This is the crux of the matter. Truthfully, Jesus' teachings are incredibly simple: have faith in God and love one another. Now, carrying out his teachings in our day-to-day lives, that's where the difficulties arise!
What Bible Translations Do You Prefer?
- Thread starter blueskies
- Start date
This is the crux of the matter. Truthfully, Jesus' teachings are incredibly simple: have faith in God and love one another. Now, carrying out his teachings in our day-to-day lives, that's where the difficulties arise!
Hello LearningToLetGo;
Amen, I have heard that as well.
I'm also blessed by those who are challenged and prayerfully ask the questions because they do find the Word challenging. Yet their day to day walk with Christ have produced amazing results revealing His glory!
Many others do grasp the Bible, "have faith in God and Love one another" but have difficulty with the application.
God bless you, brother.
Perhaps it's our sinful nature, I don't know, but we tend to overcomplicate things. We turn simple problems into complex problems then we look for complex solutions. In the process we get all confused, angry and discouraged. Perhaps this is why KJV is so popular: it sounds complicated. And it is, since few people understand the antiquated language properly and no one speaks it anymore.
I highly recommend reading the Bible in a newer thought-for-thought translation in tandem with a study bible and good footnotes. Websites like bible gateway are also quite valuable.
I highly recommend reading the Bible in a newer thought-for-thought translation in tandem with a study bible and good footnotes. Websites like bible gateway are also quite valuable.
ouch.
I understand your good intention brother, however, there was a concerted effort by Wescott and Hort, et al, to remove specific ideas from The New Testament that exist in the Received Texts (used for the KJV). I believe the 1611 KJV Bible is still the most accurate English Bible version to date. And further, I believe that many of today's arguments between brethren are caused by the modern New Testament versions using the critical texts from Wescott and Hort's new Greek translation of 1881. The situation is much, much more serious than what you may think.
Regardless of who is right, fiddling with God’s word is an extremely grave matter.
Hello DavyP;
My mistake. My post was not about good intentions, or what I think how serious this may be. It was about the testimonial results of what God is doing.
God is well aware of the academic discipline or lack of, His people and the arguments of the various translations. But the Bible His servants choose to study and their application of that Biblical knowledge they gain has equipped them to introduce Christ and give the new believer an opportunity of eternity with Him.
The formal and functional equivalence, free versions, vocabulary, critique of critical text and historical context will always have their arguments. Look how far Wescott and Horts work goes going back to 1881, and today they are well received and acknowledged. I respect Dr. Phil Springer's video presentations, very impressive!
Thank you for sharing the videos, DavyP, and may God bless you.
You bet it is. But that battle has been raging for centuries. It's just that most brethren know very little about it. Even many pastors know very little about it. Dr. Phil Stringer said he didn't know there were two different sets of Greek manuscript types until after he graduated from Bible college. He said the Bible college had to have had a policy to keep that fact under wraps because of how it might cause controversy. That's a poor excuse that lacks the will to defend the Word of God from those who would corrupt it.
Sorry, but I do not trust Wescott and Hort's Catholic bents and working against the Protestant Faith, and I never will. They forced... their new Greek translation on the revision committee that produced the Greek NT revision in 1881. And in their personal letters, which have been in print in 2 volumes, reveals Hort hated the Textus Receptus Greek text (used for the KJV New Testament) and wanted to destroy it. Both of them had associations and beliefs that are non-Christian, they only said they agreed to basic Christian terms like salvation, justification, sanctifcation, etc., but they had different meanings for them. So as for so-called 'claimers' that they were on the up-and-up, those are either not aware of the facts, or they follow an agenda.
I have realized the controversy since about '78, I have been on both sides of the issue until recently, but I keep it a personal preference believing God is well able to lead His children in the path of truth. I don't believe I am knowledgeable enough about the facts to make dogmatic pronouncements...only personal convictions.
Last edited:
One does not have to be a scholar themselves to understand the attempts at corrupting God's Word. This is one of the reasons why I recommend Bible study software like BibleSoft that is FREE, and has many Bible versions that one can make comparisons. Why should I want to trust modern Bible versions that leave out something like 2,900 words that are in Greek Received texts used for the 1611 KJV?
You should really check out the above YouTube link of what Dr. Phil Stringer was saying about the Gideon's wanting to publish the ESV New Testament, but not without putting back in all the Majority Text passages the ESV left out which the KJV has. And the owners of the ESV copyright gave Gideons permission to publish with adding those Majority Text passages put back in. But they authorized ONLY Gideons to do that, no one else. That right there is a grand admission that the editors of the ESV had used a different source of Greek texts for their New Testament version. Now for those who don't think that's very important, I beg to differ with you.
Am I telling brethren to not use any of the modern Bible versions put together after 1881? No. Use what you want, even some of the really crazy 'Dude' for John slang versions, if you want. But don't expect our Heavenly Father to reveal His Truth to you in those crazy bent Bible versions.
I was raised in the KJV Bible as a child, and mine never was in Old English, so I saw no problem reading it. I just had a problem understanding many of its Truths until I publically announced my Faith in The Father and His Son Jesus Christ, and was baptized.
What is the Bible version which is not subject to any company of editor's copyright?
The 1611 King James Version Bible.
The U.S. when the American colonies separated from England also ended all English claims to copyrights in the Americas.
That means in the U.S., the King James Version Bible has NO copyright. Anyone can publish it, and in any country or language outside the UK.
Can that be done with the later modern Bible versions? No, as you will discover, the modern Bible versions have copyrights owned by editors and companies, so one cannot publish those versions at will.
Which Bible version then, would it appear that our Heavenly Father has endorsed for the peoples of the world? A non-copyrighted version. Which one would that be?
The 1611 King James Version Bible.
The U.S. when the American colonies separated from England also ended all English claims to copyrights in the Americas.
That means in the U.S., the King James Version Bible has NO copyright. Anyone can publish it, and in any country or language outside the UK.
Can that be done with the later modern Bible versions? No, as you will discover, the modern Bible versions have copyrights owned by editors and companies, so one cannot publish those versions at will.
Which Bible version then, would it appear that our Heavenly Father has endorsed for the peoples of the world? A non-copyrighted version. Which one would that be?
I've had Biblesoft, Olivetree, Logos, BibleWorks, Esword, Bible Analyzer, Sword Searcher and a host of others. I have made the comparisons.
I did watch the video and was already fully aware that the ESV uses a different body of Greek Texts for its translations.
..It sounds like you are telling them not to use post-1880 texts/translations.
We had no Bibles (they were forbidden) in our household growing up, so I am thankful to have God's written Word.
Last edited:
kjv what i cut my teeth on .i do like the csb not a fan of NIV many i know are kjv only some where i have a Mormon and a nwt Jehovah witness bible i think nwt is the version . i carry a Thompson chain reference ..i have a nkj study bible and kjv
interesting most homes has at least a family Bible
My dad was a hard-core atheist and died in that state.
i hate to hear that
Esv, and Nas, and at times also the Greek New testament!
I have a number of Bibles, each bought for a specific purpose.
For many years, my 'reading' Bible as well as the Bible in which I do more detailed study has been NASB. This dates back to when I accepted Christ and attended a Bible study with the Christians that guided my early journey (they mostly used NASB).
But I have found that many of the churches I have attended greatly prefer KJV, so I have several of them, including one with very large print that I can read without glasses when listening to sermons and reading references cited by the preacher.
I also have several study and chain-reference types of Bibles that are mostly KJV.
Electronically I have many translations and several commentaries through Olive-Tree, including a reverse interlinear in ESV.
For many years, my 'reading' Bible as well as the Bible in which I do more detailed study has been NASB. This dates back to when I accepted Christ and attended a Bible study with the Christians that guided my early journey (they mostly used NASB).
But I have found that many of the churches I have attended greatly prefer KJV, so I have several of them, including one with very large print that I can read without glasses when listening to sermons and reading references cited by the preacher.
I also have several study and chain-reference types of Bibles that are mostly KJV.
Electronically I have many translations and several commentaries through Olive-Tree, including a reverse interlinear in ESV.