Bible Versions

[John Henry]

What Version do you use? I use the KJV. It is one of the best - if not the best - of all versions of the Bible in English.

[Eleventh Doctor]

I use the St. Athanasius Academy Septuagint. Why is the KJV the best version?

[Wakko]

The Bible is the Bible, just because it was translated by several different people doesn't make one better then the other. It's still the same just put in different words, people just have preferences. That doesn't make any translation, in my opinion, superior. Also, I use the NIV.

[Eleventh Doctor]

Numbers 23:19 (NIV) "God is not human, that he should lie, not a human being, that he should change his mind."

Numbers 23:19 (KJV) "God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man that he should repent."

Numbers 23:19 (Septuagint) "God is not like a man, to be deceived, Nor like a son of man, to be deceived."

So you think this passage has pretty much the same meaning in all three of these translations?

[John Henry]

The Bible is the Bible, just because it was translated by several different people doesn't make one better then the other. It's still the same just put in different words, people just have preferences. That doesn't make any translation, in my opinion, superior. Also, I use the NIV.

Really, does that mean it doesn't matter what version I use? What about the Queen James Bible?

Numbers 23:19 (NIV) "God is not human, that he should lie, not a human being, that he should change his mind."

Numbers 23:19 (KJV) "God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man that he should repent."

Numbers 23:19 (Septuagint) "God is not like a man, to be deceived, Nor like a son of man, to be deceived."

So you think this passage has pretty much the same meaning in all three of these translations?

Okay in most places the KJV and the NIV are close, but in many places they are different too. Indeed the NIV omits certain verses. It also has the poor reading (probably Gnostic) in 1 Timothy 3:16 ("He" instead of "God")
Argue with me if you will. I will be convinced that the best text underlies that KJV until someone shows me proof.

[Eleventh Doctor]

So do you read the original KJV? The one that used parts from the Septuagint?

[SirWhit]

Umm...just to interject, I use the NKJV simply because my family uses it. Most of my church uses either the KJV or NKJV.

[Wakko]

*Pops in* Just to clarify I meant that many versions of the Bible are similar, not all are the same. I don't think that The Queen James Bible is the same by any means as the KJV. Some versions have been changed to be quite different: NLT, Message, Queen James, etc.
EDIT: 300th post!

[Blitz]

NIV has a lot of doctrinal errors. Several important verses were changed.

[Eleventh Doctor]

Not saying I disagree but could you expand on your point and give some examples of these errors and verses that were changed?

[John Henry]

NIV also omits verses i.e. Matthew 17:21

[TigerShadow]

I prefer the ESV version myself. No real reason, necessarily; it's just the one we use at my church. I understand that it's one of the most accurate translations of the Bible there is, although that could be just a standard-issue thing now.

[Eleventh Doctor]

It all really depends on what you mean by accurate. There tend to be two schools of thought in Bible translation, the literal school that tries to find the most literal word for word translation possible. The other school tries to translate the meaning of the original text into the best meaning in the new language. My understanding is that ESV is a very literal translation.

[TigerShadow]

It is, but it takes into account the differences between what a certain word or phrase would mean in Hebrew and what it would mean in Greek as compared to what it would mean in English. I personally like it simply because that's what I grew up with and that's the Bible I've had for years, but there comes a point where there isn't any need to make a huge fuss over it. I don't really think that there's any one translation of the Bible that should be used and all others are heretical, although I certainly believe that we should be able to discern when a translation is doctrinally errant. (I'm also a more literal interpreter of the Bible, although I don't cling firmly to literalism as a matter of essential dogma.)

[John Henry]

Hmmm...did you know that the ESV has "Asaph" instead of "Asa" & "Amos" instead of "Amon". I believe Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale, Matthew, Bishops, Geneva, Wesley, Webster are good Bibles but unfortunately used well. The NKJV is not faithful to the KJV. It makes more than 100,000 major changes! The NIV2011, ICB, Message, TNIV, and NCV are gender-inclusive which means that they are politically correct. The QJV is the worst of the lot - it is a gay bible - if you could call it a bible. The AMP is a useful tool though it follows the faulty text - which NIV, NASB, RSV, NRSV, ESV, ASV, RV, and others follow. The NIV says that the best manuscripts & other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20, but there is enough evidence that these verses are authenic. The "best" manuscripts are in reality the worst. Old Latin k which does not have this ending but a shorter ending is a gnostic manuscript. Also, Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph) and Codex Vaticanus (B) are the worst manuscripts. Even Codex Vaticanus leaves a blank space at this place. John William Burgon vindicates Mark 16:9-20 in his book "The Last Twelve Verses of Mark". I am also an enemy of the Revised Standard Version. The RSV is made entirely by anti-Biblical liberals who believe that Moses did not write the Pentateuch, that Deuteronomy wasn't written till 700 B.C., that the book of Job is a folktale, that the universal flood was impossible, and that the Old Testament was a mixture of legend, myth, and truth. The RSV also adds words that have no manuscript evidence at all. The NWT is a translation made by heretics - Jehovah Witnesses.
Sorry if I wrote in a confusing way.
There are 3 groups:
1. Those that follow the text underlying T.R. and the KJV.
2. Those that follow the Critical Text, Wescott & Hort, Aleph, B, and many modern versions.
3. Those that follow the Majority Text.

[Pound Foolish]

I am also an enemy of the Revised Standard Version. The RSV is made entirely by anti-Biblical liberals who believe that Moses did not write the Pentateuch, that Deuteronomy wasn't written till 700 B.C., that the book of Job is a folktale, that the universal flood was impossible, and that the Old Testament was a mixture of legend, myth, and truth. The RSV also adds words that have no manuscript evidence at all.

And on what do you base this rather remarkable conclusion?

In the end, so long as it's a Protestant Bible, it's still only part of the Bible.

[TigerShadow]

Hmmm...did you know that the ESV has "Asaph" instead of "Asa" & "Amos" instead of "Amon".

I can't know something that isn't true. I have an ESV in front of me as I write this post, and it uses Asa and Amon. (I especially remember the "Amon", because I still can't read anything about Amon without thinking of the Book One antagonist from Legend of Korra.)

[John Henry]

I am also an enemy of the Revised Standard Version. The RSV is made entirely by anti-Biblical liberals who believe that Moses did not write the Pentateuch, that Deuteronomy wasn't written till 700 B.C., that the book of Job is a folktale, that the universal flood was impossible, and that the Old Testament was a mixture of legend, myth, and truth. The RSV also adds words that have no manuscript evidence at all.

And on what do you base this rather remarkable conclusion?

In the end, so long as it's a Protestant Bible, it's still only part of the Bible.

I read a book. I don't know which book - I think it was by a member of the Churches of Christ (believe it or not!). I do not know which words they added because I don't possess any RSV Bible, but the book said so. So there is evidence. It is a Protestant Bible? Not all Protestants are good. Some are evil! (forgive me if I used strong language)

Hmmm...did you know that the ESV has "Asaph" instead of "Asa" & "Amos" instead of "Amon".

I can't know something that isn't true. I have an ESV in front of me as I write this post, and it uses Asa and Amon. (I especially remember the "Amon", because I still can't read anything about Amon without thinking of the Book One antagonist from Legend of Korra.)

Maybe you're using a different edition. Which edition are you using? 2001? 2004? 2007? or 2011? I have the 2011 edition in the E-Sword Bible software (I'm not sure if you know about E-Sword), but the 2011 edition has Asaph & Amos just like the RSV (since the ESV is a revision of the RSV), Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus, Nestle-Aland, Wescott-Hort, and P1.

It all really depends on what you mean by accurate. There tend to be two schools of thought in Bible translation, the literal school that tries to find the most literal word for word translation possible. The other school tries to translate the meaning of the original text into the best meaning in the new language. My understanding is that ESV is a very literal translation.

I think you're talking about Formal equivalence and Dynamic Equivalence. I prefer Formal Equivalence. The Dynamic Equivalence can be inaccurate - sometimes (forgive me) ridiculous. Eugene Nida was the founder of Dynamic Equivalence. However, even though he is a "Fundamentalist" he denies Fundamental doctrines such as the Trinity.

-- Fri Jul 18, 2014 1:42 am --

Not all Protestants are good - what about the United Methodists, and many Lutheran Churches are Liberal Churches. I read some books written by the KJV-only people. Even if the RSV does not add, it still omits verses. Indeed, it is one of the most daring translations. It omits verses which even the Codex Vaticanus or the Codex Sinaiticus retain. As for the ESV, it is a revision from the RSV. Maybe Tiger, you have a different edition from mine. Mine is a 2011 edition - how about your's.
At least the RSV and ESV have formal equivalence. Some Bibles have the infamous dynamic equivalence. Did you know that some "Bibles" are politically correct? Gender Inclusive Bibles include the NIV 2011, TNIV, NCV, ICB, MSG, TIB. And recently, there has been released - the QJV which is identical to the KJV - except for 8 verses. And all of those verses are about homosexuality. The QJV is the first "gay bible".

[TigerShadow]

Maybe you're using a different edition. Which edition are you using? 2001? 2004? 2007? or 2011?

I'm using the 2007 edition.

I read some books written by the KJV-only people.

Exactly—people who, if my understanding of your viewpoint is correct, think exactly the same way you do. It's fine to read the viewpoints of people who agree with you, but how do you know that there isn't any unscholarly bias if you don't also look at more neutral sources?

[John Henry]

I read books that in most cases side up with the critical text such as A.T. Robertson's famous work: Word pictures in the New Testament, C.I. Scofield's reference notes. Did you know that in Luke 17:36 the KJV translators placed a footnote saying that it was wanting in many Greek copies?
Luke 17:34-36 On the subject of these verses see Mat_24:40, Mat_24:41 (note). The 36th verse is, without doubt, an interpolation. It was probably borrowed from Mat_24:40. The whole verse is wanting in - ABEGHKLQS, more than fifty others, the Coptic, Ethiopic, Gothic, Slavonic, and many of the fathers: Griesbach has left it out of the text. Well might our translators say in the margin, This 36th verse is wanting in most of the Greek copies. Griesbach thinks it might have been omitted on account of the similar ending, (see the preceding verse), or that it was borrowed from Mat_24:40. - Adam Clarke, The Holy Bible with a Commentary and Critical Notes