Which Bible is the true Bible?

[Link1983]

Simple: NONE OF THEM, and all of them. In the final analysis the BEST Translation is the one you'll actually READ. 70 years ago I started (and learned to read in) the KJV. and since I know it best, and understand the "Work Arounds" for places where the translation isn't good, I'll not be changing anytime soon. In the final analysis, all Bibles say the same thing, and the differences are trivial. The "Safety" is that the Holy Spirit won't empower what He didn't say.

We have been given a witness too. The leading of the Holy Spirit!
Test the spirit of what you read. The integrity!
L

 

[Link1983]

I know about the canon. The books
They were tried and tested by a good number of believers and they were all separated in different rooms for a good period of time in putting the modern Bible together. They put the answers of these persons of what they got to be the inspired Word of God and then came up with the 66 books.
Although the catholic church has some books added.
For example Enoks book..

We should understand how and why the modern Christian Bible is what it is.
Study it!
There are many more scientific evidence about Jesus than about Alexander the so called great for example.

Another way to test the legitimacy of the Christian Bible is definitely the prophecies in the Bible.

So to not give you a definite answer. Because I think that no one can really give anyone revelation. We need to get this in ourselves. I would encourage you to do this:

Read for yourself and seek to find out what resonances within your spirit.
Also read and find what fits together!
Ask God in prayer to reveal to you what is true and what is false!

A puzzle is always easier when we get the first a bit hard pieces into place.

Find a good Bible teacher near you! If not I can safely recommend some to you if you ask me.

I will also say this. That I have read the Bible. I have read parts of the Koran, parts of the Apocryphal books, science, philosophy, psychology and so on..
No book I have ever read nothing I have ever heard spoken or written by anyone does even come close to the integrity I have found some n the Christian common Bible. But revelation comes from hearing and believing the truth.

Remember this in all:
John 8:32

Very good question tho ?

God bless!

 

[jaybo]

The subject of this thread is a bit controversial. It implies that there is only one Bible that is "the true Bible". I assume that the idea is that there is one and only one translation that is "true". i don't agree with this assumption...

Every Bible that we have today is a translation! There is no original Bible. There are many manuscripts that contain the "books" of the Bible, but there are no originals, only copies. The second issue is that the Bibles that we have are all translations of these early manuscripts. There is no one-to-one translation of the vocabulary, verb tenses, word order, idioms, etc. Additionally we live and think in a world that is unimaginably different from the world(s) of the Bible, the newest "world" being at least two thousand years old.

It is erroneous to say that "the true Bible" exists. It implies that all but one translation is false; that is a dangerous assumption.

 

[OzSpen]

The subject of this thread is a bit controversial. It implies that there is only one Bible that is "the true Bible". I assume that the idea is that there is one and only one translation that is "true". i don't agree with this assumption...

Every Bible that we have today is a translation! There is no original Bible. There are many manuscripts that contain the "books" of the Bible, but there are no originals, only copies. The second issue is that the Bibles that we have are all translations of these early manuscripts. There is no one-to-one translation of the vocabulary, verb tenses, word order, idioms, etc. Additionally we live and think in a world that is unimaginably different from the world(s) of the Bible, the newest "world" being at least two thousand years old.

It is erroneous to say that "the true Bible" exists. It implies that all but one translation is false; that is a dangerous assumption.

jaybo,

There can be no translation of the Bible without original documents. We don't have access to the originals, but only copies from Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek.

Originals existed. Otherwise we would have no copies and no translations.

You seem to make a fundamental error: Because we have translations, "there are no originals, only copies." This is a false premise.

Oz

 

[jaybo]

jaybo,

There can be no translation of the Bible without original documents. We don't have access to the originals, but only copies from Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek.

Originals existed. Otherwise we would have no copies and no translations.

You seem to make a fundamental error: Because we have translations, "there are no originals, only copies." This is a false premise.

Oz

I wrote that there are no originals, only copies.

You wrote that we don't have access to the originals, but only copies from Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. So we agree.

 

[jaybo]

jaybo,

There can be no translation of the Bible without original documents. We don't have access to the originals, but only copies from Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek.

Originals existed. Otherwise we would have no copies and no translations.

You seem to make a fundamental error: Because we have translations, "there are no originals, only copies." This is a false premise.

Oz

Again, there are no originals of the "books" of the Bible. All we have are copies of the original documents. If you think that the original "books" -- actually scrolls -- exist, can you provide evidence?

 

[OzSpen]

Again, there are no originals of the "books" of the Bible. All we have are copies of the original documents. If you think that the original "books" -- actually scrolls -- exist, can you provide evidence?

We can't have copies unless there were originals to copy from. Isn't that simple enough?

 

[WIP]

We can't have copies unless there were originals to copy from. Isn't that simple enough?

I think part of jaybo's point is that even the copies are not original hand-penned and may not be exact, perfect copies. This is evident when some parts are found in some manuscripts and not others. We don't even know if the oldest copies (manuscripts) are 1st copies or later. We can only trust that the Holy Spirit has played a role in maintaining their integrity.

 

[jaybo]

We can't have copies unless there were originals to copy from. Isn't that simple enough?

Perhaps you're a lawyer? Of course there had to have been originals at one point in time but we don't have them today.

 

[jaybo]

I think part of jaybo's point is that even the copies are not original hand-penned and may not be exact, perfect copies. This is evident when some parts are found in some manuscripts and not others. We don't even know if the oldest copies (manuscripts) are 1st copies or later. We can only trust that the Holy Spirit has played a role in maintaining their integrity.

Thank you for posting this. I'm not sure why others can't understand these facts.

 

[jaybo]

I think part of jaybo's point is that even the copies are not original hand-penned and may not be exact, perfect copies. This is evident when some parts are found in some manuscripts and not others. We don't even know if the oldest copies (manuscripts) are 1st copies or later. We can only trust that the Holy Spirit has played a role in maintaining their integrity.

Thank you for posting this. Perhaps this will convince people who opposed what I wrote.

 

[jasonc]

The problem with the KJV is some of the language that is used is outdated from it's centuries old usage. Words change meaning over time.

easy remedy if you know then just English or into reading old books,the early 20th century English is much closer to the kjv revision of the 19th century

 

[Edward]

It has not been a big thing to me about which Bible. I considered it for a moment when I began to walk with the Lord again, but I quickly concluded that...I have to have a good Bible. It is a KV and was the first Bible that was ever put into my hand. So I have to assume that God is capable to getting me the right Bible for me. I just can not fathom that, oh Ed got the wrong version so he was never able to get born again. If God can't get a good Bible into my hands then He's not God. But He IS!! So I'm good.

I don't have anything against any translation of the scriptures. Not even the NIV. I had a Brother and a friend gift me a nice big NIV Bible. Then another friend saw it and proceeded to prove that it's not good because it has a lot of missing verses in it, which is so. And after that I was talking about the missing verses and I was asked to give an example of a few. And everything I looked up was there and I couldn't understand what was going on. So I closed the NIV and began to pry about it...and had unction to look at my Bible. And sure enough, it now said NKJV on it's side. And all of my underlinings were still in it. So I have no answer about that except that the Lord had to change my NIV into a NKJV instead. With me, there's is three witnesses who can attest to this as truth.

So I must conclude that a NKJV is better than an NIV translation! True story!

 

[jaybo]

It has not been a big thing to me about which Bible. I considered it for a moment when I began to walk with the Lord again, but I quickly concluded that...I have to have a goanod Bible. It is a KV and was the first Bible that was ever put into my hand. So I have to assume that God is capable to getting me the right Bible for me. I just can not fathom that, oh Ed got the wrong version so he was never able to get born again. If God can't get a good Bible into my hands then He's not God. But He IS!! So I'm good.

I don't have anything against any translation of the scriptures. Not even the NIV. I had a Brother and a friend gift me a nice big NIV Bible. Then another friend saw it and proceeded to prove that it's not good because it has a lot of missing verses in it, which is so. And after that I was talking about the missing verses and I was asked to give an example of a few. And everything I looked up was there and I couldn't understand what was going on. So I closed the NIV and began to pry about it...and had unction to look at my Bible. And sure enough, it now said NKJV on it's side. And all of my underlinings were still in it. So I have no answer about that except that the Lord had to change my NIV into a NKJV instead. With me, there's is three witnesses who can attest to this as truth.

So I must conclude that a NKJV is better than an NIV translation! True story!

And that is your opinion -- only. There are no missing verses in the NIV. As I'm sure you're aware, the KJV, NKJV, NIV, and every other Bible (English or not) are translations from the oldest and best ancient documents. => There are NO originals of any of the "books" of the Bible <= Every translator must make many decisions of what is included in the translation, so it means nothing that the KJV has different verses -- there weren't any verses in the source documents -- than the NIV (and many other translations). They used the best sources that they had 400+ years ago, but today there are many, many more sources available that give translators a clearer picture of what the original texts PROBABLY said.

You're probably not interested (which is okay) but IMHO the best translation is the NET. Aside from being very readable and therefore understandable there are over 60,000 translators' notes that explain variant and/or missing text as well as notes to explain what the more difficult passages meant to the ancients.

Here, for example is Romans 1:1, "From Paul,[a] a slave[b] of Christ Jesus,[c] called to be an apostle,[d] set apart for the gospel of God.[e]" Footnote [a]: tn Grk “Paul.” The word “from” is not in the Greek text, but has been supplied to indicate the sender of the letter; footnote : tn Traditionally, “servant.” Though δοῦλος (doulos) is normally translated “servant,” the word does not bear the connotation of a free individual serving another. BDAG notes that “‘servant’ for ‘slave’ is largely confined to Biblical transl. and early American times…in normal usage at the present time the two words are carefully distinguished” (BDAG 260 s.v.). One good translation is “bondservant” (sometimes found in the ASV for δοῦλος) in that it often indicates one who sells himself into slavery to another. But as this is archaic, few today understand its force. Also, many slaves in the Roman world became slaves through Rome’s subjugation of conquered nations, kidnapping, or by being born into slave households. sn Undoubtedly the background for the concept of being the Lord’s “slave” or “servant” is to be found in the Old Testament scriptures. For someone who was Jewish this concept did not connote drudgery, but honor and privilege. It was used of national Israel at times (Isa 43:10), but was especially associated with famous OT personalities, including such great men as Moses (Josh 14:7), David (Ps 89:3; cf. 2 Sam 7:5, 8) and Elijah (2 Kgs 10:10); all these men were “servants (or slaves) of the Lord.”; footnote [c]: tc Many significant mss, as well as several others (P26 א A G Ψ 33 1739 1881 M), have a reversed order of these words and read “Jesus Christ” rather than “Christ Jesus” (P10 B 81 pc). The meaning is not affected in either case, but the reading “Christ Jesus” is preferred as slightly more difficult and thus more likely autographic (a scribe who found it would be prone to change it to the more common expression). At the same time, Paul is fond of the order “Christ Jesus,” especially in certain letters such as Romans, Galatians, and Philippians. As well, the later Pauline letters almost uniformly use this order in the salutations. A decision is difficult, but “Christ Jesus” is slightly preferred.; footnote [d]: tn Grk “a called apostle.; footnote [e]: tn The genitive in the phrase εὐαγγέλιον θεοῦ (euangelion theou, “the gospel of God”) could be translated as (1) a subjective genitive (“the gospel which God brings”) or (2) an objective genitive (“the gospel about God”). Either is grammatically possible. This is possibly an instance of a plenary genitive (see ExSyn 119-21; M. Zerwick, Biblical Greek, §§36-39). If so, an interplay between the two concepts is intended: The gospel which God brings is in fact the gospel about himself. However, in view of God’s action in v. 2 concerning this gospel, a subjective genitive notion (“the gospel which God brings”) is slightly preferred.

I hope this gives you (and everyone else) a glimpse into the art/science of translation, and why it is absurd to call any single translation "the Word of God". They are all translations of the earliest Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek documents, and none of them are perfect.

You can conclude that a NKJV is better than an NIV translation if that what "floats your boat" but it has no value outside of your opinion.

 

[Edward]

And that is your opinion -- only. There are no missing verses in the NIV. As I'm sure you're aware, the KJV, NKJV, NIV, and every other Bible (English or not) are translations from the oldest and best ancient documents. => There are NO originals of any of the "books" of the Bible <= Every translator must make many decisions of what is included in the translation, so it means nothing that the KJV has different verses -- there weren't any verses in the source documents -- than the NIV (and many other translations). They used the best sources that they had 400+ years ago, but today there are many, many more sources available that give translators a clearer picture of what the original texts PROBABLY said.

You're probably not interested (which is okay) but IMHO the best translation is the NET. Aside from being very readable and therefore understandable there are over 60,000 translators' notes that explain variant and/or missing text as well as notes to explain what the more difficult passages meant to the ancients.

Here, for example is Romans 1:1, "From Paul,[a] a slave[b] of Christ Jesus,[c] called to be an apostle,[d] set apart for the gospel of God.[e]" Footnote [a]: tn Grk “Paul.” The word “from” is not in the Greek text, but has been supplied to indicate the sender of the letter; footnote : tn Traditionally, “servant.” Though δοῦλος (doulos) is normally translated “servant,” the word does not bear the connotation of a free individual serving another. BDAG notes that “‘servant’ for ‘slave’ is largely confined to Biblical transl. and early American times…in normal usage at the present time the two words are carefully distinguished” (BDAG 260 s.v.). One good translation is “bondservant” (sometimes found in the ASV for δοῦλος) in that it often indicates one who sells himself into slavery to another. But as this is archaic, few today understand its force. Also, many slaves in the Roman world became slaves through Rome’s subjugation of conquered nations, kidnapping, or by being born into slave households. sn Undoubtedly the background for the concept of being the Lord’s “slave” or “servant” is to be found in the Old Testament scriptures. For someone who was Jewish this concept did not connote drudgery, but honor and privilege. It was used of national Israel at times (Isa 43:10), but was especially associated with famous OT personalities, including such great men as Moses (Josh 14:7), David (Ps 89:3; cf. 2 Sam 7:5, 8) and Elijah (2 Kgs 10:10); all these men were “servants (or slaves) of the Lord.”; footnote [c]: tc Many significant mss, as well as several others (P26 א A G Ψ 33 1739 1881 M), have a reversed order of these words and read “Jesus Christ” rather than “Christ Jesus” (P10 B 81 pc). The meaning is not affected in either case, but the reading “Christ Jesus” is preferred as slightly more difficult and thus more likely autographic (a scribe who found it would be prone to change it to the more common expression). At the same time, Paul is fond of the order “Christ Jesus,” especially in certain letters such as Romans, Galatians, and Philippians. As well, the later Pauline letters almost uniformly use this order in the salutations. A decision is difficult, but “Christ Jesus” is slightly preferred.; footnote [d]: tn Grk “a called apostle.; footnote [e]: tn The genitive in the phrase εὐαγγέλιον θεοῦ (euangelion theou, “the gospel of God”) could be translated as (1) a subjective genitive (“the gospel which God brings”) or (2) an objective genitive (“the gospel about God”). Either is grammatically possible. This is possibly an instance of a plenary genitive (see ExSyn 119-21; M. Zerwick, Biblical Greek, §§36-39). If so, an interplay between the two concepts is intended: The gospel which God brings is in fact the gospel about himself. However, in view of God’s action in v. 2 concerning this gospel, a subjective genitive notion (“the gospel which God brings”) is slightly preferred.

I hope this gives you (and everyone else) a glimpse into the art/science of translation, and why it is absurd to call any single translation "the Word of God". They are all translations of the earliest Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek documents, and none of them are perfect.

You can conclude that a NKJV is better than an NIV translation if that what "floats your boat" but it has no value outside of your opinion.

I understand that. I'm not beating up on the NIV, just sharing my experience with it. And there is many missing verses. All you have to do is to google NIV missing verses and it gives you a big list and specific notations of chapter verse.

I agree this is my opinion and I shared that in that light. But, it did happen and I can put you into contact with one or both of them if you would like me too. I'd have to make sure with them first, but I got a good idea it will be ok. Just ask.

They are missing. I had that NIV and my older KJV and we looked up a lot of them and they were not in the NIV.

Again, I'm not saying the NIV is bad. I believe that if that is your Bible then God can use it to help you to find Him, no sweat.

 

[Edward]

I hope this gives you (and everyone else) a glimpse into the art/science of translation, and why it is absurd to call any single translation "the Word of God". They are all translations of the earliest Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek documents, and none of them are perfect.

I agree with this. Completely. Nothing is too hard for God.
Oh, did you know that you can actually go online and read high quality pics of the original messages. Scrolls and stuff. It's been awhile since I did that so you would have to google exactly where to go. And with tools like Blueletterbible.com it was pretty easy (yet time consuming) to read the actual original texts.

But nevertheless, the Holy Spirit is to lead us into all truth, so I believe that you can use whatever translation that you have and God can make your redemption happen through it. Such is His power.

 

[OzSpen]

Perhaps you're a lawyer? Of course there had to have been originals at one point in time but we don't have them today.

And

 

[jasonc]

I understand that. I'm not beating up on the NIV, just sharing my experience with it. And there is many missing verses. All you have to do is to google NIV missing verses and it gives you a big list and specific notations of chapter verse.

I agree this is my opinion and I shared that in that light. But, it did happen and I can put you into contact with one or both of them if you would like me too. I'd have to make sure with them first, but I got a good idea it will be ok. Just ask.

They are missing. I had that NIV and my older KJV and we looked up a lot of them and they were not in the NIV.

Again, I'm not saying the NIV is bad. I believe that if that is your Bible then God can use it to help you to find Him, no sweat.

the bibles didn't have English syntax or chapters.2 peter is one long paragraph in Greek .

the thought for thought translation is often so that is possible .

 

[WIP]

I understand that. I'm not beating up on the NIV, just sharing my experience with it. And there is many missing verses. All you have to do is to google NIV missing verses and it gives you a big list and specific notations of chapter verse.

I agree this is my opinion and I shared that in that light. But, it did happen and I can put you into contact with one or both of them if you would like me too. I'd have to make sure with them first, but I got a good idea it will be ok. Just ask.

They are missing. I had that NIV and my older KJV and we looked up a lot of them and they were not in the NIV.

Again, I'm not saying the NIV is bad. I believe that if that is your Bible then God can use it to help you to find Him, no sweat.

In my experience, most translations that I've used will include footnotes that explain missing or added verses. In other words, there's no conspiracy to change the Scriptures into something they are not. We just don't have the original penned transcripts so we are left with piecing together what we do have in order to get as close as possible to the originals.

None of the translations that I have ever encountered were translated by single individuals. In most cases, it is a team of many from various backgrounds including some nonChristian backgrounds and in the end they agree on the final outcome.

 

[jaybo]

In my experience, most translations that I've used will include footnotes that explain missing or added verses. In other words, there's no conspiracy to change the Scriptures into something they are not. We just don't have the original penned transcripts so we are left with piecing together what we do have in order to get as close as possible to the originals.

None of the translations that I have ever encountered were translated by single individuals. In most cases, it is a team of many from various backgrounds including some nonChristian backgrounds and in the end they agree on the final outcome.

I hope that everyone reads your post. It goes a long way toward countering those who believe that there's a conspiracy to change the Scriptures into something they are not.