What is the best Bible?

Once again, please don't lie about what I have said! I have never said a critique of any version is disapproved of. I clearly and plainly stated that attacking any bible is wrong. To say "the ____________ is full of errors" is an attack. To say "I believe this is based on a textual variant" or "In my opinion the choice of the word ___________ is less clear than say _________" or "In my opinion this could have been better translated as ____________" is a critique. A blanket statement "The __________ is full of errors" is not a critique, but an attack. It carries with it no confirming example, no textual reference, no translational support, and is based on either ignorance or arrogance, or both.

TomVols, I really don't understand why you would change what I said to something else then accuse me of being a hypocrit based on your changing what I said to what you said. I had expected more from you. I am sadly disappointed in you.

 

On another thread, you wrote:

By your definition, is this an attack?

In a topic from Spring of 2001 entitled "Errors in the Bible", You wrote:

On the same page you wrote:

You responded to Kiffin on that page thusly:

I have made no such claim in anything other than the derivative sense.
quote:

I have made so such claim. (Emphasis mine) </font>[/QUOTE]On the very first page of this thread, you wrote that you were willing to look at these so-called errors that just a page or two later you equate with an attack on the Bible. So in summary, in the past you have defended those who attack other translations of God's Word (and you know whom and what version we're talking about), you personally questioned (or attacked?) other versions, you personally started and engaged in a thread for the express purpose of looking at errors in the KJV, and you yourself admit that you are unwilling to say the KJV is error free. But now, this is off limits? What gives?

Incidentally, this would all be moot of the yahoo who made the charge would step up to the plate and proffer the evidence

[ July 01, 2002, 04:19 PM: Message edited by: TomVols ]

 

Once again you are shamelessing lying about me and my position. The "errors" thread was to dispell the ignorant and arrogant notion that errors occur in the bible, any bible. You can see from my quotes that I qualify my opinions regarding the versions I discussed making it clear to anyone with an IQ greater than his hat size (and without an agenda) that I would prefer one reading over another, but nowhere in anything you have posted have I said the reading of any version constitutes an error in the bible.

Have you no shame?

 

Come on boys - play nice or go home

 

I agree. Why is honestly so often the first casuality of any discussion on this forum?

 

Not long followed by charges of bad reading comprehension (or insert other charges such as low IQ, ignorance, etc.) without any substantiation, further followed by continued refusals to support claims or retract them.

For my part, Thomas, I think you are cutting it a little thin here. Many times you seem to have suggested that the MVs have errors in them, which by your definition seems to constitute an attack. I think you are overreacting here. The original charge of errors and typos in the KJV is well documented and has been for 400 years. While we might dispute the nature (whether translational, printer's, manuscript choices, etc.) and significance (whether it is major or minor error) of such errors, they clearly do exist as "anyone with an IQ larger than their hat size and without an agenda" (to quote someone else) knows.

 

I can't tell you how long I've been wondering that

 

I think the sane ones here are all a bit tired of the "Nah-nah-nah-nah-boo-boo" stuff. Let's wrap this up or let's get back on topic. 24 hour notice.

 

My vote is KJV, but I am not a KJVO person. Simply, I prefer to read it because I was reared up on the KJV of the Bible and I never acquired a taste for other translations.

 

I actually like that one. Isn't it related to the RSV?

 

I actually like that one. Isn't it related to the RSV?</font>[/QUOTE]Yes, its a conservative update of it, retaining about 85% of the RSV. See www.esvbible.org

 

After researching the issue for a long time, and using many versions, I believe that there really is no "best Bible", all of the major translations are good Bibles (KJV, NKJV, NASB, ESV, RSV) and all say the same thing in virtually the same English words. How many different ways can you translate "These things I have spoken to you, that in Me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation; but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world,"?

(NKJV) "These things I have spoken to you, that in Me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation; but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world."
(ASV) These things have I spoken unto you, that in me ye may have peace. In the world ye have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.
(AV) These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.
(RSV) I have said this to you, that in me you may have peace. In the world you have tribulation; but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world."
(PHIL) I have told you all this so that you may find your peace in me. You will find trouble in the world—but, never lose heart, I have conquered the world!"
(NASB) “These things I have spoken to you, so that in Me you may have peace. In the world you have tribulation, but take courage; I have overcome the world.”

Its easier to spot a bad translation, than to choose "The Best".

 

We're very blessed to have many "best"
Bibles. I think there are some that
are very good for study and reading.
Among those are the RSV, ESV, and
NASB. Others are good for reading large
sections of Scripture. The NIV, REB,
and NLT are good for reading.

Of course the best Bible is one that is
translated into one's life and Christian
character.

Clay

 

King James Version is better than all the rest.
Anything other than KJV is nothing but Trash.

 

nkjv?
I found out the history of a symbol on the nkjv.
It says the nkjv logo is the ancient symbol for the pagan trinity. It turns out that the symbol is 666 connected and can be trace back to Pythagoras 582 B.C., initiate into the Egyptian mysteries. The symbol was popularized again by a satanist Aleister Crowley (1900) for royal Arch (Lucifer) of the 3rd Degree of the New York Order of Masonary. The Symbol's shape is duplicated as trinity. The NKJV's symbol can be seen on satanic rock group albums like Red Zeppelin, as well as on New Age bestsellers like The Aquarium Conspiricy.
Remember Acts 17:29: "We ought not to think the Godhead is like (anything)...graven by art..."
And many other things wrong with this version.
Want more? Let me know

 

So to make this clear ... you are saying any other translation of The Word of God is trash??

 

Hmm... who designed the Roman cross the church uses to identify itself with Christ?

 

I enjoy reading different versions of the Bible and the discussions on the techical merits of them. The only totally accurate Bible was the original manuscripts and since those are no longer extant, we trust God to deliver His Word to us down through the centuries that we might come to know Christ and the power of His resurrection.

Ultimately, what man desperately needs is not a new translation but a new heart.

Ken

[ August 03, 2002, 01:47 PM: Message edited by: Ken Hamilton ]

 

I have always read the KJV because that is what I choose... I don't read the other versions!... I agree with what Josuha said at the beginning of the thread... The best Bible is the one that is read daily no matter what version!... Search the scriptures for in them ye think ye have eternal life and they are they that testify of ME!... No version can give eternal life no matter what anyone says... Eternal life is in the Living Word of God... Not the written!... Brother Glen

 

Hmmmmm...Why is it that in almost all the topics in this particualar forum usualy turn out the same in the end? Why does it always seem to end in an agrgument? Some of ya'll have said some things that were a little uncalled for, and I wonder what sort of testimony it leaves to those reading who may not be saved?
Now you all know I'm KJVO, and I will, by God's grace always be that way, but must we argue about this all the time!?
What am I saying!? This is a Bible version forum!
oh well. Just something for ya'll to think on.
~Abby