book of John is different from Matthew, Mark and Luke.  Maybe we should question if it belongs in the canon?  I am left with the conclusion that people that defend the practice of adding to or subtracting from the text of scripture hold to an open canon, so we should begin this discussion. 

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.  

[Guest Teditis]

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.

[woundeddog]

King James has the most credibility of translation- for the difficult words refer to Websters 1848 Dictionary-- most words did not change much in meaning from KJV to 1848--- after that the language went south. The wording maybe a little difficult but reading it will help your general skill with handling the language