Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Waiting2BwithHim

Which Bible?

Recommended Posts

Which bible version(s) do you like to read? Why do you like it (them) ?

Which ones don't you like and why?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I usually prefer the NIV only because when God called me back in 1978 a stranger gave the gospel of John in the NIV. (the whole story is in the testimony section) I didn't even know of other translations except for the KJV which is fine but I don't understand old English. It's too easy to misunderstand the scriptures in old English. Therefore I don't read it. However, lately I like the ESV especially the OT. It seems most Christians forgot there are many god-like beings that exist and the ESV make this clear by using the word gods where other translations use different words. These gods are not the same as the 1 God who created everything but they do exist. I always knew they exist but I also always knew to not be interested in them. They do not have our God's best interests at heart. There are the gods New Age people are following, whether they know it or not.

Avoid translations that are overly paraphrased. The only safe one I know is the Amplified Bible. I also like the NKJV.

Amen

  • Brilliant! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the priority for me is NKJV to study for accuracy in it's modern English from it's original KJV. Even sometimes I misunderstand things in the KJV. So in that case I also use the NCV New Century Version. I think this version cleared a lot of things up I didn't know before.

Sometimes I look at the ESV for a backup. When it comes to the origins and accuracy of the bible then I use NKJV.

These are 3 I hate.

1 Tyndale Bible I hate the way the words are twisted around and giving it another meaning.

2 the NWT New World's Translation read by the Jehovah Witnesses. I once studied with them in junior high. They take the word cross out of the Bible because they believe Jesus dies on the stake. In other cases it pretty close to the regular bible.

3 Last is the Message Bible. This Bible might as well be called The Romper Room bible. It's sounds like a little kids Bible with no advanced vocabulary.  I think this is insulting to God making him to seem like he is stupid which he is not. 

  • Thumbs Up 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, JTC said:

I usually prefer the NIV only because when God called me back in 1978 a stranger gave the gospel of John in the NIV. (the whole story is in the testimony section) I didn't even know of other translations except for the KJV which is fine but I don't understand old English. It's too easy to misunderstand the scriptures in old English. Therefore I don't read it. However, lately I like the ESV especially the OT. It seems most Christians forgot there are many god-like beings that exist and the ESV make this clear by using the word gods where other translations use different words. These gods are not the same as the 1 God who created everything but they do exist. I always knew they exist but I also always knew to not be interested in them. They do not have our God's best interests at heart. There are the gods New Age people are following, whether they know it or not.

Avoid translations that are overly paraphrased. The only safe one I know is the Amplified Bible. I also like the NKJV.

Amen

 

Can you quote me these verses from the NIV, please?

Matt 17:21, Matt 18:11, Mark 15:28, Luke 23:17 and Mark 9:44?

Also, can you please quote Ephesians 1:7 and John 3:16?

Is the word "sodomite" in the NIV?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The King James Bible for sure.


The Authorised Version ( later referred to as the King James Version )  was translated via the antioch manuscript textline, not the corrupted alexandrian textline as most modern perversions are.

Around 64,000 manuscripts agree with the KJV. 

Thats a whopping 95%.

The newer "translations" are supported by only 5%.

modern (per)versions will say that their translation is "exact", "literal" "translation of the original languages.
But, what they DON'T tell you is that they are using the CORRUPTED Greek texts of heretics Westcott and Hort, two unsaved men who hated the Word of God.


The King James Bible came from an entirely different Greek text (the Textus Receptus) which originated from Antioch, Syria, where believers were first called "Christians" (Acts 11:26). The corrupted Greek text which Westcott and Hort used originated from Egypt.

------------------------

The KJV is translated from the Textus Receptus(TR) text. This text agrees with over 99% of the 5,686 Greek manuscripts. The ESV, along with all the other new versions is translated from the text of Westcott and Hort(W&H), which drastically different from the TR. The W&H text, that has been altered by the philosophy of men, removes complete verses and words, which explains why the new versions do the same. The new versions are not just "updating the language", they are corrupting the word of God with the help of the corrupt W&H text. 

Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort are the two men behind the corrupt Greek text of the new versions. These two men were on the translating committee of the Revised Version(RV). By reading these two men's quotes any Christian would agree that these two men were heretics. 

For time sake, I will not quote all of their quotes, but leave it up to the reader to research these men. Here are just some of the false beliefs of these men. Both did not believe in the infallibility or authority of the Holy Scriptures. They denied the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ and did not believe in a literal eternal Hell. Both denied the literal account of creation in Genesis. Westcott believed in the worship of Mary, while Hort said that the worship of Mary and Jesus had a lot in common. Hort believed in the Roman Catholic sacraments and taught baptismal regeneration. Westcott did not believe in the literal Second Coming of Jesus Christ, nor believed in a literal heaven. Hort did not believe in the Trinity, nor believed in literal angels. Hort attacked the doctrine of substitution also. The list goes on and on, but I will stop there.

Those are the men behind the new version's Greek text and after examining their beliefs one can see why the new versions corrupt major doctrines, such as the deity of Jesus Christ. Understand that it is not just the ESV that uses the W&H text, but all the other new versions, such as the NIV, NASV, ASV, RV, RSV, NCV, etc. 

The W&H Greek text consists of two corrupt manuscripts that disagree with the Majority text. These two manuscripts that are filled with errors are called the Vaticanus and Siniaticus, which include the Apocrypha in the Old Testament. The KJV translators made it clear that the Apocrypha was not inspired scripture by putting it in the middle for only historical reasons and noting that it was not scripture. The ESV uses the 4th edition of the UBS Greek New Testament and the 27th edition of Nestle's Novum Testamentum Graece, which follow the W&H Greek text. 

Deceitfully, the ESV claims lineage to the KJV. Again, nothing can be further from the truth because as you have seen, the KJV and ESV use completely different texts in translating. The ESV uses the same Greek text as the Revised Standard Version(RSV), which claimed the KJV had many mistakes when it was published. 

The Lord has warned people against subtracting and adding to his words. The ESV goes directly against God's command and takes out 17 complete verses. The fact is, the new version people are LIARS because they claim that they are just updating the language to make it "easier", but what they have done is used the corrupt W&H Greek text that corrupts doctrines and alters the precious words of God. 

----------------------------------------------

Now, before anyone accuses me of being a "KJV-ONLYIST", i will pre-empt a reply.

First, the Bible IS the infallible Word of God, but no translation is infallible.

Second, I think the question really should be “Why do some people prefer the KJV when so many people hate it?”


MANY people are anti-KJV and they vehemently hate the KJV.


I think most say it is hard to read. Sorry, my friends but that is just a lazy excuse. It would take you 2 or 3 seconds to google a word that you don’t REALLY understand. “Thee” and “Thou” and “Ye”  are VERY important words with slightly different actual meanings. They, in fact when you learn the definitions, make the Bible passages A LOT clearer. Plus, studies have shown that the KJV is EASIER to read by at least 2 or 3 grades.
I think the second main reason people hate it is because they think that the new translations which are based in part on EARLIER manuscripts are better and more accurate. Again, sorry, my friends no offence, but this is nonsense. The AGE of a manuscript has NOTHING to do with whether it is accurate! 
A third point is that i think most people generally think that all the Bible translations can be traced back to ONE source.
This is not true.
The Authorised Version ( later referred to as the King James Version )  was translated via the antioch manuscript textline, not the corrupted alexandrian textline as most modern perversions are. The King James Bible came from an entirely different Greek text (the Textus Receptus) which originated from Antioch, Syria, where believers were first called "Christians" (Acts 11:26). The corrupted Greek text which Westcott and Hort used originated from Egypt.


Around 64,000 manuscripts agree with the KJV. 


Thats a whopping 95%.


The newer "translations" are supported by only 5%.


modern (per)versions will say that their translation is "exact", "literal" "translation of the original languages.


But, what they DON'T tell you is that they are using the CORRUPTED Greek texts of heretics Westcott and Hort, two unsaved men who hated the Word of God.


So, even IF the KJV is harder to read, would you rather struggle a little with the TRUTH or easily read a LIE?
serious omissions in the niv.pdf981f0666c006a5ad1c671d362b708f4b.jpg.c53b40fc347228d7d44a170ff8196969.jpgkjb_chart-large.jpg.1204e3b70371d53890253094307acc30.jpggplus-1512777896.jpg.f34bb3b1828f4097052d07bef3af52d2.jpg5a87aaf466dc9_images(5).jpg.b833a806af321dc8107fb9ed18f2ccc6.jpgkjb_chart-large.jpg.ce5faefeed7050cdfd08c8dde3333946.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Waiting2BwithHim said:

Which bible version(s) do you like to read? Why do you like it (them) ?

Which ones don't you like and why?

 

KJV only.  They began with the manuscripts that were in use and accepted by the early church as opposed to incomplete manuscripts found in caves later on and used as the starting point by modern translations.  The NIV and others leave out part of the established text that is considered canon and put them in footnotes.  The creator of the NIV came up with the gender neutral abomination called the TNIV, which shows their agenda was not truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Their agenda is to write a new copywritable bible....     it's money they have as their agenda. It's a real shame that there is a market for the TNIV.

 

I personally listen to Alexander Scorbey reading the KJV but read either the 1972 version of the NASB, or ESV.   I study with an interlinear bible with both the Textus Receptus and Nestle manuscripts....     it is a computer program that lets me read the original texts one word at a time and do a word for word translation on the fly.   It's rather time consuming but has shown that the ESV and that version of the NASB are the closest things to a word for word translation.  It also shows the differences in the original manuscripts so you can get a better idea of the differences.

 

 

to me personally there are two main groups that I identify using John 3:16.

Quote

 

John 3:16-17

16 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life. 
NASB

John 3:16

16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
NIV

 

I personally do not use any translation that uses the Shall Not translation to study....     but if you take the Bible as a whole, even those will give you the information to be saved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, KiwiChristian said:

 

Can you quote me these verses from the NIV, please?

Matt 17:21, Matt 18:11, Mark 15:28, Luke 23:17 and Mark 9:44?

Also, can you please quote Ephesians 1:7 and John 3:16?

Is the word "sodomite" in the NIV?

"Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and he eats for life".

Of course I could look those verses up for you. But better you go to Biblegateway.com where you can compare 5 or 6 translations side by side at one time.

I marvel at our Internet because I remember when I sat in libraries with 6 to 10 books all around me. I just hope what's online is true to what was in those books.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the NKJV because I have memorized verses from the KJV.   But, of course, I prefer the newer version since it gets rid of the thees and thous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the PRESERVED TEXT - KJV. but i use the KJV easy read . its called the sword bible where they have taken away all the thee and thou and have also updated the old grammar to modern grammar

all he modern version do not come from the preserved text .

  • Thumbs Up 1
  • Loved it! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...