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

[hmbld]

4 minutes ago, Butero said:

The translation itself was perfect.  I had an early edition of the KJV Bible on tape, and it left out a couple of verses.  It was a mistake.  It wasn't done on purpose, and in my latest set on cd, it was fixed.  That is not a translation error, but a problem with someone reading and recording what was given to him.  With these new modern English translations, we are not dealing with mistakes.  We are dealing with willful decisions being made to leave out part of the text, scripture that was included in the canon. 

I don't have a problem with you stating it is the most accurate, in your opinion.  What is tough to accept, is when you continually state it is "perfect"  I am sure you know what the word perfect means.  I also do, and without too much research, it is well documented that there were errors, therefore the word perfect must be thrown out.  I would rather see someone choose a version they can easily understand and actually read, than get frustrated and quit because someone told them they had to accept this "perfect" version.  It is God who gives the increase, not the kjv.  

[hmbld]

Butero, do you think someone can study the law all their life, and yet miss the point of the law?

[Qnts2]

35 minutes ago, Butero said:

That is what I am getting at.  The translators didn't translate it wrong.  It was simply a printing error.  It is found in my 1611 reprint, but even I would know it was a typo.  I could have an absolutely perfect translation presented to me with the task of copying it, and I could make a mistake on the spelling or grammar.  That is not the translators fault but mine, and it needs to be fixed when I catch it for future editions.  Still, the translation was perfect before I messed it up. 

Copy errors are common. Since the Hebrew OT is manually copied, such errors are called scribal errors. If there is a scribal error, it is not considered to be canonized scripture.

I borrowed a line from the statement of faith from Jews for Jesus as the statement concerning the scriptures is a standard format.

We believe that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are divinely inspired, verbally and completely inerrant in the original writings and of supreme and final authority in all matters of faith and life.

The original writings did not contain scribal errors as they were the originals which were revealed by God in the original languages.

Just for an alternate statement of faith from the 1st Baptist church of Atlanta, to show the generally accepted pattern.

http://www.fba.org/main/statement-of-faith

1. We believe that the entire Bible is the inspired Word of God and that men of God “were moved by the Holy Spirit” to write the very words of Scripture. The Bible is therefore without error (inerrant) in its original manuscripts.

In my view, the best translation were done by teams of people who were experts in the original languages, with a check and balance method to ensure the most accurate translation. The people who translate need to be born again Christians with a high view of scripture, dedicated to the most accurate translation possible. The translations which I consider good translation are, KJV, NKJV, NASB and ESV. That list is all literal translations. Some people like thought for thought translations. And finally you have paraphrases. I prefer literal. 

t

[saved34]

44 minutes ago, Butero said:

Here is the problem defenders of modern English translations face.  We have this thing called the canon.  It consists of 66 books and their contents.  Most of us claim to believe in a closed canon, meaning that these 66 books and their contents are the entire Bible, and we are not to remove anything from them or add to them.  There are some who hold to an open canon, which means that we may or may not have the correct 66 books.  The Bible may contain thing that shouldn't be there, and it may have left things out we need. 

According to the New King James Version Bible that I bought, originally what was translated to English was called the majority text, which means that the contents are found in the majority of surviving New Testament manuscripts.  What they are using today are known as the critical text, which is the Alexandrian and Egyptian text.  These came along much later, after the canon was closed. 

My point is that if you remove anything from what is supposed to be a closed canon, even the now controversial verse in 1 John, you discredit the entire canon, and what was closed is open.  That means I am now free to question anything in the Bible, any verse or any book.  If there is a new discovery, and it leaves out an entire chapter in Galatians, modern translators can decide it is the most reliable and leave it out, while people on their side defend what they did, just as they defend how they discredit the last portion of Mark 16.  You can't believe in a closed canon and accept modern translations that left out part of the original text that was in the established canon. 

It does not mean that at all. That is called circular reasoning. The so called corrupt manuscripts are not missing a single doctrine that is vital to our faith. Made up doctrines like one single English translation, or the KJV being the only preserved word is simply a matter of opinion and not Faith.

If it were a matter of faith we would have instructions from God to hold to the King James in all its incarnations. Again, the AV is a masterpiece and my memorization of scripture is purely Kjv, but it is not the only Bible in English, but one of many excellent translations that has blessed millions of God's people to a greater relationship and understanding of him.

[saved34]

Arguing whether cannon is closed is nowhere near the argument of whether the KJV is the only legitimate Bible. 

Hebrews is in canon because it fits doctrinally, James is in canon because it fits doctrinally, etc. When battling against those who opposed  the Trinity, the Church Fathers did not use 1John 5. Why not? All of them were Trinitarian. Seems that would have been a perfect verse for defense of the Trinity.

The fundamentals of our faith are all intact in the Niv, Nasb, and the Esv. They are the Words of God and can be trusted.

[Qnts2]

56 minutes ago, Butero said:

Here is the problem defenders of modern English translations face.  We have this thing called the canon.  It consists of 66 books and their contents.  Most of us claim to believe in a closed canon, meaning that these 66 books and their contents are the entire Bible, and we are not to remove anything from them or add to them.  There are some who hold to an open canon, which means that we may or may not have the correct 66 books.  The Bible may contain thing that shouldn't be there, and it may have left things out we need. 

According to the New King James Version Bible that I bought, originally what was translated to English was called the majority text, which means that the contents are found in the majority of surviving New Testament manuscripts.  What they are using today are known as the critical text, which is the Alexandrian and Egyptian text.  These came along much later, after the canon was closed. 

My point is that if you remove anything from what is supposed to be a closed canon, even the now controversial verse in 1 John, you discredit the entire canon, and what was closed is open.  That means I am now free to question anything in the Bible, any verse or any book.  If there is a new discovery, and it leaves out an entire chapter in Galatians, modern translators can decide it is the most reliable and leave it out, while people on their side defend what they did, just as they defend how they discredit the last portion of Mark 16.  You can't believe in a closed canon and accept modern translations that left out part of the original text that was in the established canon. 

When do you believe the canon was closed?

In my view 1611 is much later then the canon being closed. The Textus Receptus was written in the 1500's which is also much later then the canon was closed. Most of the Greek manuscripts used to compile the Textus receptus were from the 1200's. Again, long after the canon was closed. The canon for the NT was closed around 397 ce, but had been informally agreed up since around 200 ce. 

[saved34]

1 minute ago, Butero said:

It means exactly what I said it does.  We were told that we have a closed canon.  It included 66 books and their contents, all of them.  If someone comes along and removes part of the contents that was part of that canon, anyone defending those actions are calling into question the canon.  It is no longer a closed canon, but it is an open canon.  I recall someone in this thread saying those verses in question shouldn't have been there, which means those who gave us the canon made a mistake.  If someone were to find more manuscripts, and they leave out more verses, they are free to leave them out of future translations to the applause of people like you.  You will just call them scribal errors, and accept it.  Well I don't.  Any translation that leaves out verses that were in the original text is an abomination, not a masterpiece, unless you mean a masterpiece of deception.  What I am saying is common sense.  You can call it circular reasoning or anything you wish, but anyone that has an open mind and desires the truth knows I am speaking the truth. 

Yes, they are leaving out important doctrine.  They left out the need for fasting to cast out some devils in the NIV and they leave out prayer and fasting in the more recent translations.  That is rather important.  Someone will wind up like the seven sons of Sceva in Acts. 

What fundamental truth was left out? Truth that makes one a Christian. 

Are you really going to sit here and say fasting? Are you really going to say the modern translations do not teach fasting? 

[saved34]

31 minutes ago, Butero said:

Much of the doctrine of scripture isn't directly addressing our salvation.  That doesn't mean it isn't of vital importance.  If all we need is enough Bible to tell us how to get saved, why not scrap all of it but the "Romans road" scriptures?  Why even have Bibles?  You have to be kidding with that argument?  If it doesn't directly address how to get saved, who cares if those portions are left out?  Apparently not you, but I do. 

I didn't say that, you did. I said what fundamental Christian truth is left out? Be it salvation, the Deity of Christ, Justification by faith, the incarnation, the Trinity, the indwelling of The Holy Spirit, Law and Grace, etc. You do know the fundamentals of Orthodox Christian faith right? What am I missing by reading a Modern translation with missing verses? 

[saved34]

1 minute ago, Butero said:

Even if we include those things, we can remove a great deal of scripture, and it should be ok with you.  We could remove all the genealogies.  We could remove Revelation except for that curse thing.  Books like Song of Solomon could be tossed out.  There is a whole lot we could remove that doesn't directly address those things, even whole books from the New Testament.  The thing is that I actually think those things matter, just as I think it matters if I encounter a demon possessed man, that if I am having trouble casting the devil out, I have that information about prayer and fasting.  I also recall there are verses left out of modern translations that tell us of fulfilled prophecies, and those are faith building to some.  They matter to me, even if they are not important enough for you to fight for them.  You really don't need a very large Bible.  A church manual could tell you all you need to know, so now that I understand how little having the entire text means to you, so long as it doesn't leave out those so-called fundamental Christian truths, I see why we will never agree on the importance of leaving verses out of the Bible.  I could probably write a Bible in one evening that would include enough to satisfy you. 

At least you acknowledge that no Christian doctrine is missing. The rest is your own opinion. The whole point of a good Bible is to lead us to know God and his Son, Jesus Christ. All the good translations do an excellent job of that.

Whether the Kjv or the Nkjv, the importance is that we read and practice God's word.

[gdemoss]

@ the whole thead in general 

The letter of the law kills but the Spirit gives life.  Dead arguments lead to confusion and ruin.