Bible Problem

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Deborah_ said:

This is simply not true. Just choose the translation you prefer, and memorise that one! And digital bibles have built-in concordances.

Who finds the existence of different translations a problem? I've never met anyone who does. Most of us find it useful to compare them, because it improves understanding.

The MT that I use (the NIV) doesn't omit it. Please check your facts.

I just can't trust a translation that says "Elhanan killed Goliath" 2Sam 21:19, which conflicts with 1Chron 20:5. The NIV had the error but corrected it just recently (within the last decade); but they all detract from Scripture quite a bit in the New Testament, and believe most will never know the difference.

[grahampaul]

personally i use the kjv. its been around a long while now and is well known.most if not all and surprisingly few are well known and documented. it does help in fellowship to have the same version handy .i find i cant take the easy read versions seriously for some reason,then i may be biased having read the same version the past few decades.

[grahampaul]

1 minute ago, grahampaul said:

personally i use the kjv. its been around a long while now and is well known.most if not all and surprisingly few are well known and documented. it does help in fellowship to have the same version handy .i find i cant take the easy read versions seriously for some reason,then i may be biased having read the same version the past few decades.

most if not all corrections/mistakes that is.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, grahampaul said:

personally i use the kjv. its been around a long while now and is well known.most if not all and surprisingly few are well known and documented. it does help in fellowship to have the same version handy .i find i cant take the easy read versions seriously for some reason,then i may be biased having read the same version the past few decades.

Hi, and thanks for your helpful reply! Not enough Christians read enough of the Bible to know the difference. I can't trust a Bible that says "Elhanan killed Goliath" 2Sam 21:19, and omits important passages (1Jn 5:7 is not in any modern translation except King James and others using the Majority Text).

[grahampaul]

4 minutes ago, WordSword said:

Hi, and thanks for your helpful reply! Not enough Christians read enough of the Bible to know the difference. I can't trust a Bible that says "Elhanan killed Goliath" 2Sam 21:19, and omits important passages (1Jn 5:7 is not in any modern translation except King James and others using the Majority Text).

just like lucifer did to eve  added a word took a word and changed a word.

[Jayne]

9 minutes ago, WordSword said:

I just can't trust a translation that says "Elhanan killed Goliath" 2Sam 21:19, which conflicts with 1Chron 20:5. The NIV had the error but corrected it just recently (within the last decade); but they all detract from Scripture quite a bit in the New Testament, and believe most will never know the difference.

~le sigh~  I know I'm going to regret posting this, but......

Let me tell you first of all that I like the King James.  That's all we had growing up and it was the Bible preached from when I was saved.  It's not the Bible I read today, but I would never dismiss it nor trash it.

2 Samuel 21:19 - The King James has "the brother of" Goliath in italics.  That means the translators of the King James added these words for clarity's sake.  "the brother of" is not in ancient texts.  I have no answers for all of this as I have not studied it, but there has to be an answer other than just adding words.  I think I'll ponder on this a while.

You said you couldn't read from a Bible that has "Elhanan killed Goliath".

What if someone said, "I can't read from a Bible that has 8,000 marginal notes showing they had trouble translating words and passages".  That's the King James.  I understand this is true, as I have read many of those marginal notes and it does not make me reject the King James.  I just COMPLETELY understand that only the originals were inspired, everything else is "translated" or "tranliterated" and I completely trust the marjority of Bible I read.  

For example:  In Judges, when the Levites concubine leaves him - does she leave for 4 months or a year and 4 months?  the 1611 King James says 4 month, but in the margin the same KJV notes that the correct translation could also be a year and 4 months.  They just didn't know.  There are 8,000 of these notations.

My advice - choose the Bible you prefer and read it in peace.

[Debp]

4 hours ago, Deborah_ said:

This is simply not true. Just choose the translation you prefer, and memorise that one! And digital bibles have built-in concordances

I like to use the NKJV because I grew up memorizing from the KJV.   Also, for some time I had a NAS recommended by the Bible college.   It is very similar to the NKJV.   So they didn't affect my memorization.

 

[ayin jade]

5 hours ago, WordSword said:

Hi, and thanks for your helpful reply! Not enough Christians read enough of the Bible to know the difference. I can't trust a Bible that says "Elhanan killed Goliath" 2Sam 21:19, and omits important passages (1Jn 5:7 is not in any modern translation except King James and others using the Majority Text).

I went to biblegateway and looked up 1 John 5:7 in kjv nasb esv niv and each one had the same verse and same wording. Perhaps you mean another verse?

[Marathoner]

Don't regret it. I'm not going to regret posting in response to the OP. 

The King James Version was the first translation I laid hands on, and I didn't experience issues with comprehending the archaic diction on account of my voracious reading habits. I have nothing ill to say about that translation.

I picked up the NASB over a decade ago while I was learning how to speak again. It was the translation of the scriptures placed into my hands according to the will of the Lord. How so? A militant atheist bought that print NAS Bible for me. 

So... does this mean that the NASB is the "proper" translation, or that it isn't? Of course not! The atheist who gave me that bible was incensed about it. I wasn't able to ask them why they did it (or why they regretted it) because I struggled with articulating the simplest of words. All that mattered was the fact that I had a print bible in my hands, and I was so thankful to the Lord. Reading the scriptures aloud was how I learned to speak again! 

Hindsight reveals the reason why: 1.) that translation relies upon more modern diction, making it much easier for someone recovering from brain damage (me) to read aloud; 2.) it happened to be the translation that my old friend --- the same man who introduced me to the scriptures 30 years ago --- used to provide me with new lessons about Paul's letters after my recovery. The scriptural lessons my brother provided were wonderful. 

I continue to read the NASB today, but it's not the only translation I refer to! I steer clear from these controversies because I recognize the real issue at hand: for one reason or another, a particular translation of the scriptures has great meaning to us. Both the KJV and the NASB possess great meaning to me: the KJV, because I enjoy reading Proverbs from that translation; the NASB, because I appreciate the scholarship and more modern language of the translation. I'm familiar with others, such as the ESV, NKJV, and so forth.

What do I avoid? The Watchtower's pet bible (NWT) and the Roman Catholic Vulgate. 

[Guest]

The Adversary wants you to doubt the accuracy and reliability of any Bible translation you read and trust to put doubt foremost in your mind. This is why you should read and study from multiple translations. I am using a Thompson Chain Reference of the NASB (1977), English Standard Version (2016), and the Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible NASB (1977). I have other translations but commonly use these plus a plethora of conservative commentaries. I attend a KJV preferred church and I use a KJV at church.