Which versions of bible are best and worst?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
D

Donkeyfish07

Guest
#81
#81
The only version that I have big problem with is the NIV. The King James version brought me to salvation and it's just what I've always used....it's important to note that it can not be copyrighted due to how long it's been around., The NIV however, is copyrighted.....the bible is the number one best selling book of all time, and the publishing company of the NIV (Zondervan)....they are just in it for the money.

Zondervan publishing is also owned by HarperCollins. They also publish a book called "The Joy of Gay Sex" and even more disturbing.....they publish the satanic bible as well. I don't trust a translation from a company who also publishes the satanic bible.....I haven't looked into specific mistranslations or anything like that but I have seen examples of a few verses presented by others that appear to be distorted. I didn't see the point in researching mistranslations and such any deeper...i just won't read the NIV at all based on the facts I already know.
 
T

Tintin

Guest
#82
#82
You won't read the NIV Bible because of who the publishing company is associated with? Interesting. Remember that Jesus spent time with sinners. I leave the conclusion up to you.
Also, realise that while the KJV translation may no longer be copy-written, to say that the people behind the NIV translation are purely in it for the money is silly. The KJV has been around for yonks, that's why it's not longer under copyright. The NIV on the other hand, has been around for less than 30 years, so it's understandable that the translators should get paid for their translation work. Just because someone is working for God, doesn't mean they shouldn't be paid for their work.
 
D

Donkeyfish07

Guest
#83
#83
Tintin said:
You won't read the NIV Bible because of who the publishing company is associated with? Interesting. Remember that Jesus spent time with sinners. I leave the conclusion up to you.
Also, realise that while the KJV translation may no longer be copy-written, to say that the people behind the NIV translation are purely in it for the money is silly. The KJV has been around for yonks, that's why it's not longer under copyright. The NIV on the other hand, has been around for less than 30 years, so it's understandable that the translators should get paid for their translation work. Just because someone is working for God, doesn't mean they shouldn't be paid for their work.
Click to expand...
If you want to trust a company that publishes the satanic bible to provide you with scripture, I can't stop you. I don't see how that could be a good choice though.
 
D

Donkeyfish07

Guest
#84
#84
Just to be clear, it's not so much that I don't think a company should be paid for doing a translation or distributing books....I know production costs money. I just don't see how someone dedicated to spreading the word of god and making it more readable (which I'm guessing is why people like the NIV....it's easier for modern people to read than old english) can also publish blatanly Satanic material. It can only lead me to the conclusion that the company only cares about money because if it was a mission to spread the word of god.....why publish Satanic teachings as well? I don't wanna bash anyone that likes the NIV, I just can't possibly ever accept it as a reliable version based on what I described above.
 
T

Tintin

Guest
#85
#85
Yes, Zondervan are a Christian company but they were bought out by HarperCollins which isn't a Christian publishing company, that's it. But if God's Word infiltrates even one employee there, its job is done.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
D

Donkeyfish07

Guest
#86
#86
Tintin said:
HarperCollins aren't a Christian publishing company, that's it. But if God's Word infiltrates even one employee there, its job is done.
Click to expand...
I just can't trust the translation myself is all.
 
T

Tintin

Guest
#87
#87
Okay, but I believe it's still the Word of God, just as much as is the KJV or any other translation.
 
D

Donkeyfish07

Guest
#88
#88
Tintin said:
Okay, but I believe it's still the Word of God, just as much as is the KJV or any other translation.
Click to expand...
Maybe it is. I haven't compared KJV verses to NIV verses but once or twice. I have heard that the NIV distorts a lot of verses but just because I heard it doesn't make it true. The only real fact I know about it is about the publishing company, which was enough for me to make up my mind on it. I'm not saying anybody else should do as I have done, just wanted to share what I knew about it.
 
T

Tintin

Guest
#89
#89
No, that's good. Cheers. Good on you, mate.

Donkeyfish07 said:
I have heard that the NIV distorts a lot of verses but just because I heard it doesn't make it true.
Click to expand...
Very true. Hearsay is bad news.
 
Photoss

Photoss

Senior Member
#90
Sep 15, 2012
213
10
0
#90
Tintin said:
Okay, but I believe it's still the Word of God, just as much as is the KJV or any other translation.
Click to expand...
So you would say the New World Translation is the Word of God? How about The Voice?
Changing Jesus to "a god" or "the human one" is exactly what God said?
 
S

susanblange

Banned
#91
Feb 13, 2013
91
0
0
#91
The Apocrypha was not canonized but catholics accept it as true and valid. The old king james version is the most accurate and is the only version I read. If you only read one version you will be able to quote it from memory. The other English versions are actually interpretations.
 
J

jimmydiggs

Guest
#92
#92
Photoss said:
So you would say the New World Translation is the Word of God?
Click to expand...
Parts of it.

Changing Jesus to "a god" or "the human one" is exactly what God said?
Click to expand...
Nope, but neither is the KJV exactly what God said. That's a problem inherent with translation.
 
S

starfield

Senior Member
#93
Jun 13, 2009
3,393
58
48
#93
crosswinds said:
I have a "Today's English Version" bible, is that one good enough? I hope so because it's the only one I got. :p It has also a section between the old and new testaments called Deuteronomy and Apocrypha, should I skip those?
Click to expand...

I believe the King James Bible is the best version and I'd say NIV has the most textual corruption. Oddly enough most modern translations omitted Acts 8:37 and part of Matt 9:13 and Luke 4:4, which are pertinent gospel verses, and adulterated 1 John 5:7-8, an important passage concerning the Trinity. Several other verses and words are deleted from these modern translations, so if you have these versions you aren't getting the complete message of God's word. Anyway, I recommend KJV or KJV easy-reading version. The easy-reading replaced old English words like "Thou", "Thy", "leadeth" to their contemporary equivalents "You”, "Your", "leads" making it easier to read.
 
T

Tintin

Guest
#94
#94
Have you ever considered that the KJV translators were working from lesser texts than the modern translations and so they added some things? It's highly possible. Also, I'm from a Christian household, was raised using the NIV Bible and have never had any qualms about believing in the divinity and true nature of the Trinity or any of the other main tenants of the Christian faith.
 
N

nathan3

Guest
#95
#95
Tintin said:
Have you ever considered that the KJV translators were working from lesser texts than the modern translations and so they added some things? It's highly possible..
Click to expand...
To comment on your first point. Some one told you that the KJV was from lesser test? Some one is passing along false info . The K.J.V used the Majority Texts (Textus Receptus). Meaning the majority of other manuscripts found in any century agree with Textus Receptus. This is what is in the King James Version.

Why should we assume also that modern translations are drawing from more resources ? We don't know what Manuscripts they are using today in new versions ? I read many places most of the New Bibles are simply drawing from other Bibles in print , and using "Minority Test"; manuscripts that don't agree with the Majority Text Receptus. If they don't agree I then have to ask what, is getting into these new translations, and what is being omitted ? At the end, its going to be up to their personal preference to pick and chose ,which manuscripts they want to draw on.


Sinaiticus and Vaticanus or Alexandrian Manuscripts of Westcott and Hort <--- that would be considered "Minority text"...

Not the Textus Receptus )

Some Bibles use different manuscripts, I like to know which use what. That's just me.

Since the K.J.V. used text that agreed with the Majority. It's unlikely that anything "new" found will add to it. It will actually confirm what we already had.

Also new translations do try to translated more to the Hebrew or Greek or whatever they are using for those new Versions. Some times they are accurate some times they muddy what was already good.

I rather have a the choice, and know all the words , and primes in the manuscripts for what was translated into the English.
The Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the KJV Bible gives you the Hebrew, Greek ,Aramaic ,whatever , from the mss. yourself. For that reason there is no need for new Bible translations. We have what is needed .

I really doubt after over 5,000 manuscripts that are in agreement on all major points of the faith, that there would be anything new to add. If there was something, it would be minute . 5 or less %.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.