Different Bibles

[kiwimac]

I am basically a KJVO person, but I am not inclined to print long answers on message boards. But the basic differences are, Two corrupt persons by the names of Westcott and Hort, used two corrupt texts, to produce a corrupt Greek New Testament. This lead to the first Grand-Father of all the Bible corruptions , called the Revised Standard Edition, the Standard basis for the rest of the New Version corruptions.

These versions corrupt too many verses for me to even list, a search of the internet will get you started on the road to the answers.

Nope.

 

[Pard]

Here you go, http://www.bessel.org/bibles.htm

That site has a list of pretty much all the English Bible versions (scroll down a little). The first table set is the differences between the Bible by religion/denomination.

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. I do have other Bibles, including an NIV, NLT, KJ, and a translation that I am not sure about, but I only use it because every other page is in Greek. I also have a Jewish Bible (Tanakh), which is just the Old Testament; English on one page and Hebrew on the other. Oh all my Bibles, I find the NASB95 is the best, but you should read it with a second Bible that is easier to understand (I use a God's Word Bible to do this because it is very easy to read, but still very accurate).

 

[veteran]

All the different versions I've read from contain the basic Gospel Salvation Message of Jesus Christ. One can easily preach The Gospel of Jesus Christ from any of them.

However, when it comes to accurately discerning the "strong meat" in God's Word, history and prophecy, many of the modern versions fail in that. Not everything left out of the newer Bible versions is about disagreement between Greek manuscripts either.

For example, In Luke 4:11, the NKJV, which is supposed to be an easier to read KJV version from the same set of manuscripts, the phrase "lest at any time" Satan used to tempt our Lord Jesus was removed. The phrase "lest at any time" (3379) IS in the Greek text. So why did those behind the newer New King James Version blatantly leave that out? They certainly can't claim because it's not in some other set of Greek manuscripts the orignal 1611 KJV did not use.

Why is that phrase "lest at any time" in Luke 4 important anyway? It's because the devil quoted perfectly to our Lord Jesus from Psalms 91:11-12 EXCEPT for adding that single phrase "lest at any time". That phrase changed the whole meaning of Psalms 91:11-12.

And that's what Satan's tempting of our Lord Jesus there was about, tempting our Lord to cast Himself down, because the angels had charge to protect Him in ALL situations ("lest at any time"). If that were true at our Lord's first coming, then our Lord Jesus would not have been allowed to die on the cross either. In the original 1611 KJV you'll be able to discern that. But not in the NKJV, nor in some of the other modern versions because they leave that "lest at any time" phrase out too.

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.

 

[Mysteryman]

I have to agree with Veteran here. I have done my own studies of the different translations. And even though I can not pin down every error and every change or omition. There is enough evidence that shows, the newer the translation the more liberty that they took.

I will read the KJV, which is my preference, and the NASB. What I do like about the KJV is that they have given us in plain view what they added or infered. They used italics and parenthesis, which was their way of telling us, that they added this to help in the understanding. Sometimes the italics are accurate and at other times they are not. The same with the parenthesis. At least they were open about this, which is something the more modern translations do not do.

When one gets into the depth of the Word, and as Veteran said - "the strong meat of the Word". One needs to be as accurate as possible when trying to explain things unto others. This is because most of who reads the bible do not even eat the meat of the Word, let alone the strong meat of the Word.

We need to come to the realization that we have an adversary of God, a deciever, who wants nothing more than to decieve in any way that he can. It leads to many false doctrines, and many false hopes and expectations and many unwarranted views on some of the basic and most logical part of scripture. For the sole purpose in order to cause division and strife.

The choice is always up to the reader, which translation one chooses. But be careful with what you believe, just because a certain translation read a certain way.

Bless

 

[Danus]

.
Danus

That you have such a sense of history in collecting Bibles from your family is commendable. Many Americans are losing the sense of history today. But I am astounded that you have spent "years" studying the Bible and have not seen the differences. That is remarkable.


JamesG

Just to clarify, I did not say I have not found differences. I did say that I have not found significant differences. I think I said I've not found enough differences to make a difference. I've yet to find a Holly Bible that I would condemn as not truthful.

 

[Thunderz7]

I have several translatioins.
I mostly use KJV in study, because I like the "help books" that are based on its wording =Strong's, Vine's, Young's etc.

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 like the word for word translatioins best.

As to the ancient text that the translations come from, I have no preference.
I do prefer that they have footnotes in all the areas wher there is a difference.
KJV is usually sadly lacking in this.

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

 

[PeterAV]

What are the differences among the different Bibles?

Yes, there are many differences.
Even the NIV has differences with itself over these short few years.
*******
Stick to the King James Bible and you will be in good ground.

 

[kiwimac]

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

 

[Hawkins]

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.

 

[Mike]

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

 

[Mysteryman]

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

Hi

This is why the NIV is not good. The NIV likes to interpret instead of translate. Of course, one can not be blind and expect to see this.

 

[Mike]

This is nice. More personal sarcasm.

If anyone would like to break down this example in a constructive, positive way, I'd be interested. Taking a look back at Luke 18:16,

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."

Should a translation committee translate each word of a sentence independent of the whole sentence? This is an interest of mine, not a statement. Should that committee look at this verse and say "This word means 'suffer'. We'll put that here. Here's a word that means 'little'. We'll put that here." It seems to me, if you translate each word independent of the others, a sentence becomes discombobulated and difficult to understand. If they didn't go word-by-word, and they took the whole sentence, then they did the same thing the NIV committee did and formulated what the writer was saying in the language of the KJV day. NIV is saying it in the language of its day.

I'm not saying the NIV Translation Committee draw conclusions on what the bible was inferring. I'm suggesting that they (as a very large 100+ interdenominational committee) look at the sentence as a whole. They say certain words and phrases are going to give English speaking readers difficulty. So this huge body of translators agrees that they should say, "This can't be worded as 'suffer little children to come...' This needs to say to (2000 English speaking) readers what it said in the original text, 'Let these little children come...'"

I'm not a NIV-only (don't think we have those ) , nor am I saying any particular version is the best for everyone. I tried to say the NIV is best for me.

If anyone disagrees I'd appreciate it if my thoughts were criticized and not me personally. I'm hoping this opens up dialogue, not personal insults.

 

[Mysteryman]

This is nice. More personal sarcasm.

If anyone would like to break down this example in a constructive, positive way, I'd be interested. Taking a look back at Luke 18:16,

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."

Should a translation committee translate each word of a sentence independent of the whole sentence? This is an interest of mine, not a statement. Should that committee look at this verse and say "This word means 'suffer'. We'll put that here. Here's a word that means 'little'. We'll put that here." It seems to me, if you translate each word independent of the others, a sentence becomes discombobulated and difficult to understand. If they didn't go word-by-word, and they took the whole sentence, then they did the same thing the NIV committee did and formulated what the writer was saying in the language of the KJV day. NIV is saying it in the language of its day.

I'm not saying the NIV Translation Committee draw conclusions on what the bible was inferring. I'm suggesting that they (as a very large 100+ interdenominational committee) look at the sentence as a whole. They say certain words and phrases are going to give English speaking readers difficulty. So this huge body of translators agrees that they should say, "This can't be worded as 'suffer little children to come...' This needs to say to (2000 English speaking) readers what it said in the original text, 'Let these little children come...'"

I'm not a NIV-only (don't think we have those ) , nor am I saying any particular version is the best for everyone. I tried to say the NIV is best for me.

If anyone disagrees I'd appreciate it if my thoughts were criticized and not me personally. I'm hoping this opens up dialogue, not personal insults.

Mike

You take things too personally. I'm sorry if you can't see the little humor given once in a while.

Almost every translation I know of is guilty of putting their own spin on translating, by entering into the translation their own interpretation. The NIV is more guilty than any of them.

I am not going to spend alot of my time pointing out all the critical reasons why I know this. I have done my homework on this.

The NIV constantly moves words , adds words, and changes words to suit their own private interpretation of scripture. Sometimes they get it right, but for the most part, they get it wrong ! They actually alter the true meaning in many verses, or context of verses.

Here is one for you to look at and check out - Romans 2:6 & 7 but keep close attention to verse 7 and compare it to other translations. Some agree with the NIV, but most do not !

Bless you Mike

 

[Mysteryman]

This is nice. More personal sarcasm.

If anyone would like to break down this example in a constructive, positive way, I'd be interested. Taking a look back at Luke 18:16,

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."

Should a translation committee translate each word of a sentence independent of the whole sentence? This is an interest of mine, not a statement. Should that committee look at this verse and say "This word means 'suffer'. We'll put that here. Here's a word that means 'little'. We'll put that here." It seems to me, if you translate each word independent of the others, a sentence becomes discombobulated and difficult to understand. If they didn't go word-by-word, and they took the whole sentence, then they did the same thing the NIV committee did and formulated what the writer was saying in the language of the KJV day. NIV is saying it in the language of its day.

I'm not saying the NIV Translation Committee draw conclusions on what the bible was inferring. I'm suggesting that they (as a very large 100+ interdenominational committee) look at the sentence as a whole. They say certain words and phrases are going to give English speaking readers difficulty. So this huge body of translators agrees that they should say, "This can't be worded as 'suffer little children to come...' This needs to say to (2000 English speaking) readers what it said in the original text, 'Let these little children come...'"

I'm not a NIV-only (don't think we have those ) , nor am I saying any particular version is the best for everyone. I tried to say the NIV is best for me.

If anyone disagrees I'd appreciate it if my thoughts were criticized and not me personally. I'm hoping this opens up dialogue, not personal insults.

Mike:

Now, as far as Luke 18:16 is concerned. Take this verse and break it down into three parts.

Part one - The NIV is not guilty here in part one by using the word "Let", it lines up very closely to the greek word - "to permit"

Part two - The NIV is not guilty here either, as no actual change in wording has occured. Do not hinder or as the KJV puts it - "forbid them not", means the same thing.

Now Part three, the end of the verse. Here we see an obvious interpretation instead of a translation.

The KJV renders it properly or as closely as possible to the translating ability of the translators . "For such is the kingdom of God". The word "such" represents a "likeness".

The NIV says that - the kingdom of God "belongs" to such as these. Where did this word - "belongs" come from ? What was their purpose for using this word ? What were they trying to convey ?

Even though there is no great discrepancy here. There is however a subtle discrepancy. Now, who is that sublte guy we keep talking about from with scripture ? I think the word "subtle" is his middle name.

This verse here in Luke 18:16 is simply telling us the "likeness" - "liken unto" of the kingdom of God. The kingdom of God belongs to God , not children.

 

[mondar]

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. I do have other Bibles, including an NIV, NLT, KJ, and a translation that I am not sure about, but I only use it because every other page is in Greek.

I am curious, what Bible do you have that is side by side (english and greek). If I might venture a guess it is the purple bound Nestle Aland with the RSV? I have the NA26 and RSV side by side and have often taken it to Church. I love the side by side concept.

 

[PeterAV]

I prefer the New King James Version, which is true to the original Hebrew and Greek texts. Most of my Christian life and spiritual growth was from the King James Version, however.

*******
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.
*******
Ps 10:4,5 AV- wicked...His ways are always grievious
NKJV- wicked...His ways are always prospering

Isaiah 9:3 AV-not increased the joy
NKJV ____increased the joy
*******
Granted, they are not as corrupted as many of the other modern perversions out there, but it is the direction they are going that causes many to raise the eyebrow in concern or surprise.
*******
PeterAV
Every word of God is pure:
*******
Obviously the NKJV is not pure;
so it fails the internal test.

 

[PeterAV]

Danus
I sort of collect bibles. My family bibles mostly. I have also walked out of a few churches with a bible. (not intending to steal it) I own several bible versions. I generally use the NIV study bible, but I have the NAS, KJ, NLT, ESV and a few others.

*******
It may do your heart well to return the stolen ones, I would suppose.
After all, God will give you better than those.
He can't really endorse nor bless disobedience.
I use those versions as well, but I only believe the AV.

Danus
I keep them out and usually open to what ever I study just to get a different read on verses and such. I've done that for several years and so far have not found enough of a variance to say one is nay more complete than another or that one has omitted anything.

*******
Really? OK, how about this small list to start with?
Compare your other bibles to the real Bible the AV and you will see huge glaring errors all over the place.
Many are purposeful too, admitted by the committee members, and heads.
*******
The following verses show that the changes in the new Bibles [all since 1884] are completely UNLIKE the changes made in the various editions of the AV made between 1611 and 1900.
*******
Luke 2:33
James 5:16
Acts 20:28
Mark 10:24
Matthew 12:6, 42
John 3:13
John 1:18
2Tim.3:3, 16
Romans 9:5
These changes do not make any Bible "easier to understand", for anyone.
They "clarify" nothing.
Some attack the fundamentals of the faith.
Others cover up valuable information which is essential for a child of God to know,
and others omit, a truth which a child of God should know.Ruckman
*******

Danus
I have one KJ bible that is over 100 years old. It says the same thing as all of my other bibles. It is a family bible. It's leather. The spine is in bad shape and it's thoroughly read. It has the finger prints of many people in my family who are no longer with us. That bible was new before cars where common place. It has old news paper clippings of births and obituaries inserted in pages.

*******
Nice find Danus!
It is good to see the good old book revered.
I enjoy collecting Bibles as well.
Lately, I have ended up sending many to the mission fields other than the rare ones.
*******
PeterAV
Every word of God is pure:
*******
NAS is not pure.
NLT is not pure.
ESV is not pure.
All the other modern versions that do not use the correct Greek and Hebrew, are not pure.
They use the works of known heretics.

 

[JamesG]

.
PeterAV

It is remarkable how people have been fooled by the NKJV simply because it is a translation of the Byzantine compilation. They do not realize that interpretively, in many areas, it is just another modern translation translated according to modern principles. The best example to me is how the NKJV translates Romans 3:22 and the other verses that have this Genitive phrase in it:

KJV “faith of Jesus Christâ€
NKJV “faith in Jesus Christâ€

The NKJV translators chose to go along with the interpretive translation common in modern translations.


Mike

The major difference between literal or word for word translation and dynamic equivalency or thought for thought translation is that there is less opportunity for the translator to be interpretive in the literal translation. The translator who translates literally can still be interpretive because Bible translators recognize more than one meaning for many of the major Hebrew and Greek words. Sometimes more than one meaning is necessary if there is no corresponding meaning in English. But that in actual practice is rather rare. Multiple meanings for original language words began with the KJV,or before. The KJV translators were not as literal as some make them out to be.

The reason that the NIV has gained such popularity is that it is modern and easier to read on that account in many places, and because it is more literal than other thought for thought translations. When it first came out it was considered a very liberal translation. Today, there are so many translations that are even more liberal interpretively, that they make the NIV look like an almost literal translation by comparison.

And regarding the differences between the Alexandrian compilation and the Byzantine compilation, it doesn’t matter as far as the Gospel is concerned. It continues to be represented in the Alexandrian compilation. But the effect that this new compilation, the Alexandrian compilation used by the majority of modern translations (just to be clear what is being referred to), has been to lessen the mystique of the Bible. People don’t have the same attitude toward the Bible as they did. And the differences in translation has been the cause. Interpretations are freer and more in accordance with modern culture. Up to date as are the modern translations. The understanding of the Bible doesn’t have to be as definite as it did before. There is a more relativistic attitude toward truth among Christians then there used to be. And I’m not talking about acceptance of doctrinal differences that everyone works on as they grow in the knowledge of Jesus Christ. The liberal interpretations of the Bible are becoming more and more acceptable. The necessity for a high esteem for the Bible is becoming less and less. And don’t be fooled by anyone who would equate high esteem with idolatry. The trend that these modern translations have created must be taken into consideration. A couple of generations from now, abortion and homosexuality will be commonly accepted. And those who accept such ideas will have compelling interpretations of the Bible, in a modern translation, for their acceptance. That is, if we should live so long.

JamesG

 

[PeterAV]

"I am sorry, but "THEY ARE NOT".

Opinion noted.

All God's Chilluns gots "opinions".

Personally, I use the KJV - mostly since I've been reading it for over 60 years - no sense in changing now. And I know most of the "Work arounds" for the confusing verbiage, and lousy areas of translation that obscure the meanings.

No big deal. One Bible translation's as good as another. Seems like the NIV is the "Comer" these days, though. A while ago it was the OASV.

Sir, that was no opinion.
That is proven fact.
The NIV is one of the worst versions out there and they are getting worse.
Is it really hard to enter into heaven?
It is, if they trust in riches like the horrid NIV purposefully omitted.
Mark 10:24
*******
The modern versions are not as good as the pure AV.
They are corrupted.
This is fact and not just mine or other opinions.
*******
Holy Bible
There is only one.

 

[PeterAV]

"What are the differences among the different Bibles?"

Mostly "choice of words", and writing "style".

There's really not a penny's worth of real difference among 'em, and every one of 'em tells the same story, so one's as good as another.

I would wonder how strong your choice for truth is in your life, with a statement like that?