Bible Versions in these Last Days

[Footprint]

All over the world in these last days Satan is destroying mainstream Christianity through liberalism and tolerance of heresies. When comparing the different versions of the Bible, we notice major differences. For example, In Matthew chapter 17 (KJV) Jesus talks about casting out a devil...

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

This verse is not in the NIV. What scripture do we suppose the devil would like to take out from the word of God? the one that talks about about prayer and fasting, so no one can cast him out.

There is less anointing in many versions, they are watered down, verses omitted. The devil can't completely destroy the word of God, so what did he do? he compromised it as was his device from the beginning...

Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

It is amazing the amount of different Bible versions out there. A recent trip to the Bible section in the book store revealed so many as the men's devotional, the Catholic, the NIV, not even sure if there was a KJV but did see a NKJV, amplified, message bible, ESV, and the list goes on. If Satan can get us out of unity, not having a scripture that's the same. What Bible would a beginner know to choose, they may be overwhelmed and walk away. What dis-unity and confusion this brings.

-God bless!

[BeauJangles]

18 minutes ago, Footprint said:

It is amazing the amount of different Bible versions out there. A recent trip to the Bible section in the book store revealed so many as the men's devotional, the Catholic, the NIV, not even sure if there was a KJV but did see a NKJV, amplified, message bible, ESV, and the list goes on. If Satan can get us out of unity, not having a scripture that's the same. What Bible would a beginner know to choose, they may be overwhelmed and walk away. What dis-unity and confusion this brings.

I understand what you mean. Some are translations, others are interpretations. It's good to have several at hand to do a cross-reference comprehensive study. That way if  something is difficult to understand, or omitted, checking though them can bring a bit more clarity. 

[Footprint]

13 minutes ago, BeauJangles said:

I understand what you mean. Some are translations, others are interpretations. It's good to have several at hand to do a cross-reference comprehensive study. That way if  something is difficult to understand, or omitted, checking though them can bring a bit more clarity. 

 

Yes, I agree.

Thank you for your response. God bless!

 

[Neighbor]

Few of us are scholars fluent in Hebrew and Greek. Yet many are saved.

As to English language versions of the Bible, none are inspired, all are the best efforts of men trying to give the best  possible transliteration of a text from original languages using both biblical and extra biblical resources.

Why even the KJV committee made a provision for modification of their work to come about as time passes. The American Standard Bible 1901 is  derived from that provision. 

 Personally I do not think seeing differing versions of an English language Bible to be something that will cause a person led by the Holy Spirit to seek understanding of the word of God toward their salvation and armoring up to fail and not be saved, nor for a babe in Christ to turn away. I think the Holy Spirit can handle the challenge  of it, - if there is any.

[GandalfTheWise]

23 hours ago, Footprint said:

It is amazing the amount of different Bible versions out there. A recent trip to the Bible section in the book store revealed so many as the men's devotional, the Catholic, the NIV, not even sure if there was a KJV but did see a NKJV, amplified, message bible, ESV, and the list goes on. If Satan can get us out of unity, not having a scripture that's the same. What Bible would a beginner know to choose, they may be overwhelmed and walk away. What dis-unity and confusion this brings.

I've read the Bible through in English (KJV, LB, NIV, NASV, ASV, RSV, TEV, and probably another couple I've forgotten), in Spanish (2 versions), and Greek (Septuagint OT and Greek NT).  Hopefully, within the next few years I can add Hebrew to that list.   I've lost count but I'm probably near 30 times through not counting various individual books and passages I've read and re-read by themselves many more times.   My opinion is that my knowledge of the Bible has been much enhanced by reading all of these different versions.  My sense is that most mainstream English versions are reasonable.   My recommendation to Christians who might ask is to select a version for daily devotional reading that can be read effectively and enjoyably and to use several versions for study purposes.

In the big picture, there are two general theological views Christians have toward different Bible versions.  

The first believe that God has only one set of His exact perfect words for each people in each language.  This is not a monolithic belief and there are some variations.  But typically, most believe that God has supernaturally preserved Greek and Hebrew copies of His exact words to all generations and that one translation in each language has a special status of God having supernaturally conferred spiritual authority on that team of translators.   Thus, it is a Christian's duty to determine which translation is really God's Word and use only that one.  Some Christians with this belief construct elaborate and huge tables of all the differences between the Real version of God's Word and other versions and explain most of these differences as corruptions, errors, or outright satanic manipulation of God's Word.   

The second believe that God has entrusted and kept His Word through the Holy Spirit working through the entire body of Christ.  In each generation and language, God raises up servants who study, research, and carefully translate to best put God's timeless message into the current language being used by each generation of Christians.  Each generation of Christian scholars builds on and refines what the previous generation did.  The task of translating God's Word into the language of the current generation is something God entrusts to each generation of Christians and will continue on.

From what I can tell, the majority of evangelical Christians fit into the second group.

[Firm Foundation]

I would just stay with the KJV Bible and throw the others in the trash.

[Takoda]

The King James Version of the New Testament was based upon a Greek text (the Textus Receptus) that was marred by mistakes, containing the accumulated errors of fourteen centuries of manuscript copying.  It was essentially the Greek text of the New Testament as edited by Beza, 1589, who closely followed that published by Erasmus, 1516-1535, which was based upon a few medieval manuscripts.  The earliest and best of the eight manuscripts which Erasmus consulted was from the tenth century, and yet he made the least use of it because it differed most from the commonly received text; Beza had access to two manuscripts of great value, dating from the fifth and sixth centuries, but he made very little use of them because they differed from the text published by Erasmus.  We now possess many more ancient manuscripts (about 9000 compared to just 10) of the New Testament, and thanks to another 400 years of biblical scholarship, are far better equipped to seek to recover the original wording of the Greek text. Much as we might love the KJV and the majesty of it’s Jacobean English, modern translations are more accurate.

[com7fy8]

On 6/7/2019 at 11:11 AM, Footprint said:

but did see a NKJV

I know the King James Version says Paul became all things to all men so he could save some > 1 Corinthians 9:19-23 > "I am made all things to all men," he says, "that I might by all means save some." So, I think if we do what the King James Bible means, we are going to communicate in the language that people understand.

The New King James Version has language which English speakers now know. So, how are you with the New King James Version?

[Firm Foundation]

2 hours ago, Takoda said:

The King James Version of the New Testament was based upon a Greek text (the Textus Receptus) that was marred by mistakes, containing the accumulated errors of fourteen centuries of manuscript copying.  It was essentially the Greek text of the New Testament as edited by Beza, 1589, who closely followed that published by Erasmus, 1516-1535, which was based upon a few medieval manuscripts.  The earliest and best of the eight manuscripts which Erasmus consulted was from the tenth century, and yet he made the least use of it because it differed most from the commonly received text; Beza had access to two manuscripts of great value, dating from the fifth and sixth centuries, but he made very little use of them because they differed from the text published by Erasmus.  We now possess many more ancient manuscripts (about 9000 compared to just 10) of the New Testament, and thanks to another 400 years of biblical scholarship, are far better equipped to seek to recover the original wording of the Greek text. Much as we might love the KJV and the majesty of it’s Jacobean English, modern translations are more accurate.

 

 

The kjv is based on what was trusted to be authentic.  What they are going by today are hurriedly copied manuscripts that are incomplete.  I am staying with the KJV Bible.

[Takoda]

1 minute ago, Firm Foundation said:

The kjv is based on what was trusted to be authentic.  What they are going by today are hurriedly copied manuscripts that are incomplete.  I am staying with the KJV Bible.

If you are fed by the KJV then by all means stick with it. However the others are neither hurriedly copied or incomplete.