What's Your Favorite Bible?

[GodsGrace]

It is a good chart, but IMO is a bit dated. Either that or they left off a good number of translations. Surprising is the absence of the Young's Literal Translation (usually abbreviated YLT or LIT) It should be left of the NASB.

And speaking of the NASB, which version is being represented? 1972? 1977? 1995? 2020?

The Messianic translation Tree of Life Version (TLV) should be plotted at the same place as NASB. (1995)

I must have the '77 version.

The experts say that the later dated bibles are more accurate because of new information discovered, the Dead Sea Scrolls, etc. Personally, I don't think it could make any doctrinal difference. Could be wrong.

For instance, what's the difference with the Messianic text, Tree of Life Version?

 

[GodsGrace]

Did you watch a video to see how the reference system they use works ? I have not found any problems so far .

There is a Thompson Chain-Reference version of the ESV . Try one out you may find you like it . Here is a link and there is a two minute video showing how the Chain-Reference works . ESV Thompson Chain-Reference Bible

I think any version takes some time to get used to.

Every bible has SOME verse reference,,,which changes from version to version, so I think it would be nice to have a comprehensive reference to other verses.

I do agree with Free that every version is influenced in some way. Guess an example would be nice...something that comes to mind immediately is the teaching of OSAS...I believe the NIV notes do tend toward this teaching...

 

[Exeter]

My dad was a Wesleyan pastor but had left the pastorate before I was born. So I attended Church of the Nazarene before my mom and dad broke up. Then we started attending Assembly of God.

I hope you're OK.

 

[GodsGrace]

I rely on the good ole' KJV. It still is the best English translation to date, even though all... versions have some translation errors.

In the study software I use I have many different Bible versions. I find the later versions to be corruptions, especially versions like the NIV and even the New King James Version which is supposedly a version to get away from the thee and thou, but in reality it reads just like the NIV which was translated from a different set of Greek manuscripts.

So if you don't think God's written Word is being toyed with regarding modern Bible versions, you'd better think again. 19th century British scholars Wescott and Hort were determined to get rid of the Textus Receptus Greek texts (Majority Texts) which were used for the 1611 KJV Bible, and supplant it with the corrupt Codex Vaticanus and Codex Alexandrinus texts...

Wescott And Hort — The Overthrow of the Greek Text

3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the wo…

coercioncode.com

I read some of the article but then stopped.
I'm of the opinion that the bible should be translated from the Greek, and the far back we go the better it is.

Of course, who could be sure?
It could be that later manuscripts were more correct...I don't know how we could really know.
Was a remark made over writing something new the scribe wrote?
Was it something he saw in a couple of manuscripts that had the extra word he added?

An idea could be deduced from a time period, even a whole sentence since writing and speaking methods change over time...even penmanship. Person in the 1800's did not write like we do today and writing experts know from penmanship what period a document comes from.

How a word could be known to fit or not fit is not understood by me...
maybe the experts do know, but can't imagine how.

It's important to know, however, that no change has an impact on the teachings of the N.T.
I find this to be incredible and a clear indication that the Holy Spirit did help those writing what ended up in t he N.T.


As to the article you linked...
It's called WESCOTT AND HORT...The Overthrow of the Greek Text

I think the following are just general comments:

1. The New Testament was written in Greek.
2. The originals are all gone, no one has them. But there are over 5,700 extant (existing) Greek manuscripts of the New Testament available. About 95-97% of them agree together. They are called the Majority Text.
3. The remaining 3-5% that disagree with the majority of manuscripts.
4. A man named Erasmus, a brilliant scholar and reformer in his own right, examined a collection of Majority Text Greek manuscripts. He compiled them into a Greek New Testament based on the readings that the true church has accepted throughout the centuries. His compilation came to be known as the Textus Receptus. The King James Bible translation is based on the Greek text found in the Textus Receptus.
5. The new Bible versions are not based on Erasmus’ Textus Receptus. They are based on the Greek New Testament compiled by a couple of heretic infidel blasphemers named Westcott and Hort (you will see this when you read their own words below).
6. Ignorant people are now saying that the Authorized King James Bible is wrong because they have believed the scholarship of these two blaspheming infidels. You will read their words for yourself in this article.

Westcott and Hort’s Greek New Testament is the “source text” for many of today’s modern Bible translations.

It's a surprise to me that the above states that the new translations are based on Wescott and Horn...
it was my belief that the "ORIGINAL" manuscripts have been used - at least as much as possible.

I just don't know enough about this.
If anyone else would like to comment...

 

[Episcopius]

KJV, NRSV, Orthodox Study Bible, NLT...

 

[Episcopius]

My newest Bible is a Wesley Study Bible - text I chose was Common English Bible, a translation done in 2010 - the Wesley Study Bible come in a variety of choices of which actual Bible text you want - filled with notes from Wesley from the 1700s.

Common English Bible is overall good - but the phrase "Son of Man" - it renders THE HUMAN ONE ( which I don't like ) Wesley Study Bible s are available in NIV K JV and maybe more.a

I think the horrible rendering of THE HUMAN ONE is an attempt to be gender-neutral, and it ruins a term Jesus used to refer to Himself - Ezekiel used it too.

 

[D-D-W]

I must have the '77 version.

I prefer the 72 version except for the continued use of "thee" and "thou."
The 95 is what is available on line along with the new one that I have not read much of.

For instance, what's the difference with the Messianic text, Tree of Life Version?

It is as close to the current best Greek NT (Nestle Aland) as any popular version out there today. But it uses names and terminology more in line with the Hebraic sense that we Messianics have. We use Messiah instead of Christ and Yeshua instead of Jesus.

 

[evenifigoalone]

I quite like the ESV

 

[DavidT]

I read some of the article but then stopped.
I'm of the opinion that the bible should be translated from the Greek, and the far back we go the better it is.

Of course, who could be sure?
It could be that later manuscripts were more correct...I don't know how we could really know.
Was a remark made over writing something new the scribe wrote?
Was it something he saw in a couple of manuscripts that had the extra word he added?

An idea could be deduced from a time period, even a whole sentence since writing and speaking methods change over time...even penmanship. Person in the 1800's did not write like we do today and writing experts know from penmanship what period a document comes from.

How a word could be known to fit or not fit is not understood by me...
maybe the experts do know, but can't imagine how.

It's important to know, however, that no change has an impact on the teachings of the N.T.
I find this to be incredible and a clear indication that the Holy Spirit did help those writing what ended up in t he N.T.


As to the article you linked...
It's called WESCOTT AND HORT...The Overthrow of the Greek Text

I think the following are just general comments:

1. The New Testament was written in Greek.
2. The originals are all gone, no one has them. But there are over 5,700 extant (existing) Greek manuscripts of the New Testament available. About 95-97% of them agree together. They are called the Majority Text.
3. The remaining 3-5% that disagree with the majority of manuscripts.
4. A man named Erasmus, a brilliant scholar and reformer in his own right, examined a collection of Majority Text Greek manuscripts. He compiled them into a Greek New Testament based on the readings that the true church has accepted throughout the centuries. His compilation came to be known as the Textus Receptus. The King James Bible translation is based on the Greek text found in the Textus Receptus.
5. The new Bible versions are not based on Erasmus’ Textus Receptus. They are based on the Greek New Testament compiled by a couple of heretic infidel blasphemers named Westcott and Hort (you will see this when you read their own words below).
6. Ignorant people are now saying that the Authorized King James Bible is wrong because they have believed the scholarship of these two blaspheming infidels. You will read their words for yourself in this article.

Westcott and Hort’s Greek New Testament is the “source text” for many of today’s modern Bible translations.

It's a surprise to me that the above states that the new translations are based on Wescott and Horn...
it was my belief that the "ORIGINAL" manuscripts have been used - at least as much as possible.

I just don't know enough about this.
If anyone else would like to comment...

One of the beast documentaries I've found is called Bridge To Babylon, revealing that history and from their personal letters which were made public sometime in the past.

I read some of the article but then stopped.
I'm of the opinion that the bible should be translated from the Greek, and the far back we go the better it is.

Of course, who could be sure?
It could be that later manuscripts were more correct...I don't know how we could really know.
Was a remark made over writing something new the scribe wrote?
Was it something he saw in a couple of manuscripts that had the extra word he added?

An idea could be deduced from a time period, even a whole sentence since writing and speaking methods change over time...even penmanship. Person in the 1800's did not write like we do today and writing experts know from penmanship what period a document comes from.

How a word could be known to fit or not fit is not understood by me...
maybe the experts do know, but can't imagine how.

It's important to know, however, that no change has an impact on the teachings of the N.T.
I find this to be incredible and a clear indication that the Holy Spirit did help those writing what ended up in t he N.T.


As to the article you linked...
It's called WESCOTT AND HORT...The Overthrow of the Greek Text

I think the following are just general comments:

1. The New Testament was written in Greek.
2. The originals are all gone, no one has them. But there are over 5,700 extant (existing) Greek manuscripts of the New Testament available. About 95-97% of them agree together. They are called the Majority Text.
3. The remaining 3-5% that disagree with the majority of manuscripts.
4. A man named Erasmus, a brilliant scholar and reformer in his own right, examined a collection of Majority Text Greek manuscripts. He compiled them into a Greek New Testament based on the readings that the true church has accepted throughout the centuries. His compilation came to be known as the Textus Receptus. The King James Bible translation is based on the Greek text found in the Textus Receptus.
5. The new Bible versions are not based on Erasmus’ Textus Receptus. They are based on the Greek New Testament compiled by a couple of heretic infidel blasphemers named Westcott and Hort (you will see this when you read their own words below).
6. Ignorant people are now saying that the Authorized King James Bible is wrong because they have believed the scholarship of these two blaspheming infidels. You will read their words for yourself in this article.

Westcott and Hort’s Greek New Testament is the “source text” for many of today’s modern Bible translations.

It's a surprise to me that the above states that the new translations are based on Wescott and Horn...
it was my belief that the "ORIGINAL" manuscripts have been used - at least as much as possible.

I just don't know enough about this.
If anyone else would like to comment...

There's a scholarly video documentary called Bridge To Babylon that I recommend that goes into more detail. Many might find stuff like this boring, but college trained me to have to slug through boring research material, so I'm kind of used to it.

In many ways, what the argument boils down to is Hort and Wescott's support of the 19th century Oxford Movement, which was a Catholic Jesuit-counter-reformation against the Protestants of the Anglican Church in Britain.

Leaders in the Oxford Movement supporting Catholic doctrine did not believe in the Protestant doctrine Sola Scriptura (i.e., Scripture alone). They stated that "Bible Christianity is an invention of the Devil." (See The Secret History of the Oxford Movement, by Walter Walsh, p.375).

That is one of the reasons why Wescott and Hort tried to overthrow the Greek Textus Receptus that Erasmus, who being neutral, translated from Greek manuscripts, with his translation used by the KJV translators. They tried to claim the Textus Receptus (also called the Majority Texts because they make up the majority of existing Greek texts) was not as old as the Codex Alexandrinus Greek texts, and the Alexandrian text was smaller because not added to over the years.

The truth is that the Alexandrian text copies show little usage, and are few. But the Textus Receptus make up the majority of Greek texts, show wide usage, and have the most copies that agree with earth other, and also has been quoted the most by the early Church fathers.

 

[Prycejosh1987]

I like all of them, the wording changes but what the texts actually say in context remains the same. Personally speaking, i like the NKJV version. NIV is great.

 

[GodsGrace]

My newest Bible is a Wesley Study Bible - text I chose was Common English Bible, a translation done in 2010 - the Wesley Study Bible come in a variety of choices of which actual Bible text you want - filled with notes from Wesley from the 1700s.

Common English Bible is overall good - but the phrase "Son of Man" - it renders THE HUMAN ONE ( which I don't like ) Wesley Study Bible s are available in NIV K JV and maybe more.a

I think the horrible rendering of THE HUMAN ONE is an attempt to be gender-neutral, and it ruins a term Jesus used to refer to Himself - Ezekiel used it too.

Also, Spn of Man refers back to the O.T.

Was that term used in the OT too?
Psalm 8.4
Psalm 80.17

And others

 

[GodsGrace]

I quite like the ESV

That's the only version my brother has ever read.
None other.

 

[daninthelionsden]

Fran, what do you think of the Ethiopian Bible? I just recently heard of it and though it contains some material not approved, I understand it is the most complete Bible out there. Of course I'll need the English version.

 

[GodsGrace]

Fran, what do you think of the Ethiopian Bible? I just recently heard of it and though it contains some material not approved, I understand it is the most complete Bible out there. Of course I'll need the English version.

Hi Dan,
Been busy,,,sorry for delay.
Are you OK?

I don't know about the Ehtiopian Bible.
I've heard the The Passion Bible is really bad.
It was reviewed extensively by Mike Winger and two guests that are experts...can't remember their names, but I could probably find them. It was on YouTube.

They said The Message was better by far...and The Message is not even a real bible IMHO.
It's written in modern slang...

If I can find out about it, I'll post a link.

 

[GodsGrace]

Fran, what do you think of the Ethiopian Bible? I just recently heard of it and though it contains some material not approved, I understand it is the most complete Bible out there. Of course I'll need the English version.

I found some info on YouTube.
Seems to be my new source of information....
Remember when we had to use books?
LOL
The bad thing about using YouTube is that you already have to know some theology or you're pulled in every direction and I do worry a little about new Christians - so much weird stuff on there.

Anyway, regarding the Ethiopian Bible,,,here's what seems good:

 

[Episcopius]

HUMAN ONE was indeed used in Old Testament passages that are rendered SON OF MAN in the Common English Bible. I like that version except for this one phrase.

 

[Episcopius]

The Tewahedo church of Ethiopia is unique in that it has books in its NEW Testament that are outside of anyone else's canon. Some have never been translated into English.

 

[hawkman]

I watched the video.
It seems complicated...but guess what?
I'm going to have to get one.
I guess in the NASB. Not sure...
Could start by finding out in what versions it's available.
THANKS!!

Let me know when you get one and how you get along with it .

 

[GodsGrace]

Let me know when you get one and how you get along with it .

This is also for Episcopius , who might be of help.

I've put off ordering it because I'm not sure what I'm ordering,,,,let alone that I may not have access to all the choices here in Italy.

Here is what I've found...

Books of the Ethiopian Bible: Missing from the Protestant Canon : Church, Ethiopian, Publishing, Blackstone: Amazon.it: Libri

Scopri Books of the Ethiopian Bible: Missing from the Protestant Canon di Church, Ethiopian, Publishing, Blackstone: spedizione gratuita per i clienti Prime e per ordini a partire da 29€ spediti da Amazon.

www.amazon.it

It has the MISSING books that are not in our bibles...much like the Catholic bible has 7 more ot books.

Episcopius, is this what I should order??
Is the difference only that there are some extra books?

 

[Episcopius]

It sounds like that is it!