Versions of the Bible...

[Edward]

Do you think which version of the Bible that we read is important? Are there versions to stay away from? I used to read strictly KJV but lately have been reading the NIV Bible. I had a friend point out to me a section that had a missing verse when crossed to the KJV and so he says to not read that version.

I think he's being nit picking and that the spirit could certainly reveal truths from it anyway, but I think about it sometimes and would hate to be wasting my time in the wrong book. What do you think?

 

[farouk]

Do you think which version of the Bible that we read is important? Are there versions to stay away from? I used to read strictly KJV but lately have been reading the NIV Bible. I had a friend point out to me a section that had a missing verse when crossed to the KJV and so he says to not read that version.

I think he's being nit picking and that the spirit could certainly reveal truths from it anyway, but I think about it sometimes and would hate to be wasting my time in the wrong book. What do you think?

Hi Edward; the King James is a tried and trusted, reliable version, and I think worth the effort sometimes involved with reading the older language.

Re. different Bible versions, it sometimes depends on the sources from which the newer versions have been translated.

It also depends on the method they have used; some modern versions such as the New King James and the English Standard Version are pretty formal; others are rather dynamic and paraphrastic.

Blessings.

PS: I'm not "King James Only".

 

[Free]

Do you think which version of the Bible that we read is important? Are there versions to stay away from? I used to read strictly KJV but lately have been reading the NIV Bible. I had a friend point out to me a section that had a missing verse when crossed to the KJV and so he says to not read that version.

I think he's being nit picking and that the spirit could certainly reveal truths from it anyway, but I think about it sometimes and would hate to be wasting my time in the wrong book. What do you think?

Personally, there are some versions which I avoid, like the NLT and The Message. But the NIV is a good translation, as are many others, including the ESV, HCSB, NRSV, NASB, NKJV and KJV. The problem with the KJV argument your friend gave you is that it presumes that that verse was there in the original autograph. I have found this to be the case with most KJV Only arguments that I have come across--they presume far too much and some are amongst the most irrational arguments in Christianity.

Newer versions, at least the "study" versions, often have notes which will say why a passage or verse was omitted or what alternative readings may have been found. The best is to use many translations to get a better understanding of what the author intended.

 

[farouk]

Free: I do think that the KJV's source base and translation method is a lot sounder than it's often given credit for; but I agree that the antics of the King James Only crowd don't actually help what they vehemently talk about.

 

[Hammer]

Do you think which version of the Bible that we read is important? Are there versions to stay away from? I used to read strictly KJV but lately have been reading the NIV Bible. I had a friend point out to me a section that had a missing verse when crossed to the KJV and so he says to not read that version.

There are two major bodies of manuscripts (Greek copies of the original books of the Bible). The KJV uses the traditionally most popular. Modern Bibles tend to use what's believed to be the oldest manuscripts, rather than the traditionally most used manuscripts. There are a very few verses which don't appear in both bodies of manuscripts. KJV fans think the more popular manuscripts are more popular because they're more accurate, and the older copies were just used so much they didn't last. The anti-KJV people argue that older equals more accurate.

You could argue that a missing verse was accidently skipped by a copyist. Or, you could argue that an extra verse was inserted by copyist who only meant to provide a bit of commentary, but a later copyist thought the commentary was part of the text.

I do know is that you should get away way from that NIV. I like the classic NIV. But, under the same name, there's a new NIV which is corrupt and garbage. The translators often ignore what any manuscript says and instead they insert their own corrupt theology and pass it off as scripture.

 

[v3rk]

Reading any version of the Bible cannot possibly be a waste of one's time. In my opinion, wondering which translation to read instead of simply reading is the waste of time!

Please don't listen to people who tell you a bible translation is "corrupt." Read and feel the comfort of God's word.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

[Hammer]

Reading any version of the Bible cannot possibly be a waste of one's time. In my opinion, wondering which translation to read instead of simply reading is the waste of time!

Please don't listen to people who tell you a bible translation is "corrupt." Read and feel the comfort of God's word.

Verk, when translators attempt to correct scripture with their own opinions, it is corrupt. People shouldn't listen to those who lack discernment.

 

[Free]

Verk, when translators attempt to correct scripture with their own opinions, it is corrupt. People shouldn't listen to those who lack discernment.

That happens in every version to a certain extent. It is inescapable and it does not necessarily mean that they have a lack of discernment (assuming you meant the translators) nor that the version is corrupt.

 

[v3rk]

Verk, when translators attempt to correct scripture with their own opinions, it is corrupt. People shouldn't listen to those who lack discernment.

I assume you mean the niv based on your previous post. Do you mind sharing examples of what you mean?

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

[Hammer]

Do you mind sharing examples of what you mean?

I tried to reason with Free concerning an example another modern abomination, the HCSB. I even chose an example of something that shouldn't have conflicted with his theology. But, he still defended the phrase "forces of hades" over "gates of hades/grave". It's insane that someone would defend, without any real excuse, changing the word "gates" to "forces" Anyway, I googled "forces of hades" and up popped this song:

Forces Of Hades

Satan our father
We're ready to strike
Summon all evil
Bring death to mankind


And so on. Way to go, Free! All the top Google hits are satanic... and none of them, including the HCSB, have anything to do with what the verse in question means.

If you're familiar with the new NIV, you wouldn't need to ask me for examples. If you're not familiar with it, you shouldn't be challenging me. You just have to understand that Homey don't play that game of accepting false translations, even if you imagine the intentions are good

 

[Free]

I tried to reason with Free concerning an example another modern abomination, the HCSB. I even chose an example of something that shouldn't have conflicted with his theology. But, he still defended the phrase "forces of hades" over "gates of hades/grave". It's insane that someone would defend, without any real excuse, changing the word "gates" to "forces" Anyway, I googled "forces of hades" and up popped this song:

Forces Of Hades

Satan our father
We're ready to strike
Summon all evil
Bring death to mankind


And so on. Way to go, Free! All the top Google hits are satanic... and none of them, including the HCSB, have anything to do with what the verse in question means.

If you're familiar with the new NIV, you wouldn't need to ask me for examples. If you're not familiar with it, you shouldn't be challenging me. You just have to understand that Homey don't play that game of accepting false translations, even if you imagine the intentions are good

So because "forces of hades" is the title of the song that somehow proves that the HCSB is wrong? lol

This is an example of the reasoning you have used in putting down the HCSB. However, as anyone can see, I provided very reasonable and rational explanations as to why there is essentially no problem with the HCSB as it pertains to that verse. The same cannot be said for you position, especially since we couldn't get a straight answer out of you.

http://www.christianforums.net/showthread.php?t=45443

The HCSB is a good translation.

 

[v3rk]

If you're familiar with the new NIV, you wouldn't need to ask me for examples. If you're not familiar with it, you shouldn't be challenging me. You just have to understand that Homey don't play that game of accepting false translations, even if you imagine the intentions are good

I appreciate your concern, but why should someone unfamiliar with the NIV not challenge you? Why do you boast such authority?

I've read the NIV and the notations make all changes clear. They even provide alternative readings. I've also researched a bit of people's complaints about the NIV, none of which I find warranted. In fact, it has revealed to me that the NIV can actually be more accurate in some cases. For example, Revelation 22:19 in the KJV reads:

And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

While in the NIV it reads:

And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll.

Pastor Dewey Williams calls this a part of the NIV Infection, "changing" the term "book of life" in the KJV to "tree of life" in the NIV. This supposes that the NIV is trying to update the KJV, as though the Bible were originally written in English! That truly seems to be the assumption behind his paper. But a study of the original Greek, the language which this verse was originally written in and from which both the KJV and NIV have translated it, reveals that it is actually the KJV translators which missed the mark on the translation. Take a look at the Greek here. The word in question is "xulon," which means wood or can indicate an article made from wood, including a tree trunk. It has nothing to do with a book whatsoever.

So, can I conclude that the KJV is corrupt? Absolutely not! It would be as silly as saying that the NIV is corrupt. I find all assertions like that an exercise in immaturity. As long as people are reading the Bible I have no problem with the translation they choose.

Edit: And for the record, I actually prefer the KJV.

 

[Hammer]

I've read the NIV and the notations make all changes clear. They even provide alternative readings. I've also researched a bit of people's complaints about the NIV, none of which I find warranted. In fact, it has revealed to me that the NIV can actually be more accurate in some cases. For example, Revelation 22:19 in the KJV reads:

And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

While in the NIV it reads:

And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll.

Pastor Dewey Williams calls this a part of the NIV Infection, "changing" the term "book of life" in the KJV to "tree of life" in the NIV.

The difference in that term between the KJV and NIV has nothing to do with the translators. The KJV used a Greek text that said "book of life." The NIV used a text that said "tree of life. The poplar explanation is that the man who produced the Greek text the KJV used was missing six verses in his source documents, and so he translated from a Latin Bible into Greek to finish his Greek text, introducing an error (the perils of translation, let alone when some devil deliberately changes a word).

But, while on the topic of this verse, for a translation that takes so many liberties, supposedly for ease of modern understanding, why does the NIV use "scroll" instead of "book" for biblos? The NIV uses "book" in other locations, why not here? "Book" is the choice of the vast majority of translations for this verse.

It's as if the NIV translators are violating their own translation philosophy to deliberately distinguish between the original Greek manuscript (a book, but only maybe a scroll) from the English translation (which is never a scroll). It's as if they're saying it's okay to take away content or add non-scriptural content to the English translation. Maybe that's an inside joke with the NIV translators?

 

[Free]

The difference in that term between the KJV and NIV has nothing to do with the translators. The KJV used a Greek text that said "book of life." The NIV used a text that said "tree of life. The poplar explanation is that the man who produced the Greek text the KJV used was missing six verses in his source documents, and so he translated from a Latin Bible into Greek to finish his Greek text, introducing an error (the perils of translation, let alone when some devil deliberately changes a word).

But, while on the topic of this verse, for a translation that takes so many liberties, supposedly for ease of modern understanding, why does the NIV use "scroll" instead of "book" for biblos? The NIV uses "book" in other locations, why not here? "Book" is the choice of the vast majority of translations for this verse.

It's as if the NIV translators are violating their own translation philosophy to deliberately distinguish between the original Greek manuscript (a book, but only maybe a scroll) from the English translation (which is never a scroll). It's as if they're saying it's okay to take away content or add non-scriptural content to the English translation. Maybe that's an inside joke with the NIV translators?

Which NIV? From one online it says: "19 And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book."

http://www.biblestudytools.com/revelation/22.html

The KJV almost always uses "book" and only in one instance translates that same Greek word as "scroll" (Rev 6:14). Everything was written on papyrus and even Paul mentions to Timothy to bring "the parchments" (2Tim 4:13). So really, what is a "book" as mentioned in the NT? I think "book" is a mistranslation on all translators but not a significant one as it conveys the right idea.

I should add that "tree of life" in verse 19 is consistent with "tree of life" in verse 2. Many versions use "tree of life" in verse 19 and I think most, if not all, use "tree of life" in verse 2, including the KJV.

 

[Hammer]

So because "forces of hades" is the title of the song that somehow proves that the HCSB is wrong? lol

There is none so blind as those who refuse to see. "Gates" does not mean "forces", not by any dictionary, thesaurus, or real logic I've ever seen. That should settle it, the HCSB is wrong.

The satanic song highlights why the HCSB translation isn't just wrong, but bad. "Forces", as the song shows, implies armies of demons coming after the church, which was not at all what Jesus meant. "Gates" are passive, not active. Jesus was talking about the grave not holding Christians. And, even if some twits behind the HCSB think Jesus was talking about armies of demons, put it a commentary. Don't change the Bible.

You have absolutely no counter argument.

The HCSB is a good translation.

Not.

 

[Free]

There is none so blind as those who refuse to see. "Gates" does not mean "forces", not by any dictionary, thesaurus, or real logic I've ever seen. That should settle it, the HCSB is wrong.

The satanic song highlights why the HCSB translation isn't just wrong, but bad. "Forces", as the song shows, implies armies of demons coming after the church, which was not at all what Jesus meant. "Gates" are passive, not active. Jesus was talking about the grave not holding Christians. And, even if some twits behind the HCSB think Jesus was talking about armies of demons, put it a commentary. Don't change the Bible.

You have absolutely no counter argument.



Not.

My counter-arguments were sound and reasonable. You have yet to provide any substantial reason as to why the HCSB is not a good translation.

 

[v3rk]

The difference in that term between the KJV and NIV has nothing to do with the translators. The KJV used a Greek text that said "book of life." The NIV used a text that said "tree of life. The poplar explanation is that the man who produced the Greek text the KJV used was missing six verses in his source documents, and so he translated from a Latin Bible into Greek to finish his Greek text, introducing an error (the perils of translation, let alone when some devil deliberately changes a word).

But, while on the topic of this verse, for a translation that takes so many liberties, supposedly for ease of modern understanding, why does the NIV use "scroll" instead of "book" for biblos? The NIV uses "book" in other locations, why not here? "Book" is the choice of the vast majority of translations for this verse.

It's as if the NIV translators are violating their own translation philosophy to deliberately distinguish between the original Greek manuscript (a book, but only maybe a scroll) from the English translation (which is never a scroll). It's as if they're saying it's okay to take away content or add non-scriptural content to the English translation. Maybe that's an inside joke with the NIV translators?

You have yet to present a case as to why the NIV is corrupt and/or false. Since it's about all you've said to illuminate the subject, are you seriously hinging your argument on whether "book" or "scroll" is used in certain cases? Does that truly denote corruption?

 

[Nick]

You know what? If we had a rule in the Terms of Service that stated that to post a Bible version thread the OP had to donate $1 to the site, I'm pretty sure we'd have no financial problems, ever. In fact we could probably move to our own server, pay a professional designer to redo the skin of the site and maybe we could organise for all the members to get together at a meetup, flown into New York City via Business Class, courtesy of the Site Owner.

Just saying ;)



----

Jokes aside, the thing I've learned from the perhaps near a hundred threads on this in my time here is that no-one will EVER agree on which Bible version is "best" or "not as good" or "corrupt" or "heresy". Not even the NWT is agreed upon.

All translations have some error in them. I like certain phrases of ESV and NASB, which is why I generally use them. My church just transferred from ESV to HSCB, which is alright, but for some reason the HSCB reads a bit strangely. I like the beauty of the KJV, and the readability of NIV ('84).

I think the best advice is this: read many versions, check them against each other and you will get a balanced view of Scripture. I'm guessing that most differences in translations are minor and do not alter the message of the Bible that we hold as core values.

 

[Hammer]

Which NIV? From one online it says: "19 And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book."

If those wicked men who made the new NIV hadn't decided to peddle their garbage under the old NIV name, you wouldn't have to ask which NIV.

The KJV almost always uses "book" and only in one instance translates that same Greek word as "scroll" (Rev 6:14). Everything was written on papyrus and even Paul mentions to Timothy to bring "the parchments" (2Tim 4:13). So really, what is a "book" as mentioned in the NT? I think "book" is a mistranslation on all translators but not a significant one as it conveys the right idea.

"Book" is not a mistranslation. The Greek word means book. The Greek word means book today, a modern book with bound pages. Rev 6:14 is a word that means a small book, but the KJV translators used "scroll" because of the context. 2Tim 4:13 uses a more generic word for book. And, Paul is referring to at least two different kinds of books, parchments and non-parchments. And, it's likely the parchments were sown to together, as a book with pages. Even if the were scrolls, all scrolls are books.

The new NIV is corrupt for using the word scroll when their translation philosophy dictates the use of the word book. The new NIV is corrupt for using the word scroll when they have no indication that the Greek word means specifically a scroll. The new NIV is corrupt because they excluded bound forms of the book of Revelation from the biblical warning.

 

[Hammer]

Pastor Dewey Williams calls this a part of the NIV Infection, "changing" the term "book of life" in the KJV to "tree of life" in the NIV. This supposes that the NIV is trying to update the KJV, as though the Bible were originally written in English!

Pastor Dewey William's article is irrelevant because he's addressing a different translation, not the new NIV being dishonestly sold under the name of the older translation. His concerns are mainly about the body of manuscripts modern versions use vs. the KJV. I'm not concerned with that.