WHICH Bible "version" Is Authorized By God?

  • 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.

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
20,969
11,473
113
His translation gives it a footnote, because it used the (Novum Testamentum Graece) that follows the (Alexandrian Text) from Egypt, from the philosophical schools that (Removed It) the 1% minority of manuscript evidence,that supports new translations, NIV, NASB, ESV, RSV, ASV, JW's New World Translation
My Bible CONTAINS the verse.

You have been blinded by your cultic beliefs.
 

Evmur

Well-known member
Feb 28, 2021
2,896
1,594
113
London
Actually, it's easier. If you aren't bound to translating every word, you can take the meaning of the whole thought (phrase, sentence, or even passage) and find an equivalent in the target language. "It's raining cats and dogs" might become something like, "We are receiving an abundance of precipitation" rather than, "Small domesticated animals are falling from the sky".
That's what you think

You overlook the skill of the translators, ya think YOU know about the intricacies of the original tongues and they didn't? don't you think they knew there are 3 words for love that describe different kinds of love? that's why there are teachers in the church.

You also overlook the wonderful Holy Ghost whose word it is and who is wonderfully able to teach it to the willing student.
 

Evmur

Well-known member
Feb 28, 2021
2,896
1,594
113
London
I've been reading modern translations for 35 years.
What is an arminian?
Hee hee, now you are looking for a fight.

Arminus rejected the doctrine of predestination and election as the cause of man's salvation which was the prevailing reformation doctrine and he introduced the doctrine of human freewill.

Of course it is the Calvinist Arminian divide although it is possible to predestination and elect doctrines [like me] and not be a Calvinist.

This I assure you

You will understand the bible very differently according to which theology you believe.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
20,969
11,473
113
So why was KJV so special to include it?
Frankly, your question doesn't make sense. The KJV wasn't "special". Rather, the small handful of very late Greek manuscripts that led to the KJV had the verse.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
20,969
11,473
113
That's what you think

You overlook the skill of the translators, ya think YOU know about the intricacies of the original tongues and they didn't? don't you think they knew there are 3 words for love that describe different kinds of love? that's why there are teachers in the church.

You also overlook the wonderful Holy Ghost whose word it is and who is wonderfully able to teach it to the willing student.
Your attitude is quite unnecessary.
 

Evmur

Well-known member
Feb 28, 2021
2,896
1,594
113
London
So how much Greek and Hebrew do you read? What kind of hermeneutical tools do you use? It is actually the modern translations that capture Greek the best. Translators understand that making sense in the receiving language is just as more important as the sending language. This creates a huge problem, translating from Greek to English. First, their verbal system is based on aspect, not linear time, like English. Nouns, pronouns and adjectives use 4 (sometimes 5 with the vocative) cases for nouns. The adjectives have to match the noun or pronoun it is describing. Further, this is what the cases mean:

1. Nominative - subject of the sentence.
2. Accusative - Direct Object of the verb
3. Dative - Indirect Object of the verb
4. Genitive - possession of the noun or pronoun. In Greek they say "A ball of the woman." In English, we would likely say, "The woman's ball." That is the genitive case. When you can use apostrophe +s, you have the possessive in English, the Genitive in Greek.

But that doesn't even get into the fact that a nominative can go at the end of the sentence and an Accusative at the beginning. In English, we would assume the subject is the first noun in the sentence, coming before the verb. That is the correct word order in English. So, if you take a Greek sentence, it might be Accusative Verb, Nominative. To translate that word for word, your sentence would say, "The ball throws the women," to get the same word order. But it makes no sense. So, it has to be more dynamic and make actual sense in English, like "The woman threw the ball." How do Greeks know what word is nominative, accusative and so forth? Each word has a different word ending.

There are 3 genders, 4 cases, plus plural and singular. A typical chart for one word, say, the word "the," has 17 different versions. Here are the endings for the word "the," transliterated into English pronunciation, and number two, the letters in Greek.

___________________Singular_______________
Gender Masc Feminine Neuter
Cases
Nom. ho hey taw
Genitive tou teys tou
dative toe tey toe
accusative ton teyn taw

____________________Plural___________________
Nom/Voc hoi high tah
Genitive tone tone tone
Dative tois tais tois
Acc. tous tas tah

View attachment 226548

Any noun or adjective will have the same endings as "the" more or less. τιμἠ, ἡς, ἠ is the feminine. If we use the genitive form, it will turn into τιμἠς. Αdd an adjective like "great" and it will take the same ἡς. You can take the phrase "of the great ending" and put it at the front, the middle or the back, and it will always be describing possession.

So, unfortunately, the KJV translation committee either didn't know this, or King James told it to it his way, or not at all. (There are other areas that King James also told the committee to translate a certain way, even though it was wrong.)

Suffice it to say that you can often NOT translate word for word from Greek to English, or from German or French to English. In French, they say "la Maison blanche." "The house white" is the word for word, direct translation and that is bad English. So, instead we automatically say, "the white house." Not word for word, but dynamic to get the real meaning in real English.

The KJV does this all over the Greek text. It's how we get phrases like "coals of burning fire," instead of "burning coals" which would be a much better translation. Τherefore, if you don't use dynamic, you will get the wrong meaning over and over, by using word for word. Greek is NOT a language that can be translated directly into English. German, on the other hand, is very easy to translate word for word, because it has the noun/pronoun/adjective cases, too! Although verbs can continue to be tricky between languages.

I would be happy to argue the Greek with anyone who has a background in it. Don't bother copy and pasting from Blue Letter Bible or other sites. They are not wrong, but if you have no background in Greek, which is a complex language, you will be no more than a child repeating a word, without knowing what it means, the gender in Hebrew, the use in a sentence, the case and so on.
You mistake my position

I think the texts used for modern translations are better than those used for the KJV but I believe the theological views of the folk that translated them greatly inferior.

"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life" just reads differently to somebody who holds the doctrines of the reformation and to somebody who holds the modern doctrines of human freewill. Which is why some modern translators slip in little words like "whoever chooses to believe"

This word "chooses" is a commentary and a paraphrase.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
20,969
11,473
113
I wouldn't use the word 'offended'. I just feel sad that so many are arguing about words in a book.

Jesus is the Word.
Jesus is the Word of God; the Bible is the word of God. English allows for such confusing juxtapositions. :)
 

Lucy-Pevensie

Senior Member
Dec 20, 2017
6,337
4,623
113
That's a legit argument I have gotten many times from all ages of people. "If it's not in the text, can it be trusted as the truth?" Why is that childish?

Isaiah 34:16 Seek ye out of the book of the Lord, and read: no one of these shall fail, none shall want her mate: for my mouth it hath commanded, and his spirit it hath gathered them.
Sorry to call you childish.
I just hate the thought that some wrong teaching might be making you worry that the Bible can't be trusted just because there are variances in manuscripts. The most amazing thing about our Bible is not that there are some textual variances but that there aren't many, many more. No other ancient work has as much textual evidence. It has been preserved remarkably well for an ancient collection of books going back over 2500 years.


We don't need a cast iron guarantee that we have every word preserved in archaic English.
Christianity hasn't been stamped out in 2000 years despite relentless persecution & people are still interested in the Bible.


Isaiah 34:16

Look in the scroll of the Lord and read:

None of these will be missing,
not one will lack her mate.
For it is his mouth that has given the order,
and his Spirit will gather them together.
 
S

Scribe

Guest
The Holy Spirit is the ONE that gives ALL the answers.... No one can learn, know or fully understand God’s Word except by The Holy Spirit.

Even if I knew Hebrew and Greek and could read ALL of the old manuscripts, I still would know NOTHING unless The Holy Spirit gave understanding.
In many ways that is true. And we give God all the glory that we can breathe. But when it comes to determining which English translation does the best job of communication as if you had read it in the original, the answer is always "It depends on the verse in question" That's true whether someone is saved or not. It is a linguistics question. For example:

Consider also Matthew 5:2, where Jesus begins his Sermon on the Mount: “Then He opened His mouth and taught them, saying” (NKJV)
“And he opened his mouth and taught them, saying” (ESV)
“and he began to teach them saying” (NIV, NCV)
“and he began to teach them” (NCV) The Greek idiom uses two phrases, to stoma (“open the mouth”) + (“teach”), to express a single action. For the Greek reader opening the mouth and teaching were not two consecutive actions, but one act of speaking (see Acts 8:35; 10:34; Rev. 13:6). The functional equivalent versions (NIV, TNIV, NCV) recognize this idiom and so accurately render the Greek, “he began to teach them.” The more literal NKJV and the ESV are understandable, but they miss the Greek idiom and so introduce an unnatural English expression.
Fee, Gordon D.; Strauss, Mark L.. How to Choose a Translation for All Its Worth . Zondervan Academic. Kindle Edition.

We don't ever say "She opened her mouth and spoke" It is a literal translation like in Spanish "what do yourself call" instead of What is your name?
 

Evmur

Well-known member
Feb 28, 2021
2,896
1,594
113
London
Your attitude is quite unnecessary.
I did not intend any insult, I'm really only saying that I do trust the scholarship of the KJ translators, of course we all read which teachers and commentators which reflect our doctrinal views and above all we rely upon the good offices of the Holy Spirit.

no aggression intended.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
20,969
11,473
113
I just hate the thought that some wrong teaching might be making you worry that the Bible can't be trusted just because there are variances in manuscripts.

He's not worried in the least. He's just being ridiculous, and has been the same kind of ridiculous for years. He's not even posting his own thoughts, but parroting arguments from others. In every thread on this topic, you'll see him post the same tripe.

The most amazing thing about our Bible is not that there are some textual variances but that there aren't many, many more. No other ancient work has as much textual evidence. It has been preserved remarkably well for an ancient collection of books going back over 2500 years.
We don't need a cast iron guarantee that we have every word preserved in archaic English.
Christianity hasn't been stamped out in 2000 years despite relentless persecution & people are still interested in the Bible.
Amen.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
20,969
11,473
113
I did not intend any insult, I'm really only saying that I do trust the scholarship of the KJ translators, of course we all read which teachers and commentators which reflect our doctrinal views and above all we rely upon the good offices of the Holy Spirit.

no aggression intended.
Good.

I have never questioned the scholarship of the KJV translators, as I have no reason to do so. However, I recognize that they were limited in the material they had available, and in the information available to them regarding the original languages. Some things they just didn't know because they had not been discovered by 1611.

As to interpretational bias, one can find evidence of it on various issues in various translations, but the KJV is not exempt from this. Calvinism is just as much a bias as anything else.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
20,969
11,473
113
What version do your have?

Gonna play were not gonna answer the question again?
For someone who is KJV-only, you have a very poor understanding of written English. Maybe you should start reading it and paying attention to the spelling, punctuation, grammar, and style instead of spending so much time posting on this thread.

At the moment, I primarily use the NASB, and that is the version to which I referred.
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
13,928
2,861
113
We don't need a cast iron guarantee that we have every word preserved in archaic English.
True, but we do have the Lord's promise that He has preserved His words for us today. Where are they? When God preserved something, it is perfect and without error. Where are His perfect, pure words for us today? I believe they are preserved in English in the KJV. Where do you believe they are?
 

Lucy-Pevensie

Senior Member
Dec 20, 2017
6,337
4,623
113
You mistake my position

I think the texts used for modern translations are better than those used for the KJV but I believe the theological views of the folk that translated them greatly inferior.

"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life" just reads differently to somebody who holds the doctrines of the reformation and to somebody who holds the modern doctrines of human freewill. Which is why some modern translators slip in little words like "whoever chooses to believe"

This word "chooses" is a commentary and a paraphrase.
Which translation has "chooses to believe" in John 3:16?

I've just looked at over 20 versions not one had "chooses to believe"
 
S

SophieT

Guest
Off Topic (Bible Versions) Not Divorce And Remarriage

Topic: WHICH Bible "version" Is Authorized By God?
Actually your views skew your understanding so it is hardly off topic.

Even the mods don't scream off topic so no one cares
 
S

SophieT

Guest
I'll take the 60 God fearing Christian men, scholars uncompared, in the King James Translation

right. And their homosexual king. you have absolutely no idea how these people behaved in their private lives.

too bad you can't ostracize the people who sinned whose stories are in scripture.

seems the only truth is your own personal interpretation of it