Welcome, Guest
Username: Password: Remember me

TOPIC: Version of the Bible

Version of the Bible 1 year 10 months ago #53784

  • Lloyd101
  • Lloyd101's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • (•_•) ( •_•)>⌐■-■ (⌐■_■)
  • Posts: 578
  • Thank you received: 328
Quirky wrote:
Big al wrote:
wow wow wow
KJV Bible extremists Hold up

How You ever sat in the sanctuary listening to the offering appeal being made. Asking for money so we can translate bibles into Spanish or maybe Swahili? Why do we do that? So we can Help others around the world to learn about God in their own tongue? If so then why do we insist that everyone should use the KJV when that is in an English that does not exist today? Also in NIV parts of the bible are not Removed. That is a wives tale on the same level as swallowing a seed will make a tree grow in you!

The KJV has some Beautiful colourful language so if you chose to read it good on You, But I strongly believe that NIV and other versions of the bible are acceptable and Worthy to do Gods work.

I don't get the part when you said that the KJV used English that doesn't exist today. Can you clarify?

And can you look up Luke 9:56 in the NIV and let me know if it says something close to this?

Luke 9:56-For the Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them. And they went to another village. (KJV)

I just looked that up and just wow :ohmy: :ohmy: :ohmy: :ohmy: :ohmy: :ohmy: :ohmy: :ohmy: :ohmy: :ohmy: :ohmy: :ohmy: :ohmy: :ohmy: :ohmy:
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Version of the Bible 1 year 10 months ago #53818

  • Violingirl1
  • Violingirl1's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • I love music and sports
  • Posts: 84
  • Thank you received: 90
I have not dedicated years of thorough research on this subject like some of you may have, but based on what I’ve learned, I believe that it makes no difference whether we use old or new translations of the Bible. It is not a salvational issue, and reading the NLT rather than the KJV (or vice versa) will not prevent anyone from going to Heaven.

But, when given the choice, I personally prefer to use modern translations of the Bible. I am, actually, quite a large supporter of them. Again, this is not a salvational issue, but I believe that modern versions are the better of the two. I will share with you my reasons why I hold this view. (These are not all my ideas; I have drawn them from assorted scholars, Bible class textbooks, and GIA independent study guides. So bear with me on the credibility and failure of citation of my sources, but be kind enough to follow my logic.)

Firstly, yes, it is true that the King James Version is the oldest English translation of the Bible. Since it is older, it is claimed to be more in line with the original manuscripts, and therefore more accurate, than the newer versions of the Bible. However, the KJV is the oldest English translation. The even older and more original manuscripts were written in languages other than English. As time passed by after the KJV was published, more and more of these older manuscripts in other languages were discovered. For example, the Dead Sea Scrolls were found in 1947. When the King James Bible was written in 1611, those scrolls had not yet been discovered, so there was no way of implementing the older manuscripts’ texts into the KJV. However, these older manuscripts were available when modern translations such as the NIV were being written, so the editors were able to follow more original scripts of the Bible than the translators of the KJV were able to. Thus, modern translations are based on manuscripts which are closer to the originals than the manuscripts on which the KJV was based. Modern versions therefore are more accurate than the King James Version.

Take the Lord’s Prayer (Matthew 6:9-13) for example. The KJV reads:
9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
10 Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.
11 Give us this day our daily bread.
12 And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.
13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.
In the NIV, this is what it says:
9 “This, then, is how you should pray:
“‘Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name,
10 your kingdom come,
your will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven.
11 Give us today our daily bread.
12 And forgive us our debts,
as we also have forgiven our debtors.
13 And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from the evil one.’”
Notice that in verse 13 in the KJV, it ends with “For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.” The NIV, however, omits that phrase. The footnote after NIV’s verse 13 explains everything: “Some late manuscripts: one, / for yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen.” Thus that ending was not in original manuscripts. One scholar speculates that a scribe who copied a copy of a copy of the original decided that Jesus’ prayer needed some kind of ending, so this scribe just penned that phrase in. Whether or not that is true, evidently the NIV is more accurate in omitting that end phrase. However, this still brings me back to my first point: is it salvational? Does the inclusion or exclusion of that sentence make a difference in anyone’s understanding of the plan of salvation? It clearly does not, so there is no point in excessively arguing over this topic (which I am glad none of us is doing, by the way).

Finally, there is the fully valid argument which many of you have already brought up: Modern translations are easier to read, digest, and understand. I believe God wants His Word to be completely accessible and understandable by everybody. Enthusiasm for the fulfillment of this vision has led to the translations of Bibles into Spanish, Korean, Romanian, Dogrib, and Tamil. Why should it be a problem that people are translating it into 21st century English? I have heard no objections regarding reading Love under Fire rather than The Great Controversy, or Humble Hero rather than The Desire of Ages. Yet these modern adaptations of Ellen White’s writings were written for the same reason the NIV and NLT were written. We want to make God’s messages available and readable to as many people as we can!

I have presented to you why I prefer to read the New Living Translation (my favorite Bible translation, by the way) over the KJV. But like I’ve repeated many times, this topic does not determine salvation. So read the version which God has convicted you to read, the one from which He speaks to you most. Whether it be the KJV or The Message, God will be delighted when you spend time in His Word!
~Violingirl1
The administrator has disabled public write access.
The following user(s) said Thank You: InspiredThinker, lianne11, tim33, Big al, Lloyd101

Version of the Bible 1 year 10 months ago #53850

  • InspiredThinker
  • InspiredThinker's Avatar
  • NOW ONLINE
  • He changed my life and now I'm free
  • Posts: 1428
  • Thank you received: 1213
Quirky wrote:
InspiredThinker wrote:
Quirky wrote:
InspiredThinker wrote:
People tend to prefer the KJV because it is the original English translation of the Bible from Greek and Hebrew (The Wycliffe translation is from Latin). However, the King James was written in the 17th century, so there are many things that are either mistranslated or do not hold the same meaning with 21st Century English. There are many things that must change their wording to better fit modern times.

A good example is the SDA Fundamental belief on marriage. When it was first written, the belief defined marriage as between two partners, as "partners" was a universal term for a straight couple. It was recently rewritten, so that marriage could be defined more clearly as between a man and a woman.

Why would you insist on reading God's Word in a linguistic format you can't understand?

What happened to the Holy Spirit?

The Holy Spirit helps us understand what we are reading, but you have to be able to know what you're reading. If I read the Bible in Persian, or Russian, or Karen, do it sit and read something I can't understand and wait on the Holy Spirit, or do I take the initiative and read something I can understand?

You do whatever you want. If God sees fit that you understand His word when its in a different language, then that's between Him and you. I'm not gonna tell you what to do (and guys, if it seems like I'm trying to force the KJV on you, i apologize). I just personally think that the KJV is the best to read and study and I personally don't know if not understanding it is a good reason not to read it. Once again, this is my PERSONAL opinion. Not tryin' to force anything on anyone. There's a lot to know about the different bible translations. That's why I reccomended Walter Veith's video because he could explain it way better than I could.

I understand what you are saying, but let's look at it this way. The King James was written in Early Modern English. We use Late Modern English, so there are many structural differences that seem slight, but aren't as insignificant as they appear to be.
Speak up, judge righteously, and defend the cause of the needy and oppressed.
-Proverbs 31:6

#LetUsBeDissatisfied
#BlackLivesMatter
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Version of the Bible 1 year 10 months ago #53856

  • smileygon10
  • smileygon10's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Meow!
  • Posts: 110
  • Thank you received: 126
InspiredThinker wrote:
People tend to prefer the KJV because it is the original English translation of the Bible from Greek and Hebrew (The Wycliffe translation is from Latin). <The rest of the text has been removed for conciseness>

OK, I agree that the language must be updated to reflect modern usage.
I'm just fixing a factual error... That my sister (violingirl1) also made, whose post has not yet been posted as I write this...

Throughout the ages, more manuscripts of the Bible have been found that are older. Scholars prefer older manuscripts because they are more likely to be more accurate. Most newer translations use older manuscripts. On the other hand, older translations may be less accurate, because older manuscripts may not have been discovered yet when the older translations were translated.

I am going to be basing stuff off Wikipedia because I have found it to be credible for everyday use, and there is a team hard at work to make sure information is cited and proper. If you want to research further you can follow the Wikipedia links and find the citations. I sourced the text from Wikipedia on December 28, 2015, so I apologize if it has changed since then.

Wikipedia says:
Although John Wycliffe is often credited with the first translation of the Bible into English, there were, in fact, many translations of large parts of the Bible centuries before Wycliffe's work.

So this is obvious that there were many translations into English even before Wycliffe's translations in the 1300's. Wycliffe translated from the Latin Vulgate (more on that later), not the original Hebrew and Greek (Source).

Wikipedia says:
The Tyndale Bible generally refers to the body of biblical translations by William Tyndale. Tyndale’s Bible is credited with being the first English translation to work directly from Hebrew and Greek texts.
So, no, the KJV wasn’t the first English translation from original Hebrew and Greek. Tyndale was sentenced to death in 1536 before he finished (some friends continued the work), long before King James’ time. But reading on in the Wikipedia article, it says he also used the Latin Vulgate.
So I’ve heard someone quoting Walter Veith that the Latin Vulgate is the Bible of the Catholic Church and it supports Catholic teachings. Thus according to that person, the NIV is inaccurate because it was based on the Latin Vulgate.

Um, Wikipedia? Wikipedia says:
The Vulgate is a late fourth-century Latin translation of the Bible that became, during the 16th century, the Catholic Church's officially promulgated Latin version of the Bible.The translation was largely the work of St. Jerome*, who, in 382, was commissioned by Pope Damasus I to revise the Vetus Latina ("Old Latin") collection of biblical texts in Latin then in use by the Church...

The Catholic Church made it its official Latin Bible as a consequence of the Council of Trent (1545–63).

*This St. Jerome is completely different from Jerome of Prague, who was burned at the stake. Mrs. White wrote a chapter about Huss and Jerome in the Great Controversy.

So, they say, the KJV is best because it was based off the original Hebrew and Greek, and not the Vulgate. Back to Wikipedia.

Wikipedia says:
The King James Only movement advocates the superiority of the King James Version over all other English translations. Most adherents of the movement believe that the Textus Receptus is very close, if not identical, to the original autographs thereby making it the ideal Greek source for the translation. They argue that most modern English translations are based on a corrupted New Testament text that relies primarily on the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus manuscripts.

OK, but the article also says
James gave the translators instructions intended to guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its belief in an ordained clergy.
Remember, England split from the Catholic Church to create the Church of England. They are separate entities, but they hold similar doctrines. So if some versions are considered inaccurate because they are based on the Vulgate (which conforms to Catholic teachings), why isn’t the King James Version considered inaccurate because it conforms to the teachings of the Church of England?

Sorry. This was supposed to be a fact correction, but it turned out to be an entire researched argument. I hope this helps.
Smiling for Jesus
The administrator has disabled public write access.
The following user(s) said Thank You: InspiredThinker

Version of the Bible 1 year 10 months ago #53858

  • tim33
  • tim33's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • I love playing cricket and learning about God
  • Posts: 667
  • Thank you received: 782
@Quirky, @Lloyd101 @12pearlygates Just to qualify- The reason Luke 9:56 doe not include "For the Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them." in the NIV is that in the earliest and most reliable original manuscipts this part of the text isn't included. In other words, when the book of Luke was first written, to the best of our knowledge Luke only wrote "And they went to another village. "

The correct understanding of the text then shows that it is more likely that the NIV is right, and the KJV is wrong.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
The following user(s) said Thank You: InspiredThinker, Big al, Mp137

Version of the Bible 1 year 10 months ago #53860

  • sunnyside1
  • sunnyside1's Avatar
  • NOW ONLINE
  • Ready for God
  • Posts: 617
  • Thank you received: 410
tim33 wrote:
@Quirky The whole point behind the King James Version was a William Tyndale expressed it to the preists of his time "If God spare my life, before very long I shall cause a plough boy to know the scriptures better than you do!" In other words, the translation of the Bible was so that the common, average person could read and understand God's word.

The King James Version cannot be understood by the common person today. While spiritual truths may have ot be spiritually discerned, Reading and understanding medieval english is hardly a spiritual truth.

The KJV isn't free of corruption either- because talking about sex was taboo when the KJV was translated, at some points words and sayings replaced literal translations, for example it's my understanding that where the KJV refers to Ruth uncovering Boaz's feet the orginal text says she slept with Boaz.

In reality, God can use any translation to reach anyone. God isn't limited to using just one version.

Maybe so, but look up the studies behind each translation. NIV takes an average 8th grade education and the others are even older. KJV takes a third.

Did that make sense?
Sometimes we worry,
Sometimes we fret.
Sometimes we feel like
We can't move a step.

But God is still with us.
Keep Him in mind.
Trust in Him alway.
He is ever so kind.



The administrator has disabled public write access.

Version of the Bible 1 year 10 months ago #53919

  • InspiredThinker
  • InspiredThinker's Avatar
  • NOW ONLINE
  • He changed my life and now I'm free
  • Posts: 1428
  • Thank you received: 1213
sunnyside1 wrote:
tim33 wrote:
@Quirky The whole point behind the King James Version was a William Tyndale expressed it to the preists of his time "If God spare my life, before very long I shall cause a plough boy to know the scriptures better than you do!" In other words, the translation of the Bible was so that the common, average person could read and understand God's word.

The King James Version cannot be understood by the common person today. While spiritual truths may have ot be spiritually discerned, Reading and understanding medieval english is hardly a spiritual truth.

The KJV isn't free of corruption either- because talking about sex was taboo when the KJV was translated, at some points words and sayings replaced literal translations, for example it's my understanding that where the KJV refers to Ruth uncovering Boaz's feet the orginal text says she slept with Boaz.

In reality, God can use any translation to reach anyone. God isn't limited to using just one version.

Maybe so, but look up the studies behind each translation. NIV takes an average 8th grade education and the others are even older. KJV takes a third.

Did that make sense?

Those studies are not all they appear to be. What they claim makes the KJV "easier" to read is the abundance of shorter words, phrases, and sentences. But just because the words are shorter does not mean they are easier to understand. A good example is Romans 10:17.

KJV: So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

NIV: Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ.

The KJV version is clearly shorter, but the NIV version is in simpler English. Anyway, it's not as big of an issue as some make it out to be.
Speak up, judge righteously, and defend the cause of the needy and oppressed.
-Proverbs 31:6

#LetUsBeDissatisfied
#BlackLivesMatter
The administrator has disabled public write access.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Violingirl1

Version of the Bible 1 year 10 months ago #54096

  • tim33
  • tim33's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • I love playing cricket and learning about God
  • Posts: 667
  • Thank you received: 782
@Sunnyside1 I'd suggest you do a little research- if you're interested, find say 10-12 third grade students, ask them to read a chapter out of the KJV and then after they've read it, explain roughly what it was about- I'll guarrantee you 99% of third graders will have no idea what the chapter's about.
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Version of the Bible 1 year 10 months ago #54124

  • Quirky
  • Quirky's Avatar
  • NOW ONLINE
  • I LOVE writing, and ummm, writing..oh! and writing
  • Posts: 3668
  • Thank you received: 2961
tim33 wrote:
@Sunnyside1 I'd suggest you do a little research- if you're interested, find say 10-12 third grade students, ask them to read a chapter out of the KJV and then after they've read it, explain roughly what it was about- I'll guarrantee you 99% of third graders will have no idea what the chapter's about.

The question to be asked then is why? My little sister is nine years old and for her quiet time in the morning she reads from her bible. When she has a question we help her out but she's pretty independent about it and, unless she's hiding something, she understands what she's reading. All of our family reads from the KJV. So would you say that she falls in the 1% of kids you can I understand "old English" writing?

@Sunnyside, i agree with Tim33's suggestion to do a text of your own. You would have to be careful if all of the variables though. How a child is taught, whether or not they even read any bible on a regular basis, will all contribute to the results of your test. A kid who spends their time playing video games, watching TV, and who isn't reared in a Christian home may not do as well as a child whose screen time is limited and who is raised to read the bible in a Christian home.
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Version of the Bible 1 year 10 months ago #54159

  • sunnyside1
  • sunnyside1's Avatar
  • NOW ONLINE
  • Ready for God
  • Posts: 617
  • Thank you received: 410
tim33 wrote:
@Sunnyside1 I'd suggest you do a little research- if you're interested, find say 10-12 third grade students, ask them to read a chapter out of the KJV and then after they've read it, explain roughly what it was about- I'll guarrantee you 99% of third graders will have no idea what the chapter's about.

Ten to twelve kids are not the same as the majority of kids in a science experiment.
Sometimes we worry,
Sometimes we fret.
Sometimes we feel like
We can't move a step.

But God is still with us.
Keep Him in mind.
Trust in Him alway.
He is ever so kind.



The administrator has disabled public write access.

Version of the Bible 1 year 10 months ago #54276

  • Quirky
  • Quirky's Avatar
  • NOW ONLINE
  • I LOVE writing, and ummm, writing..oh! and writing
  • Posts: 3668
  • Thank you received: 2961
@Violingirl, i have to respectfully disagree with you on something. You said that its not a salvific issue with what bible version we read, but i don't think that's true. What if one version has something vital to our eternal salvation, but another version ommits it, or twists it in such a way that makes it of none effect?

And what if everyone told us that the version ommiting truth is the right one to read, or that its okay to read, while the one that has the truth is brushed under the bed?

Also, won't conflict arise when two groups of people are using two different
versions? How can we come in the unity of the faith when the books we're using to get there are warring against each other?
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Version of the Bible 1 year 10 months ago #54295

  • tim33
  • tim33's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • I love playing cricket and learning about God
  • Posts: 667
  • Thank you received: 782
@Quirky Of course someone who has grown up reading the KJV will be able to understand it- Like your sister Quirky, Perhaps I should qualify, The kids may be able to understand ome of the KJV but they will understand the NIV or other modern translations to a much greater extent. Without a Christian background, the KJV would be very hard to understand. I don't see the point of struggling through a version of the Bible you can only partly understand when there are many Bibles out there that are just as accurate.

Personally, I don't have a problem with people choosing to read the KJV, I do have a problem when they start telling other people it's the only version they can read.

@Sunnyside1 Do you believe all scientific studies? Was it conducted by a University or research lab with a good reputation- or is it just a claim? I must admit I really doubt the genuineness of the study.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
The following user(s) said Thank You: InspiredThinker, Violingirl1

Version of the Bible 1 year 10 months ago #54302

I like the NKJV the best...I have a hard time with KJV. I've heard that NIV leaves out some parts but idk... :cheer:
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Version of the Bible 1 year 10 months ago #54340

  • Big al
  • Big al's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • I just Love being Me and Hearts
  • Posts: 410
  • Thank you received: 225
Quirky wrote:
@Violingirl, i have to respectfully disagree with you on something. You said that its not a salvific issue with what bible version we read, but i don't think that's true. What if one version has something vital to our eternal salvation, but another version ommits it, or twists it in such a way that makes it of none effect?

And what if everyone told us that the version ommiting truth is the right one to read, or that its okay to read, while the one that has the truth is brushed under the bed?

Also, won't conflict arise when two groups of people are using two different
versions? How can we come in the unity of the faith when the books we're using to get there are warring against each other?



I think that one can Love God and be safe Regardless of the Version of the bible they read think of all the people in the old testament who did not have a bible to read from God Saved them.
Too many years trying not to rock the boat
I gotta quote, "I don't wanna rock the boat, I wanna sink it"
Ima just do it

KB. Ima Just Do It
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Version of the Bible 1 year 10 months ago #54341

  • Big al
  • Big al's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • I just Love being Me and Hearts
  • Posts: 410
  • Thank you received: 225
Quirky wrote:
tim33 wrote:
@Sunnyside1 I'd suggest you do a little research- if you're interested, find say 10-12 third grade students, ask them to read a chapter out of the KJV and then after they've read it, explain roughly what it was about- I'll guarrantee you 99% of third graders will have no idea what the chapter's about.

The question to be asked then is why? My little sister is nine years old and for her quiet time in the morning she reads from her bible. When she has a question we help her out but she's pretty independent about it and, unless she's hiding something, she understands what she's reading. All of our family reads from the KJV. So would you say that she falls in the 1% of kids you can I understand "old English" writing?

@Sunnyside, i agree with Tim33's suggestion to do a text of your own. You would have to be careful if all of the variables though. How a child is taught, whether or not they even read any bible on a regular basis, will all contribute to the results of your test. A kid who spends their time playing video games, watching TV, and who isn't reared in a Christian home may not do as well as a child whose screen time is limited and who is raised to read the bible in a Christian home.

Each Child understand differently same with adults sometimes it has nothing to do with how you were raised but How your brain works. Furthermore in my opinion there is an importance to making the bible easy to read and comprehend for new Christians and those who we are witnessing to.
Too many years trying not to rock the boat
I gotta quote, "I don't wanna rock the boat, I wanna sink it"
Ima just do it

KB. Ima Just Do It
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Version of the Bible 1 year 10 months ago #54344

  • tim33
  • tim33's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • I love playing cricket and learning about God
  • Posts: 667
  • Thank you received: 782
@Quirky, Are you in a position to know which Bible version is more accurate? My guess is no- just like myself, we have to rely on second or third hand information. Personally, I'm not sure Walter Vieth is in a position to know either- he's ultimately got all his info from other sources as well.

I get the idea you think that the KJV and every other translation teach fundamentally different things. This is simply not true. As far as the actural meaning of the text goes, the NIV and KJV are virtually identical, the standout difference is the modern language.

@Quirky, I'd suggest you read the NIV, If you can easily find our fundamental beliefs in the NIV- what's wrong with it? And I'll guarrantee that you can establish our beliefs from the NIV.

Do you really think that God only inspired the translation of the KJV? Is it really logical to think that despite the hundreds of modern translations, God has not inspired even one translation that people can understand?

I may get shot down for saying this- But do you really think God is 400 years behind the times- so far behind He can no longer communicate effectively with the average person?

Just a sidenote, while Bibles like the NIV or CEV are translations (Where the Bible has been directly translated from the oldest, most reliable manuscripts) Bibles like the Message or (dare I say it) the Clear Word are paraphases (Where the Bible hasn't been translated but re-written by an author that re-writes each verse according to what he or she thinks the verse means) Therefore, while translations are as accurate to the original text as possible, the paraphases are subjecctive and distorted by indivdual bias, which is okay because they don't claim to be translations.
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Version of the Bible 1 year 10 months ago #54472

  • im a beekeeper
  • im a beekeeper's Avatar
  • NOW ONLINE
  • Fellow fruit loop :P
  • Posts: 391
  • Thank you received: 187
The kjv is the closest to the original. The other bibles will actually take out whole verses. In the bible it says in several places not to take away from these words or add to them( Revelations 22:19 is one of them) so I wouldn't read others that do exactly that.
Happy birthday TP!!


guidecyberclub.org/beekeeper

firstencounterministry.org/blog/2017/10/...ng-true-day-worship/
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Version of the Bible 1 year 9 months ago #54700

  • Tuftedtitmouse
  • Tuftedtitmouse's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • oh, by the way, im a boy
  • Posts: 168
  • Thank you received: 70
Look up Matthew 17:21 NIV. Tell me what it says.
before you say im a mouse google tufted titmouse
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Version of the Bible 1 year 9 months ago #54721

  • InspiredThinker
  • InspiredThinker's Avatar
  • NOW ONLINE
  • He changed my life and now I'm free
  • Posts: 1428
  • Thank you received: 1213
im a beekeeper wrote:
The kjv is the closest to the original. The other bibles will actually take out whole verses. In the bible it says in several places not to take away from these words or add to them( Revelations 22:19 is one of them) so I wouldn't read others that do exactly that.

Actually, the NIV uses older manuscripts than the KJV, meaning the KJV actually adds verses.
Speak up, judge righteously, and defend the cause of the needy and oppressed.
-Proverbs 31:6

#LetUsBeDissatisfied
#BlackLivesMatter
The administrator has disabled public write access.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Violingirl1, tim33, tarheels

Version of the Bible 1 year 9 months ago #54757

  • Quirky
  • Quirky's Avatar
  • NOW ONLINE
  • I LOVE writing, and ummm, writing..oh! and writing
  • Posts: 3668
  • Thank you received: 2961
InspiredThinker wrote:
im a beekeeper wrote:
The kjv is the closest to the original. The other bibles will actually take out whole verses. In the bible it says in several places not to take away from these words or add to them( Revelations 22:19 is one of them) so I wouldn't read others that do exactly that.

Actually, the NIV uses older manuscripts than the KJV, meaning the KJV actually adds verses.


So does older always mean better?
The administrator has disabled public write access.
The following user(s) said Thank You: im a beekeeper

Version of the Bible 1 year 9 months ago #54797

  • im a beekeeper
  • im a beekeeper's Avatar
  • NOW ONLINE
  • Fellow fruit loop :P
  • Posts: 391
  • Thank you received: 187
InspiredThinker wrote:
im a beekeeper wrote:
The kjv is the closest to the original. The other bibles will actually take out whole verses. In the bible it says in several places not to take away from these words or add to them( Revelations 22:19 is one of them) so I wouldn't read others that do exactly that.

Actually, the NIV uses older manuscripts than the KJV, meaning the KJV actually adds verses.
I do not want to start an argument, but in the front of every kjv it says exactly this "Translated out of the original tongues and with the former translations diligently compared and revised"
Happy birthday TP!!


guidecyberclub.org/beekeeper

firstencounterministry.org/blog/2017/10/...ng-true-day-worship/
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Version of the Bible 1 year 9 months ago #54817

  • Violingirl1
  • Violingirl1's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • I love music and sports
  • Posts: 84
  • Thank you received: 90
Quirky wrote:
@Violingirl, i have to respectfully disagree with you on something. You said that its not a salvific issue with what bible version we read, but i don't think that's true. What if one version has something vital to our eternal salvation, but another version ommits it, or twists it in such a way that makes it of none effect?

And what if everyone told us that the version ommiting truth is the right one to read, or that its okay to read, while the one that has the truth is brushed under the bed?

Also, won't conflict arise when two groups of people are using two different
versions? How can we come in the unity of the faith when the books we're using to get there are warring against each other?

Hi Quirky, thanks for voicing your opinion! We can agree to disagree, and that's totally okay with me.

But what do you mean by "What if"? "What if" is speculative, and as far as I know, such a circumstance speculated does not exist. If someone decided to write a new Bible version omitting or twisting important truths, and if everyone were to claim that that it is the only correct version, then yes, we would have a problem. But is there such a case in which the KJV includes an idea vital to our eternal salvation, which the NIV (or any other modern translation) completely omits, such that a believer would be totally led astray? I have not come across a case like that; do you have a few examples?

To your second (third? fourth?) question: I have not seen any conflicts or arguments regarding how to get to Heaven, resulting from differences between Bible versions. (I have seen, however, heated conflicts between people arguing over which Bible version is "superior." These conflicts, again, do not address a salvational issue; neither will the arguing change anyone's minds.) Secondly, our Bible versions are not "warring against each other," as in significantly contradicting each other. This is not "The Bible vs. the Koran," in which two opposing ways to obtain eternal life are proposed. We have only one Bible, inspired by one God, presenting one message, translated into many languages like Japanese and 21st-century English so that all can read and understand.
~Violingirl1
The administrator has disabled public write access.
The following user(s) said Thank You: InspiredThinker, Big al

Version of the Bible 1 year 9 months ago #54868

  • InspiredThinker
  • InspiredThinker's Avatar
  • NOW ONLINE
  • He changed my life and now I'm free
  • Posts: 1428
  • Thank you received: 1213
Quirky wrote:
InspiredThinker wrote:
im a beekeeper wrote:
The kjv is the closest to the original. The other bibles will actually take out whole verses. In the bible it says in several places not to take away from these words or add to them( Revelations 22:19 is one of them) so I wouldn't read others that do exactly that.

Actually, the NIV uses older manuscripts than the KJV, meaning the KJV actually adds verses.


So does older always mean better?

Older means closer to the original document, which means better. So in this case, older means better.

KJV Bibles are not without their fair share of corruption. In the process of creating manuscripts, scribes would add or take away words to "help" the Bible be more parallel.

The best example of this would be Luke 9:23, where Jesus tells the disciple he must take up his cross daily and follow Him.

The word daily does not appear in Matthew and Mark, and since scribes wanted to make the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) as similar as possible, it was deleted in many translations. The difference between the modern translations and the KJV are simply matters of word choice, making it impossible for these versions to be in conflict with each other. Said James R. White of the College of Christian Studies at Grand Canyon University:

"While the KJV remains to this day a venerable translation, those who attempt to make it the standard to the detriment of more readable (and in many instances more accurate) modern versions are in serious error (emphasis added)."
Speak up, judge righteously, and defend the cause of the needy and oppressed.
-Proverbs 31:6

#LetUsBeDissatisfied
#BlackLivesMatter
The administrator has disabled public write access.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Violingirl1

Version of the Bible 1 year 9 months ago #54883

  • sunnyside1
  • sunnyside1's Avatar
  • NOW ONLINE
  • Ready for God
  • Posts: 617
  • Thank you received: 410
I withdraw from this debate. Not because I or anyone else is wrong but because I don't like the feeling I get when I'm involved in it. Look up both sides and study them out with prayer and the Holy Spirit and decide for yourself.
Sometimes we worry,
Sometimes we fret.
Sometimes we feel like
We can't move a step.

But God is still with us.
Keep Him in mind.
Trust in Him alway.
He is ever so kind.



The administrator has disabled public write access.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Quirky, Big al, Mp137

Version of the Bible 1 year 9 months ago #54893

  • Mp137
  • Mp137's Avatar
  • NOW ONLINE
  • I love God, reading, helping, and nature
  • Posts: 2186
  • Thank you received: 1944
sunnyside1 wrote:
I withdraw from this debate. Not because I or anyone else is wrong but because I don't like the feeling I get when I'm involved in it. Look up both sides and study them out with prayer and the Holy Spirit and decide for yourself.

My thoughts exactly.
... Even if it gets me convicted
I’ll still be on my knees with my hands lifted ...
... If saying I believe is out of line
If I’m judged cause I’m gonna give my life
To show the world the love that fills me
Then I want to be Guilty ...
- Guilty by Newsboys
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Time to create page: 0.351 seconds