Different Versions of The Bible. ( Whats you're Opinion?)

[Scott J]

Originally posted by GM:



The NKJV has OMITTED, ( Taken Away.)

The Word- Heaven is left out 50 times.

This is simply false. The KJV uses "heaven" 238 times. The NKJV uses "heaven" 237 times. Here is the one discrepancy. Let us know if you think the NKJV is inaccurate in this place:
Revelation
6:14 And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places. (KJV)

6:14 Then the sky receded as a scroll when it is rolled up, and every mountain and island was moved out of its place. (NKJV)

 

[Trotter]

Welcome to the Baptist Board, GM.

No matter what translation you look at (including the KJV), you are going to find something that is not perfectly translated into English. This is because English is not Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic. All translations (and the KJV is a translation...Paul didn't speak the King's English) are the attempts of fallable men to take the words of one language (with its own vocabulary, grammer, and idioms) and to put them into another language (with a different vocabulary, rules of grammer, and idioms).

Don't get me wrong. I love the KJV, and use it about 75% of the time when I preach. But I realize that there is much worth to be found in other translations also. I read the NKJV for the most part (I love the MacArthur Study Bible), but also use the NASV, ASV, Young's, NIV (don't particuarly like the NIV), Amplified, KJV, and The Message. I have found that, even if I don't care that much for a translation, reading the same passage in different translations gives me a clearer view of the whole word of God.

I feel sorry for anyone who holds to KJVO. While MV's are not as poetic as the KJV, they are not without merit. To comdemn them out of hand is to lose out on their usefulness. Remember, people thought the Louisianna Purchase was stupid, and the purchase of Alaska was too absurd for words.

I do not advocate abandonning the KJV by no means. It is the most beautiful of all English translations, and the most admired. But I do not worship it, or elevate it above its status as a translation of the Bible. It is one of many, and one of my favorites.

I realize that I will now be branded as a heretic by several, but that is their problem, not mine. I love the word of God, but the form that it takes is secondary to function that it performs: to draw me closer to the Lord God.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

[Trotter]

Quick question about the title of this thread:

Why were we asked about our opinion if our opinion was to judged and comdemned as wrong unless it lined up with someone else's opinion?

 

[rsr]

Surely, Trotter, you already know the answer to that question.

 

[3John2]

What a discussion!!! LOL!!! I do use the KJV more simply because my main study bible is KJV. However I DO use many others. I to think the KJV & NKJV are the most accurate however I still use the others. I don't see what the big deal is honestly. Funny how many times people DON'T mention the BAD parts or words that were translated on the KJV.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by GM:
Those who are offended by the King James Version. are of the new age and are being deceived by satan and willingly want the "feel good things in life.

Based on what Bible verse?

Asserting that the KJV is simply a translation is by no means akin to being offended. I happen to like the KJV just fine. I'm also able to recognize that there is no biblical support for version-onlyism (be it the KJV or any other version). I'm also able to recognize that the KJV is a good translation. It is also imperfect and archaic, as are all the other versions of the time, like the Great Bible, the Tyndale Bible, and the Geneva Bible.

 

[Askjo]

Romans 1:22 -- Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

Are you smarter than me to become fools to use corrupted bible versions?

Romans 1:25 -- Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

Proverbs 30:6 -- Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

Romans 3:4 -- God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

1 John 2:4 -- He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

Were Westcott and Hort real liars? Bruce Metzger?

 

[mioque]

GM
To quote you:
"Proof & Facts
The" NASB,YTL,NIV,NKJV,RSV,NRSV,NWT, DARBY,WESCOTT &
HORT, "ETC", are " satans novels" because words were taken away and added when Godsaid in...."
That's nice, I ofcourse don't use any of these. I'm one of the few Baptist Board members that isn't a native English speaker. My language is DUTCH. A large number of the folks in my church have no skill whatsoever in any other tongue. So naturally we don't use the NIV, or the KJV for that matter.

But let's get back to your own claims.
"I have researched the (KJV) and found that the KJV IS the Only True Bible on the face of this earth, I know God has his Word Preserved in The KJV, "
I'm not an only myself, but we do have them on this side of the pond. Dutch Authorized Version onlies so to speak. They believe that the only good translation of the Bible into Dutch is the Statenvertaling of 1637.
You probably don't read Dutch. So I compared the list of flaws you mentioned in your first post to that bible. By your standards there now seem to be 2 True Bibles on the face of this earth. Because it past with flying colours.

 

[Johnv]

I have researched the (KJV) and found that the KJV IS the Only True Bible on the face of this earth

Then what kind of Bible should our Dutch brethren have? Our German brethren? Our Indonesian brethren? Our Arabic brethren? How Hebrew-speaking brethren? Our Greek brethren?

 

[Archangel7]

Originally posted by GM:

Archangel7,

About the NIV, Another corrupt version....

You haven't addressed the omissions I showed you in the KJV yet. Perhaps you could do that before we discuss the alleged omissions in the NIV?

Should we not be worried about omissions in the KJV as well? Should we not be concerned when the KJV adds to God's word (like it does in Rom. 11:4) or takes away from God's word (like it does in Jn. 14:14?)

 

[Archangel7]

Originally posted by GM:

The King James Version Holy Bible was Translated , Authorized and Published in 1611. There were a FEW spelling errors (BUT CORRECTED In 1617.)

"And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God." (KJV, 1611)

"And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. (KJV, 1762)

Here is a change made to the 1611 KJV long after the original KJV translators had died. On what basis and by what authority was it made? Which of these two differing KJV's is the correct one? How do you *know* which is the correct one?

 

[RaptureReady]

Originally posted by HankD:
The Bible didn't start out that way in "Sheakespearean" English, or its counterpart Classical Greek.

It was written in "Koine" the current language of the common man.

1611-1769 Shakespearean English is not the current language of the common man today.

Has God changed His mind?

HankD

So Shakespearean English was not the English used in 1611? So Shakespearean English is older than the King James language and they still have not modernize Shakespear. BTW, Shakespear is in the King James Bible, Psalm 46 to be exact, how about yours.

 

[Forever settled in heaven]

Originally posted by Askjo:
Romans 1:22 -- Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

Are you smarter than me to become fools to use corrupted bible versions?

as an admission, this is so funny (if not for it being so sad as well).

Were Westcott and Hort real liars? Bruce Metzger?

i dunno, but i do know that slander's a form of lying.

 

[Elk]

Here are some of my translation complaints.

In the introductory sentences of many of Paul's letters are what I consider "extreme" Trinity inserts. And the placement of "our".
For example:

2 Cor 1:2-3
2 Grace be to you and peace from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.
KJV

Gal 1:3
Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ,
KJV

Eph 1:2
2 Grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.
KJV

Phil 1:2
2 Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.
KJV

Phil 1:2
2 Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.
KJV
And so on.

If one looks these up in the Greek texts, one would know what I mean. The word "from" for example. Or the placement of "our".
When I study these verses in the Received Text or the Nestles, I am troubled.

My two complaints about the NKJV are as follows.
Regarding Jesus Who is the Sin Offering. Why was HE able to touch the Leperous man in the Gospels and not be declared "unclean"? HE was the Sin Offering. In this translation (but I am not saying they are wrong, just has my attention), instead of "shall" be holy, it has must be holy. The following two verses really change the meaning of the verses. I do not know who is right, but it is a change of meaning.

Lev 6:18
18 All the males among the children of Aaron may eat it. It shall be a statute forever in your generations concerning the offerings made by fire to the LORD. Everyone who touches them must be holy.' "
NKJV

Lev 6:27-28
27 Everyone who touches its flesh must be holy. And when its blood is sprinkled on any garment, you shall wash that on which it was sprinkled, in a holy place.
NKJV

This is my second complaint about the NKJV.
The use of "delayed" versus delaying, I believe changes the meaning.
Matt 25:5
5 But while the bridegroom was delayed, they all slumbered and slept.
NKJV

My only real complaint that I know of in the NAS is the absolute removal of "Who is in Heaven" at the end of this verse.

John 3:13
13 "And no one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven, even the Son of Man.
NAS

As far as other translations, my biggest thorn is what has been done to John 1:18 and 1 John 5:20. Some of these translations make me so sad.
I think these two verses are so very important.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Askjo:
Romans 1:22 -- Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

Are you smarter than me to become fools to use corrupted bible versions?

Using modern versions does not make one a fool. There is nothing in Scripture to substantiate that claim. It is a sad attempt by you to attack God's word.

Romans 1:25 -- Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

Proverbs 30:6 -- Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

Romans 3:4 -- God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

1 John 2:4 -- He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

All of these verses are found in all Bible translations. It is interesting that you include Prov 30:6. You use a version that has added to God's word in many passages and you yourself have added to God's word by asserting a doctrine that is found nowhere in Scripture. This verse condemns your position.

Were Westcott and Hort real liars? Bruce Metzger?

Who knows and who cares. You are under the mistaken assumption that these men are vital to the point. They are not. Their personal lives are irrelevant. We are interested in the word of God.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by HomeBound:
So Shakespearean English is older than the King James language and they still have not modernize Shakespear.

Very few people read Shakespeare. It was not intended by God to reveal himself to man. God's word was. Therefore, it should be in the language of the people who are supposed to be learnign from it.

BTW, Shakespear is in the King James Bible, Psalm 46 to be exact, how about yours.

Where. I just read Psalm 46 and didn't find Shakespeare in it at all. Seems to me like you are making stuff up again. Besides, of what possible concern is this? Who cares? This is the type of foolishness that is laughable in this discussion. Surely we have better things to talk about.

 

[HankD]

So Shakespearean English was not the English used in 1611? So Shakespearean English is older than the King James language and they still have not modernize Shakespear. BTW, Shakespear is in the King James Bible, Psalm 46 to be exact, how about yours.

Actually it was not the common language of the "koine" man in the street.
It is certainly not the common language of 21st century America.

"Shakespeare" in the Bible...
IMO, This is a coincidence, I can't prove it and neither can you.
But so what if it is?
Personally, I don't care if they haven't modernized Shakespeare's work. We are talking about the Word of God and the criteria that God has always used when giving His Word.


HankD

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Elk:
Here are some of my translation complaints.

In the introductory sentences of many of Paul's letters are what I consider "extreme" Trinity inserts. And the placement of "our".
For example:

...

If one looks these up in the Greek texts, one would know what I mean. The word "from" for example. Or the placement of "our".
When I study these verses in the Received Text or the Nestles, I am troubled.

I looked them up and I have no idea why you would be troubled by the Nestles or the TR. If there is anything to be troubled about, it would be an English translation. But even at that, what is your point? There seems no issue here.

My two complaints about the NKJV are as follows.
Regarding Jesus Who is the Sin Offering. Why was HE able to touch the Leperous man in the Gospels and not be declared "unclean"? HE was the Sin Offering. In this translation (but I am not saying they are wrong, just has my attention), instead of "shall" be holy, it has must be holy. The following two verses really change the meaning of the verses. I do not know who is right, but it is a change of meaning.

Lev 6:18
18 All the males among the children of Aaron may eat it. It shall be a statute forever in your generations concerning the offerings made by fire to the LORD. Everyone who touches them must be holy.' "
NKJV

Lev 6:27-28
27 Everyone who touches its flesh must be holy. And when its blood is sprinkled on any garment, you shall wash that on which it was sprinkled, in a holy place.
NKJV

You would have to demonstrate the passage you are talking about. The easiest answer is to remember that Jesus was the God of the Law. There seems no issue here that I can think of.

This is my second complaint about the NKJV.
The use of "delayed" versus delaying, I believe changes the meaning.
Matt 25:5
5 But while the bridegroom was delayed, they all slumbered and slept.
NKJV

There is no real difference between "was delaying" and "delayed." The point is that he was not there yet. It is present active particple so that gerund might be more accurate. But there is no real difference in the meaning.

[qutoe]My only real complaint that I know of in the NAS is the absolute removal of "Who is in Heaven" at the end of this verse.

John 3:13
13 "And no one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven, even the Son of Man.
NAS[/quote]At first glance, it would appear that the Son of Man was not in heaven. That may be what Morris calls a "crass localization of heaven," but it seems apparent nonetheless. Furthermore, there are very reliable manuscripts that do not contain it. Here again, the issue must not be decided on what is most convenient for our theology; it is rather decided on what John actually wrote.

As far as other translations, my biggest thorn is what has been done to John 1:18 and 1 John 5:20. Some of these translations make me so sad. I think these two verses are so very important.

John 1:18 in the modern versions is a wondeful testimony to the deity of Christ that the KJV doesn't have. It is an indispensable tool in dealing with those who deny the deity of Christ. Unfortunately, the KJV is not as clear on this issue. As for 1 John 5:20, I am not sure what your complaint is. There doesn't seem to be a difference there.

 

[Elk]

Dear Pastor Larry,
That is my point, no one sees it.
But I sure do.
My complaint is not at all over the Greek texts.
Actually, the Greek texts is where I find great comfort.
It is about the translations that I depicted.
If you will look again at the verses I quoted, each one has the translation abbrev. by it (such as KJV, NKVJ, NAS).
Those indicate the verses and translations that I was talking about.

 

[Elk]

Eph 1:2-3
2 Grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.
KJV


Look in the Greek at Eph 1:2

Do you see the inserted words?

If you take them out you would have this:

Grace to you, and peace, from God Father our and Lord Jesus Christ

Now that "our" could be in front of God or Father, so it could be translated like this:

Grace to you, and peace from our God Father and Lord Jesus Christ

or

Grace to you, and peace from God our Father and Lord Jesus Christ

But to add in "from" changes the meaning, yes?

This is what I call extreme Trinity inserts.

And you don't see it. I thought this was a discussion of Bible accuracy, not defending a certain doctrine.