Forget the KJB. Is there any version that you believe is perfect?

[atpollard]

Note from below that the translations are in agreement with each other, it is the actual text that conflicts and not the translation.

• [Mat 1:16 KJV] 16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
• [Mat 1:16 NKJV] 16 And Jacob begot Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ.
• [Mat 1:16 NLT] 16 Jacob was the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary. Mary gave birth to Jesus, who is called the Messiah.
  
• [Mat 1:16 NIV] 16 and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, and Mary was the mother of Jesus who is called the Messiah.
• [Mat 1:16 ESV] 16 and Jacob the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ.
• [Mat 1:16 CSB] 16 and Jacob fathered Joseph the husband of Mary, who gave birth to Jesus who is called the Christ.
  
• [Mat 1:16 NASB] 16 Jacob was the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, by whom Jesus was born, who is called the Messiah.
• [Mat 1:16 NET] 16 and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, by whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ.
• [Mat 1:16 RSV] 16 and Jacob the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ.
• [Mat 1:16 ASV] 16 and Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
• [Mat 1:16 YLT] 16 and Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was begotten Jesus, who is named Christ.
• [Mat 1:16 DBY] 16 and Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
• [Mat 1:16 WEB] 16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

• [Luk 3:23 KJV] 23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed ) the son of Joseph, which was [the son] of Heli,
• [Luk 3:23 NKJV] 23 Now Jesus Himself began [His ministry at] about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) [the] son of Joseph, [the son] of Heli,
  
• [Luk 3:23 NLT] 23 Jesus was about thirty years old when he began his public ministry. Jesus was known as the son of Joseph. Joseph was the son of Heli.
  
• [Luk 3:23 NIV] 23 Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli,
  
• [Luk 3:23 ESV] 23 Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli,
  
• [Luk 3:23 CSB] 23 As he began his ministry, Jesus was about thirty years old and was thought to be the son of Joseph, son of Heli,
• [Luk 3:23 NASB] 23 When He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, the son of Eli,
• [Luk 3:23 NET] 23 So Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years old. He was the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli,
• [Luk 3:23 RSV] 23 Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli,
• [Luk 3:23 ASV] 23 And Jesus himself, when he began [to teach], was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the [son] of Heli,
• [Luk 3:23-24 YLT] 23 And Jesus himself was beginning to be about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, son of Joseph, 24 the [son] of Eli, the [son] of Matthat, the [son] of Levi, the [son] of Melchi, the [son] of Janna, the [son] of Joseph,
• [Luk 3:23 DBY] 23 And Jesus himself was beginning to be about thirty years old; being as was supposed son of Joseph; of Eli,
• [Luk 3:23 WEB] 23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, who was [the son] of Heli,
  
  
  
  
  
  

 

[George Antonios]

It is irrational to demand from God one perfect version because it would be to much to use 5 versions. To get a perfect Text you would have to use at least 3 Greek Testaments. A Byzantine/Majority Text, a Textus Receptus, and a Nestle/Aland Greek Text. The first is very,very accurate, but when there is an error you would have to look to the others to fix the error. That is if you demand a perfect Bible. If you want an excellent one, get a Byzantine Text. If you want a very good one, get a Textus Receptus. If you want one not quite as accurate as the other 2 get a Nestle/Aland. But if you want a perfect Greek Text your going to have to get all three.

So if you want a perfect English Bible you are going to have to get several diffent Bibles. The more you have the better to excellent you get. Start with A King James Version. Make that Several KJV's, starting with a 1611 edition. Then a later edition that changed some errors in the Original 1611 edition. Of course sometimes the later editions change the correct readings into errors, so you can see the need to have several editions of the KJV just to fix the errors of that edition. Then you would need other pre-KJV Bibles for when they had correct readings but were changed for errors in the KJV. Then you would need several Modern Versions. While not as good as the pre-KJV's or the KJV they would still be necessary to fix errors in the earlier Bibles when they were in error.

To demand only one perfect Bible only is an unrealistic demand.

@Conan ---> ALL Bibles are corrupt, NONE of them are perfect, the word of God has errors.

And the serpent and every humanistic atheist and every Muslim says to him: "amen"!

NEXT!

 

[Salty]

!

Exactly what is the point of this thread???

and I would be interested in your answer for the question in post # 20

 

[George Antonios]

Exactly what is the point of this thread???

and I would be interested in your answer for the question in post # 20

The point is the expressly stated question in the OP:

So forget the KJB, what version that I could buy today, do you, pray tell, believe to be 100% given by inspiration?

I would be interested in your answer to the question in the OP.

I would gladly answer the question in post #20 in the appropriate thread if you wish.

 

[Salty]

The point is the expressly stated question in the OP:

I would be interested in your answer to the question in the OP.

I would gladly answer the question in post #20 in the appropriate thread if you wish.

Well, I guess you don't want to answer then

 

[xlsdraw]

Well, I guess you don't want to answer then

Nor do you

 

[Salty]

Nor do you

because at this time, I dont have an answer.

 

[George Antonios]

because at this time, I dont have an answer.

So, to recap:

You question the point of my thread despite a clear-cut question in the OP.
You imply I'm avoiding a question.
But you don't answer the question in the OP.
I clearly offer to answer it in the right thread and your judgment is: "Well, I guess you don't want to answer then"
However, it's totally cool that you don't answer the question in the OP, and it's only because you don't have an answer at the moment (not because you don't want to), which is a seemingly honest reply, and I respect that, but you should have been as generous with me as you were with yourself by not saying that I don't want to answer, especially when I offered to answer it in the right thread.

How is all that just in any way?

Truly, the perfect Bible issue is a spiritual hiccup for people, not an intellectual one.

 

[Logos1560]

You imply I'm avoiding a question.
.

You do avoid questions that are asked you while you seem to try to hide behind invalid questions that assume premises that you have not proven to be true. You should prove that the Scriptures back up your assumptions.

 

[Logos1560]

the word of God has errors.

Acknowledging the scriptural truth that an error introduced by men is not the word of God is not at all saying that the word of God given by inspiration to the prophets and apostles has errors.

Are you rejecting the scriptural truths that teach that words added by men and errors introduced by men [whether copiers, printers, or translators] are not the word of God?

 

[Logos1560]

what version that I could buy today, do you, pray tell, believe to be 100% given by inspiration?

Before your question deserves any consideration, it is up to you to prove that the Scriptures teach that a Bible translation [made after the completion of the New Testament] is given by direct inspiration of God.

If you do not prove your own assumption or premise to be true and scriptural, your question is invalid.

An invalid question is not clear-cut as it incorrectly assumes something that has not been proven to be true and scriptural.

 

[Alcott]

I normally stay clear of this topic, but I want to ask a question:
Is/was the apostle Paul in danger of hell fire? ...

...but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.[Matthew 5:22, KJV].

But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come? Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die [1 Corinthians 15:35-36 KJV].

 

[SavedByGrace]

Because that's the true issue.
You guys aren't so much against the inerrancy of the King James Bible as you are against the inerrancy of any Bible anywhere, in any tongue, in any version, of any age.
But it's a lot easier for you to appear to hold a Christian position when you focus on the KJB rather than expose your true colours:
you hold as a matter of doctrine, that the Bible, ANY Bible, is NOT perfect.
That position is antichristian, and is of the sepent, not the Holy Ghost.

So forget the KJB, what version that I could buy today, do you, pray tell, believe to be 100% given by inspiration?

"You guys aren't so much against the inerrancy of the King James Bible as you are against the inerrancy of any Bible anywhere, in any tongue, in any version, of any age."

really, and who told you that? It is very clear that you don't even understand what the term "inerrancy" means! You must be deluded if you suppose for a moment, that the KJV is 100% perfect and without any "errors". Your argument and reasoning are both MOOT!

 

[rlvaughn]

I normally stay clear of this topic, but I want to ask a question:
Is/was the apostle Paul in danger of hell fire? ...

...but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.[Matthew 5:22, KJV].

But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come? Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die [1 Corinthians 15:35-36 KJV].

Not particularly a KJV issue, since most Bibles have fool in these places. For examples:

CSB: But I tell you, everyone who is angry with his brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Whoever insults his brother or sister, will be subject to the court. Whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be subject to hellfire.
MOUNCE: But I say to you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; and whoever says to his brother, ‘Raka,’ will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire.
NASB: But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be answerable to the court; and whoever says to his brother, ‘You good-for-nothing,’ shall be answerable to the supreme court; and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.

CSB: You fool! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies.
MOUNCE: You fool! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies.
NASB : You fool! That which you sow does not come to life unless it dies;

Do you think the original writers got it wrong as well?

 

[Reformed1689]

Because that's the true issue.
You guys aren't so much against the inerrancy of the King James Bible as you are against the inerrancy of any Bible anywhere, in any tongue, in any version, of any age.
But it's a lot easier for you to appear to hold a Christian position when you focus on the KJB rather than expose your true colours:
you hold as a matter of doctrine, that the Bible, ANY Bible, is NOT perfect.
That position is antichristian, and is of the sepent, not the Holy Ghost.

So forget the KJB, what version that I could buy today, do you, pray tell, believe to be 100% given by inspiration?

No translation is given by 100% inspiration. That would only be the original manuscripts. You are merging several topics here though. Inerrancy, Infallibility, Original Content, Reliability.

Can we be confident in the English translations we have to day communicates the message of the inspired Word of God? YES. I have full faith in the KJV, ESV, NASB, and several others.

Are the translations themselves inspired? Absolutely not.

 

[Logos1560]

That position is antichristian, and is of the sepent, not the Holy Ghost.

The word of God had been translated into English many years before 1611.

The Church of England makers of the KJV referred to the pre-1611 English Bibles as being "the word of God" even though they had imperfections or errors and even though they made hundreds or thousands of changes to the pre-1611 word of God translated into English. They did not claim that the pre-1611 English Bible was 100% given by inspiration even though they still called it "the word of God."

George Antonios, does a consistent, just application of your own allegation accuse the KJV translators of holding a position that "is antichristian, and is of the serpent, not the Holy Ghost"?
If not, you would demonstrate that you are guilty of the use of unjust divers measures [an abomination to the LORD].

Do the KJV translators expose that the reasoning behind your question is wrong?
In their preface to the 1611, the KJV translators stated: “No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it. For whatever was perfect under the sun, where apostles or apostolike men, that is, men indured with an extraordinary measure of God’s Spirit, and privileged with the privilege of infallibility, had not their hand? The Romanists therefore in refusing to hear, and daring to burn the word translated, did no less then despite the Spirit of grace, from whom originally it proceeded, and whose sense and meaning, as well as man’s weakness would enable, it did express.”

Your question (if valid) would also apply to before 1611 if it supposedly applies today. The fact that you will not apply your own question to before 1611 would be evidence that it is an invalid question.

 

[robycop3]

Which "perfect" are you asking about, George? A perfect, word-for-word translation that captures all bubtleties & nuances of the sources being translated? There's none.

A perfect thought-for-thought translation that is as much word-for-word as possible? That's just about any translation, older or newer, that is made with accuracy, not profit, in mind.

One man's goof may be another's translation with good intentions, sych as adding "the brother of" to certain verses that mention Goliath's bros.

"Variety of translations" does not always mean goofs & booboos, given the vast number of original-language words in Scripture that have multiple English meanings. Remember, the AV makers wrote that "variety of translations is profitable for the finding-out of the sense of the Scriptures."

So, to answer your question, there are several English translations that are as perfect as man can make them, such as NKJV, NASV, & ESV, to name a few.

(BTW, there's no such Bible version as a "KJB".)

 

[Yeshua1]

It is irrational to demand from God one perfect version because it would be to much to use 5 versions. To get a perfect Text you would have to use at least 3 Greek Testaments. A Byzantine/Majority Text, a Textus Receptus, and a Nestle/Aland Greek Text. The first is very,very accurate, but when there is an error you would have to look to the others to fix the error. That is if you demand a perfect Bible. If you want an excellent one, get a Byzantine Text. If you want a very good one, get a Textus Receptus. If you want one not quite as accurate as the other 2 get a Nestle/Aland. But if you want a perfect Greek Text your going to have to get all three.

So if you want a perfect English Bible you are going to have to get several diffent Bibles. The more you have the better to excellent you get. Start with A King James Version. Make that Several KJV's, starting with a 1611 edition. Then a later edition that changed some errors in the Original 1611 edition. Of course sometimes the later editions change the correct readings into errors, so you can see the need to have several editions of the KJV just to fix the errors of that edition. Then you would need other pre-KJV Bibles for when they had correct readings but were changed for errors in the KJV. Then you would need several Modern Versions. While not as good as the pre-KJV's or the KJV they would still be necessary to fix errors in the earlier Bibles when they were in error.

To demand only one perfect Bible only is an unrealistic demand.

I just wish he and others who hold to the KJVO could point out to us just what major doctrine has been corrupted and watered down when we use say the Nas or the Nkjv insterad of the Kjv!
And still waiting on which Kjv edition and TR text id ther correct and perfect one?

 

[Yeshua1]

Which "perfect" are you asking about, George? A perfect, word-for-word translation that captures all bubtleties & nuances of the sources being translated? There's none.

A perfect thought-for-thought translation that is as much word-for-word as possible? That's just about any translation, older or newer, that is made with accuracy, not profit, in mind.

One man's goof may be another's translation with good intentions, sych as adding "the brother of" to certain verses that mention Goliath's bros.

"Variety of translations" does not always mean goofs & booboos, given the vast number of original-language words in Scripture that have multiple English meanings. Remember, the AV makers wrote that "variety of translations is profitable for the finding-out of the sense of the Scriptures."

So, to answer your question, there are several English translations that are as perfect as man can make them, such as NKJV, NASV, & ESV, to name a few.

(BTW, there's no such Bible version as a "KJB".)

all 3 of those are the English word of God to us....

 

[Yeshua1]

@Conan ---> ALL Bibles are corrupt, NONE of them are perfect, the word of God has errors.

And the serpent and every humanistic atheist and every Muslim says to him: "amen"!

NEXT!

Only Apostles and those under them were inspired by the Holy Spirit, and jesus told us that Himself!