Bible Versions in these Last Days

[BeauJangles]

1 minute ago, com7fy8 said:

And now we see that the Apocrypha are not included in some number of King James bibles. So a question is would a King James only person consider removing the Apocrypha to be taking away from God's word . . . since the Apocrypha were in the originally translated King James?

Oh okay, gotcha. While I do like KJV, I'm not an 'only', just 'preferred'. And yeah, I have no problem the Apocrypha wasn't included in the 1967 Scofield study bible I own. 

[BeauJangles]

6 minutes ago, com7fy8 said:

I see it could have been totally washing someone by cupping his hands and pouring water all over someone . . . or he could have just dunked them, which might be more lazy and less personal.

Then you've not seen where 99% of those being baptized are taken in arms like an embrace, lowered backwards into water, and physically lifted out again. Not exactly impersonal, IMHO. 

Edited June 9, 2019 by BeauJangles

[com7fy8]

9 minutes ago, frienduff thaylorde said:

SO I ask us to simply understand that without natural affection means the same thing it does in romans one .

IT means without NATURAL    , as in against nature , as in vile affections .  Most are overlooking a key sign of the end times .

For many now are without natural affection , and yet most think ITS LOVE and celebrate it as love .     Men with men , women with women .

Many have given up the natural uses of the opposite sex and are burning in their own lusts man with man , women with women . ONLY

First, thank you so much for generously explaining what you understand.

Well, let me check > 

King James > "without natural affection" > in Romans 1:31, and in 2 Timothy 3:3.

New King James > appears to have "unloving"

My Spanish Bible says > "sin afecto natural" < Reina-Valera 1960

The Douay-Rheims Catholic bible says > "without affection"

Going by the Strong's Concordance Greek dictionary, to me it looks like the "affection" has to do with cherishing someone. So, not being affectionate would not be limited to perverted, unnatural sexual activity, I would say. So, I can see how "unloving" can work. But I have understood how "without natural affection" can mean, for an example, how a husband is not being tenderly caring with his wife . . . though they might be quite busy with physically natural behavior. So, actually, I like "without natural affection" better > not because it is meant to attack perversion, but because we need to be tenderly caring in our marital relating plus in our other sharing as family in Christ > like our Apostle Paul means > "tenderhearted", in Ephesians 4:31-32.

But when we read God's word, we can be overly first concerned about how it must go for someone else who is not like us! But I am the one who needs to become a kind, personal, tenderly caring person in how I relate with various people . . . like how Paul and Silvanus and Timothy cared for the Thessalonians "just as a nursing mother cherishes her own children." (in 1 Thessalonians 2:7)

[missmuffet]

Question: "Why are there so many Bible translations, and which is the best?"

Answer: The fact that there are so many English Bible translations is both a blessing and a problem. It is a blessing in that the Word of God is available to anyone who needs it in an easy-to-understand, accurate translation. It is a problem in that the different translations can create controversy and problems in Bible studies, teaching situations, etc. The differences between the translations can also be a subject of great division within the church body.

It is probably wise to have access to at least two or three of the major translations KJV (King James Version), NIV (New International Version), NAS (New American Standard), NKJV (New King James Version), ESV (English Standard Version), NLT (New Living Translation), for comparison's sake. If a verse or passage in one translation is a little confusing, it can be helpful to compare it side-by-side with another version. It is difficult to say which translation is the "best." "Best" would be determined by a combination of the translation method personally considered best and your interpretation of the textual data underlying your translation. For example, the KJV and NAS attempted to take the underlying Hebrew and Greek words and translate them into the closest corresponding English words as possible (word for word), while the NIV and NLT attempted to take the original thought that was being presented in Greek and Hebrew and then express that thought in English (thought for thought). Many of the other translations attempt to "meet in the middle" between those two methods. Paraphrases such as The Message or The Living Bible can be used to gain a different perspective on the meaning of a verse, but they should not be used as a primary Bible translation.

There are many more Bible translations than the six mentioned above. It is wise to have a personal method for determining whether a particular Bible translation is accurate. A good technique is to have a set of Scripture verses you know well, and look those verses up in a translation you are unsure of. A good idea is to look at some of the most common verses which speak of the deity of Christ (John 1:1, 14; 8:58; 10:30; Titus 2:13) to make sure a Bible translation is true to the Word of God. Despite the multitudes of English Bible translations, we can be confident that God's Word is truth, and that it will accomplish His purposes (Isaiah 55:11; 2 Timothy 3:16-17; Hebrews 4:12).

https://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-translations.html

Edited June 9, 2019 by missmuffet

[missmuffet]

Sometimes a person can not be immersed for some reason or other. Then sprinkling would be ok. It is nice to be baptized but it is not a salvation issue. I do know that the Baptist religion is very strict on immersion only baptism. 

[Firm Foundation]

On 6/8/2019 at 9:22 PM, Neighbor said:

Your choice, but even the KJV committee of scholars established a time table for revisions by both an  American committee and an English committee. So the writers did not find themselves to be infallible, nor inspired, but illuminated by the best efforts of a committee.

I like the American Standard 1901 "the hard rock of truth" done by the American KJV revision committee. Yet most often I use the ESV.

I would think they would have expected any new translations to come from the same reliable manuscripts, but they don't.

[Neighbor]

12 hours ago, Firm Foundation said:

I would think they would have expected any new translations to come from the same reliable manuscripts, but they don't.

That is a subject  in of itself, perhaps having more to do with  book publisher's copyrights than scholarship.

With all the consternation expressed by some, few  become scholars themselves by learning the original languages and researching the meaning and application of the passages in the original languages using the technique of a scholar. Instead each simply parrots, with enthusiasm, what they have been told is so by some pulpit speaker who more often than not is also not a scholar. Mostly they just hold to the verion they have been brought up with  or told by a pulpit speaker they must use.

Seems to me God might be most capable  of using many written languages as well as many methods of enlightening those He has saved out from this fallen creation, even in languages other than English, and even in places where individuals have no written language at all. 

 I certainly am not a scholar, but I did stay at a ....

Actually, I am privileged to have been sitting for a few years under the teaching of two scholars  fluent in Hebrew and two that are teachers of Greek . None of them chose to use the KJV for their own English language Bible. Most had used the NASB  and more often than not now use the ESV. They refer not to the KJV for understanding of the setting and historical meaning of any passage, but instead appeal  to Hebrew and also Greek language texts. Both Biblical and extra Biblical  to obtain better understanding. Their efforts are so detailed and determined as to leave me in awe of the labor they go through for the benefit of us  that are not scholars.  

Oddly when I was called  to my own repentance I don't remember what the angel spoke. Seems to me it was common American English, never once referring to me as thee. Guess God allows angels to communicate with us commoners in whatever manner we may comprehend. Most fortunate for me! 

 I first learned of God's word in KJV English  at a church  whose speaker was quite proud of his thees with it's limitations for today as most of us do not speak in 1500's English. Plus, I have used the rather clunky NASB, but find I do like the ESV very much. When I am in doubt I turn to others, from Spurgeon to Criswell  to  Levitt to, well to many others including  those left alive that I have been led to by  God for my own enlightenment and in order to make personal application of God's guidance and sovereignty over me a non scholar. I will take God's instruction in whatever form God choses to make available to me, even that swift kick that occurs every so often.

[Footprint]

On 6/8/2019 at 2:38 PM, com7fy8 said:

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?

 

Generally speaking, anything "new and improved" is usually worse. The KJV is translated word for word, and into Eng was not an easy task, whereby italics were brought in for sentence structure as you are well aware. I like it and it works for me, personally. I never had reason to by "default" anything other.

The "other" versions display the sentiment, which is not word for word. So, how bad can that really be? Try to get a job at the U.N. as a translator, giving only the sentiment of the speaker.

When it comes to the Word of God, I prefer my tried and true KJV.

 

I hope I have answered your question. And, thank you for sharing.

God bless!

[Firm Foundation]

On 6/9/2019 at 1:26 PM, com7fy8 said:

I think these are. 

There are people who insist you must not take away from God's word. And they insist this means from any part of the Bible. And ones of these claim that the King James translators were honest and holy men.

But it is said that the Apocrypha were included in the original King James Version.

And now we see that the Apocrypha are not included in some number of King James bibles. So a question is would a King James only person consider removing the Apocrypha to be taking away from God's word . . . since the Apocrypha were in the originally translated King James?

The Apocrypha was translated but was never part of the canon.  I have a KJV with Apocrypha, but I only object to the removal of scriptures that were considered part of the canon.  I like having the 14 books of the Apocrypha, but removing it is quite different from removing actual scripture from the canon.

[Firm Foundation]

On 6/9/2019 at 1:26 PM, com7fy8 said:

 

There are people who insist you must not take away from God's word. And they insist this means from any part of the Bible.

Isn't this amazing?  Why is there even a controversy here?  Shouldn't everyone insist that we must "not take away from God's word?"

Edited June 18, 2019 by Firm Foundation