Best Bible version to the Bible program?

[PetriFB]

Hi, a Christian man called Jari Iivanainen (A Finn) is going to make the Bible program (websites) and he wanted to know what English Bible version is good to use in that program. The Bible program will include different subject areas with Bible verses. By that way you can find verses to subjects you are looking for.

You can familiarize Jari through his websites: http://koti.phnet.fi/elohim/harvestenglish

The Bible program will be completed about June or July 2008, and I will inform about it all of you.

Jari would appreciate your suggestion to which version is best to use that he can choose a good version to that program. I suggested to him KJV (1611), but he wanted to hear as much as possible suggestions, so thank you to you all, who will answer!

 

[John]

KJV can't go wrong.

 

[handy]

I like the New Amercian Standard Bible.

 

[Vic C.]

The older Bibles like the KJ and Young's do not present the legal issues other translations do. They are Public Domain, which means you can publish them without anyone's permission. They're great translations in their own right as well.

 

[PetriFB]

Thanks for everyone .. may GBU all ...

 

[waitinontheLamb]

King James.

The others are directly influenced by Westcott and Hort who put together their faulty texts. They were into all kinds of evil and have successfully removed much of God's Word. The modern versions attack the Blood, Christ's Deity, and many other core Christian doctrines.

 

[Vic C.]

King James.

The others are directly influenced by Westcott and Hort who put together their faulty texts. They were into all kinds of evil and have successfully removed much of God's Word. The modern versions attack the Blood, Christ's Deity, and many other core Christian doctrines.

Now, now, we've been down this road before. ;-) I though we at least agreed there are other translation derived from the TR that are worthy also. :-?

 

[waitinontheLamb]

King James.

The others are directly influenced by Westcott and Hort who put together their faulty texts. They were into all kinds of evil and have successfully removed much of God's Word. The modern versions attack the Blood, Christ's Deity, and many other core Christian doctrines.

Now, now, we've been down this road before. ;-) I though we at least agreed there are other translation derived from the TR that are worthy also. :-?

Post KJV there are none taken from the TR except the NKJV and even that has some serious issues, and then also points people in the footnotes to the Nestle Aland/United Bible Society. The only Bible that truly upholds all the tenets of the Christian faith is the KJV.

Still love ya though bro. :-D

 

[Vic C.]

Post KJV there are none taken from the TR except the NKJV and even that has some serious issues, and then also points people in the footnotes to the Nestle Aland/United Bible Society. The only Bible that truly upholds all the tenets of the Christian faith is the KJV.

Still love ya though bro. :-D

May I ask where you got this information? Robert Young translated from the TR for his Literal translation. So did Green, though he does admit he believes some additions from the Majority Text would make for a better overall translation that more closely matches the original text. But we know no one has all of the originals. ;-) The oldest we have is a postcard size piece of papyrus with some verses from John which date back to the early 2nd. century.

Like you said, the NKJV has issues mostly in the fact that its footnotes are based on Majority text. All those blasted footnotes point to alternate interpretations and also footnotes denoting some versions omit verses like Acts 8.37.

Hey, there's your test... if a version doesn't have 8:37, it's not from the Received Text.