Welcome!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

SignUp Now!
  • Welcome to Talk Jesus Christian Forums

    Celebrating 20 Years!

    A bible based, Jesus Christ centered community.

    Register Log In

What version Bible do you read?

What version bible do you read?


  • Total voters
    460
Status
Not open for further replies.
On what basis do you make this determination? Are you suggesting that God himself spoke the best translation of scripture into English into the minds of the men who wrote it? If so, that seems... perhaps not biblically justifiable.

King James ordered the translation of the KJV from the original manuscripts

Wonder what people did before 1611? So would it be fair to assume that you just adopted the opinion of your pastor without much study of your own?

Most followed the Roman Catholic Church, and a few studied what parts of the Bible they had, even if it was not correct or in full. Owning a Bible was illegal then, as I recall, so they didn't get to read it in full.

I will study the accuracy of the KJV sometime in the future
 
I am currently using the New Revised Standard Version (Catholic Edition) - 'tis very good, clear, consice and easy to read without having lost an original beauty of the Scriptures.
 
KJV-Onlyism is both heretical and cultic, it denies the Spirit's ability to speak to others through ANY Bible translation and often also denies the salvation of fellow Christians who believe differently.

Though I am not a KJV onlyist, I do prefer it above any other version I have read, and I would never conclude that just because someone reads another version, they do not hear from the Holy Spirit and they are not saved. I would then have to also deny salvation to those who do not get to have a Bible in certain oppressive and/or poor parts of the world. I would like to see some of the references from the KJV onlyists that make this bizarre claim that one must read from the KJV to be saved, however.

I have adopted an enjoyment, also, from reading the Geneva 1560 edition of the Bible. It reads fairly close to the King James, but has an added luxury. It is a facsimile edition, so all the fonts, spellings, and type is the exact same. I bet you wouldn't guess what this word is; ivft.

If you guessed "just" you would be correct. The 's' when not at the end of a word looks alot like an 'f', and the 'j' looks like an 'i', and the 'u' looks like a 'v'. That's only the beginning of the differences. At first glance, it looks like a Bible written in a foreign language. I'll tell you a reason I recommend this. In order to read it properly, one has to put extra effort into concentrating on each sentence, word, letter, and punctuation. I find that I get more out of reading in this manner, rather than obliviously breezing through any of the others I have. That is just me, though.

Hisalone
 
KJV-Onlyism is both heretical and cultic, it denies the Spirit's ability to speak to others through ANY Bible translation and often also denies the salvation of fellow Christians who believe differently.

OH I don't deny the HS can speak to people thru other translations, in fact I know God can use anything to speak to people. I was Saved after watching the Passion of the Christ, God can use anything.

I just prefer, and prefer others, not to use versions that take verses out or change what the Bible says
 
Then don't use the KJV. It adds words and phrases which are not there to the Greek and Hebrew Textus. That is why a number of modern versions seem to be taking things away because they are removing the words the KJV Translators put in that ARE NOT ACTUALLY THERE in the Greek / Hebrew.
 
Then don't use the KJV. It adds words and phrases which are not there to the Greek and Hebrew Textus. That is why a number of modern versions seem to be taking things away because they are removing the words the KJV Translators put in that ARE NOT ACTUALLY THERE in the Greek / Hebrew.

I will study the accuracy of the KJV sometime in the future, but I've heard from people that have studied it that the other versions take verses out, not that KJV adds them. :)
 
An example:

Acts 9:5-6 as found in the KJV differs from Acts 9:5-6 as found in most modern translations as follows:

KJV: 5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: [it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. 6 And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him,] Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.

NRSV: 5 He asked, “Who are you, Lord?” The reply came, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. 6 But get up and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do.

The part of the KJV verses that I enclosed in brackets above were not in the original texts of Acts, but they were in the Textus Receptus, which was the basis for the KJV's New Testament. On the other hand, "But" (alla in Greek), as found in the NRSV text above, was in the original text but was omitted in the Textus Receptus.

Sometimes students are mislead to believe that the Textus Receptus was the original text (just as there a surprising number of people who believe that Jesus actually spoke in KJV English). The Textus Receptus was simply the Greek text of the New Testament that was based upon Erasmus' haphazardly assembled 1516 Greek New Testament, which itself was primarily based upon two 12th century documents plus some additions from the Latin Vulgate. For a more complete history of the development of the Textus Receptus and its relation to the KJV, browse:

Bruce Metzger, in his invaluable and definitive A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition (New York: United Bible Societies , 1994, page 318), comments on Acts 9:5-6:

After diokeis ["persecuting" in NRSV] (and omitting alla ["But" in NRSV] of ver. 6.) the Textus Receptus adds skleron soi pros kentra laktizein. (6) tremon te kai thambon eipe, Kurie, ti me thelis poiesai; kai ho krios pros auton, which is rendered in the AV [Authorized Version, i.e., KJV] as follows: "it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. (6) And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt though have me to do? And the Lord said unto him." So far as is known, no Greek witness [manuscript] reads these words at this place; they have been taken from 26:14 and 22:10, and are found here in codices of the Vulgate, with which ith,p syrh with * copG67 substantially agree (all except the Vulgate add after thambon the words epi to gegonoti auto, taken from 3:10). The spurious passage came into the Textus Receptus, when Erasmus translated it from the Latin Vulgate into Greek and inserted it in his first edition of the Greek New Testament (Basel, 1516).
 
Like I said, I will study the accuracy of the KJV sometime after I graduate, but for now I will believe those who've already studied it
 
King James ordered the translation of the KJV from the original manuscripts

Well, that's not true. Here's some useful information from somebody who does study MSS tradition a fair amount.
First, the KJV wasn't translated from the original manuscripts because the original manuscripts haven't existed (a technical term- we don't have them) for an indeterminate amount of time- because the oldest copies we have and the oldest sources don't know when the originals were around. Oldest MS are different for different parts of the bible, but few exist earlier than the fifth century, and then very little. Being that the MSS we have and the art of textual criticism has advanced significantly since the seventeenth century, there's very little argument to be made that the KJV is the most accurate translation.
 
Well, that's not true. Here's some useful information from somebody who does study MSS tradition a fair amount.
First, the KJV wasn't translated from the original manuscripts because the original manuscripts haven't existed (a technical term- we don't have them) for an indeterminate amount of time- because the oldest copies we have and the oldest sources don't know when the originals were around. Oldest MS are different for different parts of the bible, but few exist earlier than the fifth century, and then very little. Being that the MSS we have and the art of textual criticism has advanced significantly since the seventeenth century, there's very little argument to be made that the KJV is the most accurate translation.

How could the originals not have existed when the KJV was written? Other Bibles were translated before 1611.
 
And they were translated from Greek / Hebrew / Latin COPIES of the original MSS which are no longer in existence. However in about the last 70 years archaeological digs have been turning up older copies of the originals which have helped us to determine how accurate the copies used by the Geneva / Bishop's / KJV bible translators were.
 
And they were translated from Greek / Hebrew / Latin COPIES of the original MSS which are no longer in existence. However in about the last 70 years archaeological digs have been turning up older copies of the originals which have helped us to determine how accurate the copies used by the Geneva / Bishop's / KJV bible translators were.

Could you explain this a little better. It sounds as if you are arguing that older copies of the same manuscripts that the KJV translators used are being found that were not available at the time of these translations. Is that what you are meaning?
 
My main version is the KJV...but I also have the NKJV, the NIV, and the Message...I use mainly the KJV, because that's just what I've always used and have learned that version of the scriptures that I know by heart...but, along with my KJV, I'll read the others too, especially if I am studying or researching something.
 
When I was saved at 20 someone gave me an NIV and I could never make sense of it, I couldn't understand the bible for about 2 years... One day I was explaining to my friend that the bible didn't make sense to me and he suggested i try another translation until i find one I am comfortable with...

So I got a KJV... and once I started to read... Wow... I finally began to understand the word of God, revelation started to flow and now I read nothing else except maybe my greek text...

I am cagey about translations and always try to compare versions with the original...

Paddy.
 
I have not read the bible in so long until now. Through all my current problems (As many have read in other posts) I have attempted to get back to God and in the word. Typically when depressed, I spend money, so rather than blow money I decided to get a new bible, and I purchased a Men's Devotional NIV Bible. I actually do not know much at all about the translations but my mother suggested NIV to me...so I went with that for now :)
 
King James Only

An example of why I use the King James version is the missing verses in the NIV, New American, The New World Translation...an example of that is Matthew 18:11:

For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.

This verse is omitted from all three of the above versions. Some people say it is easier to read different versions of the bible but proper study in the CORRECT bible that does not omit verses is the best way to go....

If you would like more examples just let me know.

Matthew 5:9-Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called the children of GOD.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top