Different Bibles

[PeterAV]

Pard
I personally use the NASB95 (New American Standard Bible 1995) translation, as I find it is the most literal and accurate translation of the Bible.

The most literal and accurate compared to what?
If you mean that it is the most accurate in translating from tainted materials, then yes, you would be correct.
But alas, they use tainted materials so even if literal; it would be wrong in many a spot.
*******
John 1:18 comes to mind off the top of my head.
OUCH!
And there are plenty of others.
An horrid version claiming to be a Holy Bible.
*******
PeterAV
Every word of God is pure:
Not in the NASB
It fails the test internally.

 

[Mysteryman]

As I can fully agree, that the more modern of a translation you have, the more corrupt it becomes. And I also agree, that some day, there will be a translation that eventually will translate/interpret the scriptures into that which was evil into a watered down version of evil not be as evil as one first thought. Once that thought is planted, then in the more distant future, evil and sin will be merely looked upon as just a way of life. Which should be accepted by everyone as a mere flaw in mankind, without any representation of the consequences of sin .

But, I do not believe that my beloved KJV is not flawless. It also has influences within it as well. The influences of the fifteen century. Also, no translator is without flaw in and of himself, even a team of translators make mistakes on how exactly something should be translated.

A very good example of this is in KJV - Matt. 1:16 where we read the word - "husband" and it was translated from the greek word - "aner". It should have been translated "man" and not "husband".

 

[Mysteryman]

Also, the KJV does help us out in certain aspects. The KJV put certain words in italics, which is their way of telling us, that they inserted these words to help with the rendering and understanding of a phrase or statement.

The KJV also used parenthesis around certain comments. This again was their way of showing us that they inserted these statements or comments , and that they should not be taken as a literal translation from the texts. If one wishes, they can totally ignore these obvious additions by the KJV translators. Some are useful, while others are totally outrageous.

 

[PeterAV]

Don't be deceived brethren, for the workers of iniquity are playing games with different versions of God's Holy Writ too. One should beware of the idea of "new and improved" when it comes Holy Writ.

Excellent point veteran!

 

[PeterAV]

Thunderz7
In teaching Bible Study I mostly use KJV, unless it is some of the sections where the wording is so 17th century as to be very hard to understand.
I usually use NASB in those situations.

I trust YHWH to be able to get me the truth that I need in scripture.

*******
WOW! "Thus saith the LORD". Is too hard; yet you go around the bend and state some word that is not even English. Then you say the Bible's wording is too hard?
*******

The text that the KJV and others come from was controled for a long period of time by the Roman Catholic Church.
The text the NIV and others were translated from was located for a long period of time in Egypt.
I don't trust the Egyptians and I don't trust the Roman Catholic Church.
I do trust YHWH to get me the truth I need.
Who do you trust?

*******
First off you are way off on this Roman thingy.
Unless by "controlled" you mean, they tried all they could to eradicate it from the face of the Earth.
They detested this version of the AV.
They have the Jesuit Vulgate.
The AV text was around before the Corrupted Catholics came around.
So, by your own confession, you have no Bible.
Amazing. So you have no clue as to who God really is, for your own standard is not the Scriptures.
Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
Your faith is faith in your own intellect. Not too wise in that choice.
*******
God's word shall never pass away.
Holy Bible
There is only one.

 

[PeterAV]

The KJV is an out of date translation. Use the NASB or the NIV, both are excellent.

What a fibber.
The AV is read by millions.
The NASB and the NIV are both excellent if you trust in error, heretical teachings, and plain impurities in the word of God.
Here is yet another short list of proof that the NIV and the NASB are not good at all.
*******
Matt.6:13
Col. 1:14
Heb. 11:6
Matt. 1:25
Col. 3:2
John 17:5
2 Tim. 2:15
Rev. 22:14
There are hundreds more, even in the OT as well.
*******
Be serious for absolute truth.
You sure don't want to be deluded by God, himself, do you?
*******
PeterAV
Every word of God is pure:
Not the NIV nor the NASB
They both fail the internal test of purity.

 

[PeterAV]

What are the differences among the different Bibles?

1) For varying human minds to understand the same truth. Different human skulls require different perspectives for the understanding of the same truth.

2) For the varying practical applications of the same truth. The contexts vary in a way such that the same truth finds the different practical applications in reality.

That's why the various legitimate translations/interpretation. Of course, there are those less legitimate or even non-legitimate interpretation due to the lack of an firm relationship with God and that not enough guidance from the Holy Spirit received.

*******
Hawkins....
Where is the pure word of God?
Thy word is very pure, therefore thy servant loveth it.
You are being like EVE.
Choosing and picking what suits you.
Nope. You never dis God's word over the shoulder for your own temporal finite reasons.
Instead, you should allow the word of God to critique you, not the other way around, as you are showing here.
At least you do admit that there are differences. But many of the differences are not simply because of variation in saying things,[even though this happens] but the modern versions do not use the same correct texts for translating. They have use garbage for their Bibles. Known heretics! Yet the scholars hide the fact with smooth words.
Satan is heavily involved in Bible translation.
The plan from the 1800's is working very well in corrupting the Churches.
*******
Holy Bible
There is only one.

 

[PeterAV]

The KJV is an out of date translation. Use the NASB or the NIV, both are excellent.

Agreed. While the KJV is just as much a "translation" as the others, it's puzzling to me the way it's treated like an original manuscript. The meaning of words and phrases have different connotations than they once did. Look at Luke 18:16 for one example.

The KJV says in Luke 18:16...

"Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not for of such is the kingdom of God."

While the NIV says:

"Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these."

Did Jesus mean for adults to make the children suffer enough so that they came to Him? Were they supposed to beat them toward Him? I'm sure He didn't, and I'm also sure the KJV is not saying He did. But the way most people would read that, would be to infer that He did. Some people may have the cultural background to be able to read the KJV as it was written in it's time and place, and that's fine for them. Personally, I can read the NIV with much more integrity than I can the KJV. It's a personal thing for me. My

Mike

What a straw man we have here! Not worth the two cents; thanks anyway.
As if a word is not allowed to have more than one meaning.
Just because you read bibles that rip out "study".
Think about it.
Too lazy to study his bible,[AV] he simply trashes it because of what he considers an error,and then runs head long for a slop rag [NIV] that is known for many, many provable errors.
Who killed Goliath anyway? look it up and get shocked.
*******
PeterAV
Every word of God is pure:

 

[PeterAV]

Mysteryman
But, I do not believe that my beloved KJV is not flawless. It also has influences within it as well. The influences of the fifteen century. Also, no translator is without flaw in and of himself, even a team of translators make mistakes on how exactly something should be translated.

You can't sit in judgment against the very words of God.

A very good example of this is in KJV - Matt. 1:16 where we read the word - "husband" and it was translated from the greek word - "aner". It should have been translated "man" and not "husband".

So you would have the "man of Mary" instead of the husband of Mary. Interesting.
I have never seen any of the big wigs ever think this was an error. Hills did not include it.
Just because the Greek says one thing doers not negate the actual truth of the matter.
*******
Plus there is no such thing as "the Greek" because there are many Greek works out there.
All differ in some form or other.
And all Bible have to make changes into English for the English would be non-sense if translated only one way as you say.
As if hop can never be leap or jump. Yeesh. Plus it hinders no major doctrine.
As if her man is not her husband.
The Greek is not the final authority.
The pure Holy Bible is that.
In fact, the AV is the final Textus Receptus.
Let the version that is without this cast the first stone.
*******
Man is simply another way of referring to the husband. Even we slang it and say "my old man".
There is no error as you perceive.
PeterAV
Every word of God is pure:
And it is not the Greek.
They have errors.

 

[Mike]

The NKJV is NOT true to the originals.
#1 They cheated and claimed they were simply updating the AV. But they introduced the same changes in the text as the other corrupted versions.
In fact, they were finned a few hundred thousand dollars for their shinanigans.
The AV used all the right texts for their translation.
This is why it has stood the test of time.
The NKJV however did a slight of hand and the cover shows where this slight of hand came from.
The NKJV is opposed to the original languages in a few spots.
Also they have introduced opposites on several verses.

The most literal and accurate compared to what?
If you mean that it is the most accurate in translating from tainted materials, then yes, you would be correct.
But alas, they use tainted materials so even if literal; it would be wrong in many a spot.
*******
John 1:18 comes to mind off the top of my head.
OUCH!
And there are plenty of others.
An horrid version claiming to be a Holy Bible.

First off you are way off on this Roman thingy.
Unless by "controlled" you mean, they tried all they could to eradicate it from the face of the Earth.
They detested this version of the AV.
They have the Jesuit Vulgate.
The AV text was around before the Corrupted Catholics came around.
So, by your own confession, you have no Bible.
Amazing. So you have no clue as to who God really is, for your own standard is not the Scriptures.
Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
Your faith is faith in your own intellect. Not too wise in that choice.

What a fibber.
The AV is read by millions.
The NASB and the NIV are both excellent if you trust in error, heretical teachings, and plain impurities in the word of God.
Here is yet another short list of proof that the NIV and the NASB are not good at all.

Hawkins....
Where is the pure word of God?
Thy word is very pure, therefore thy servant loveth it.
You are being like EVE.
Choosing and picking what suits you.
Nope. You never dis God's word over the shoulder for your own temporal finite reasons.
Instead, you should allow the word of God to critique you, not the other way around, as you are showing here.
At least you do admit that there are differences. But many of the differences are not simply because of variation in saying things,[even though this happens] but the modern versions do not use the same correct texts for translating. They have use garbage for their Bibles. Known heretics! Yet the scholars hide the fact with smooth words.
Satan is heavily involved in Bible translation.
The plan from the 1800's is working very well in corrupting the Churches.

What a straw man we have here! Not worth the two cents; thanks anyway.
As if a word is not allowed to have more than one meaning.
Just because you read bibles that rip out "study".
Think about it.
Too lazy to study his bible,[AV] he simply trashes it because of what he considers an error,and then runs head long for a slop rag [NIV] that is known for many, many provable errors.
Who killed Goliath anyway? look it up and get shocked.

hold on a minute (dusts off his hands)

Peter, how long did you plan on being an active member of the boards, running around calling out everyone as a heretic for not reading your translation? You've spent half of your first posts berating others.

easy, slugger... breathe in, breathe out...breathe in, breathe out...

Now, please review the "Terms of Service", and focus in on points 5 & 6:

5 - Respect each others' opinions. Address issues, not persons or personalities.

6 - No Bashing of other members. Give other members the respect you would want them to give yourself.

Are you going to have a problem with these?

Mike

 

[Vic C.]

Hi Peter,

Welcome and please take Mike's advice. There are less offensive and more tactful ways of making your point. I've argued for the KJV and especially the TR many, many times here and not once did I ever resort to demeaning another person for their beliefs.

I agree with your stand. I disagree with your methods of delivery. Please, check out your KJV and you will find that nowhere in it will you see it telling us we will be condemned to hell for our choice of translations. :o You see, all this time my KJV was teaching me that Jesus, through His shed blood, the Grace of the Father and their faith that was bestowed upon me, was what justified me.

I also agree with Mysteryman; the KJV also has some minor errors, none which affect the core doctrines of the Faith. To that end, God has indeed kept it from getting corrupt.

Are you going to tell me I'm wrong if I admit I also read the NKJV, the YLT and Green's LITV? Of course, you are free to judge me, but how I work out my salvation is between the Lord and myself, no one else.

So, how about you and I continue using our KJV when engaged in an apologetics setting and let the other state their case based on their translation of choice, but remember, we are NOT in competition with one another.

 

[mondar]

I agree with your stand. I disagree with your methods of delivery........<snip>. I also agree with Mysteryman; the KJV also has some minor errors, none which affect the core doctrines of the Faith. To that end, God has indeed kept it from getting corrupt.

Are you going to tell me I'm wrong if I admit I also read the NKJV, the YLT and Green's LITV? Of course, you are free to judge me, but how I work out my salvation is between the Lord and myself, no one else.

So, how about you and I continue using our KJV when engaged in an apologetics setting and let the other state their case based on their translation of choice, but remember, we are NOT in competition with one another.

Vic, have you heard of Peter Ruckman? I suspect PeterAV is imitating the bluster of Peter Ruckman. I also notice that our dear little friend, PeterAV, seems to be denying that greek manuscripts have authority. I dont think he will give a hoot about the TR or the Byzantine, or anything related to that discussion. It is hard to believe he is serious, but unless I misread him, PeterAV is in all seriousness suggesting that the Bible was inspired in 1611.

My point is that I really don't think you "agree with" his "stand."

 

[JamesG]

.
Those who agree with Ruckman are the most extreme of the KJV only people. They believe that the KJV has more authority than the Greek text from which it was translated.

The Greek Septuagint is a Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament translated about two hundred years before Christ. It was quoted by the New Testament writers the majority of the time. And it was used exclusively by the believers until the 2nd century, after which a Latin translation made from the Septuagint was used in the West until the 5th century. The Septuagint continues to be used in the East to this day. In the 5th century, Jerome made his Latin translation that was made from the Hebrew Old Testament that was used until the mid 20th century. Ruckman and the people who agree with him really showed their extremism when they claimed that the Septuagint was actually made after the time of the New Testament writers. A conspiracy theory kind of thing.

PeterAV appears to be a Ruckmanite, especially by attitude. I am waiting for his response to the Septuagint issue. I think Vic would agree more with Donald Waite, a much more logical KJV only advocate.

JamesG

 

[Vic C.]

Hey guys, one look at my post and others on this subject and you will see I'm not KJO, I do prefer it, especially in quotes, but I'm open to other TR/Majority-based translations.


Mondar, poor choice of words on my part. There are some points PAV made in which I agree, but I do not agree with this type of dogmatic approach to interpretations.

 

[JamesG]

.
Vic C

Have you read any of Donald Waite's writings? If so what is your opinion of his point of view?

JamesG

 

[Vic C.]

Hi James, I'll get back to you on him. I'm not familiar with his writings or... I have read him and didn't pick up on the name. I do that sometimes.

 

[JamesG]

Vic C

I understand.

JamesG

 

[jasoncran]

i prefer the kjv but i am not dogmatic on it.

 

[JamesG]

.
Jasoncran

Likewise.

JamesG

 

[Mohrb]

Down side to a lot of bible translations is that it reduces God to a footnote. Some remove his name entirely. Most (like the KJV) retain his name at Exodus 6:3; Psalm 83:18; Isaiah 12:2; and Isaiah 26:4... although the "new KJV" deletes these as well.

Young's Literal Translation, the Darby translation, ASV, Bible in living english, NWT, BBE, and Green's literal translations are the only ones I know of that use God's name properly in the nearly 7000 scriptures it appears.

(Jeremiah 16:21) “Therefore here I am causing them to know; at this one time I shall cause them to know my hand and my mightiness, and they will have to know that my name is Jehovah.â€