Which bible version is the original one?

[Marksnet]

What I find interesting here is this.

What Bibles will cause you to lose your soul?
Not
KJV
NKJV

I have read he NIV and the NASB also.

What I find interesting though is that most times we get in trouble by reading man's word and not God's..IE,,,,,,commentary etc...

I find that most today are reading commentary to verify scripture rather than the other way around? Whats up with that my brethren?

If you read commentary it should be tested against scripture..

There are some great biblical scholars but not one of them has it totally right.. Martin Luther, NT Wright, all of them have their own take and the thing to remember is this.
The one thing that is not in debate is how to get to Heaven

My .02 is this,,,if you're gonna read a liberal translation then have a KJV or NKJV with you alongside to verify what you are reading..

 

[emperormar]

With the recent publication of several different books vilifying modern translations, asserting that they were borne out of conspiratorial motives, a word should be mentioned about this concocted theory. First, many of these books are written by people who have little or no knowledge of Greek or Hebrew, and are, further, a great distortion of the facts. I have read books on textual criticism for more than a quarter of a century, but never have I seen such illogic, out-of-context quotations, and downright deceptions about the situation as in these recent books. Second, although it is often asserted that heretics produced some of the New Testament MSS we now have in our possession, there is only one group of MSS known to be produced by heretics: certain Byzantine MSS of the book of Revelation. This is significant because the Byzantine text stands behind the KJV! These MSS formed part of a mystery cult textbook used by various early cults. But KJV advocates constantly make the charge that the earliest MSS (the Alexandrian MSS) were produced by heretics. The sole basis they have for this charge is that certain readings in these MSS are disagreeable to them! Third, when one examines the variations between the Greek text behind the KJV (the Textus Receptus) and the Greek text behind modern translations, it is discovered that the vast majority of variations are so trivial as to not even be translatable (the most common is the moveable nu, which is akin to the difference between ‘who’ and ‘whom’!). Fourth, when one compares the number of variations that are found in the various MSS with the actual variations between the Textus Receptus and the best Greek witnesses, it is found that these two are remarkably similar. There are over 400,000 textual variants among NT MSS. But the differences between the Textus Receptus and texts based on the best Greek witnesses number about 5000—and most of these are untranslatable differences! In other words, over 98% of the time, the Textus Receptus and the standard critical editions agree. Those who vilify the modern translations and the Greek texts behind them have evidently never really investigated the data. Their appeals are based largely on emotion, not evidence. As such, they do an injustice to historic Christianity as well as to the men who stood behind the King James Bible. These scholars, who admitted that their work was provisional and not final (as can be seen by their preface and by their more than 8000 marginal notes indicating alternate renderings), would wholeheartedly welcome the great finds in MSS that have occurred in the past one hundred and fifty years.

From: http://bible.org/article/why-i-do-not-think-king-james-bible-best-translation-available-today

 

[greatkraw]

By your fruits you will know them. The KJV spawned that great global tragedy known as the Great Missionary Movement.

 

[greatkraw]

By your fruits you will know them. The KJV spawned that great global tragedy known as the Great Missionary Movement.

I was actually being facetious. The GMM was a good thing.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O119-MissionaryMovement.html

The Second Great Awakening of the early nineteenth century, however, stimulated a missionary movement focused on converting heathen at home and abroad. A group of seminarians gained the support of both Presbyterian and Congregational parishes in organizing the long‐lived American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions (ABCFM) in 1810. In 1812, the ABCFM sent its first missionaries to India, among them Adoniram Judson. Becoming a Baptist, Judson played a key role in organizing a Baptist foreign missionary society. With denominationalism on the rise, the Presbyterians established their own Board of Foreign Missions in 1837, and many other denominations followed suit.

Remember, they only had the KJV.

 

[charisenexcelcis]

Yet the Puritans and the Pilgrims prefered the Geneva Bible. I'm grateful for what the KJV is and represents. It is a credit to the translators that it is still so widely used. But the missionaries didn't preach in English, they preached in the native languages of the people. It doesn't follow to argue for the supremacy of the Authorized Version based upon the missionary activities of the church during the prime of it's usage. If the modern missionaries use the NIV or the NASB does that mean that is superior? Most do use more modern English versions because it simplifies translation--written and verbal.

 

[greatkraw]

The point is, that believers read the KJV and were motivated to give their lives to missions. Good fruit.

 

[MahogonySnail]

The point is, that believers read the KJV and were motivated to give their lives to missions. Good fruit.

So are Jehovah's Witnesses but that doesn't mean I read their Watchtower publications.

 

[EnochxGenesis]

the king james version is the oldest/most original in mass circulation.

 

[secretofyah]

wow. a wide variety of replies. since we have no entirely accurate version today in any language, even the hebrew scriptures i use the authorized king james version and i replace the God and Lord and Jesus with Yahweh and Yahshuah and i rely on the Holy Spirit to reveal the inaccuracies. the king james and 7th ed. of the book of Yahweh are my favorites. i have read the bible 8 times in its entirety thus far; new american standard version,the gideon bible, king james and the book of Yahweh.

 

[secretofyah]

dont even bring up jehovas witnesses. their leadership is so flawed and they contradict themselves from one publication to the next and the poor buggers are being used as so much merchandise

 

[MightyLionOfJuda]

well some versions such as the ESV leave out the most important parts of verses and put them in the footnotes.
kjv
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]9:28 And when he was come into the house, his disciples asked him privately, Why could not we cast him out? [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][FONT=Arial,Helvetica] 9:29 And he said unto them, This kind can come forth by nothing, but by prayer and fasting.
[/FONT][/FONT]


[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Esv[/FONT][/FONT]


Mark 9:28 And when he had entered the house, his disciples asked him privately, "Why could we not cast it out?"
Mark 9:29 And he said to them, "This kind cannot be driven out by anything but prayer."[1]

notice how fasting has been completely taken out and put into the footnotes,saying some versions add fasting. I wouldnt want to be responsible for
adding or taking away from Gods holy word

 

[greatkraw]

well some versions such as the ESV leave out the most important parts of verses and put them in the footnotes.
kjv
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]9:28 And when he was come into the house, his disciples asked him privately, Why could not we cast him out? [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][FONT=Arial,Helvetica] 9:29 And he said unto them, This kind can come forth by nothing, but by prayer and fasting.
[/FONT][/FONT]


[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Esv[/FONT][/FONT]


Mark 9:28 And when he had entered the house, his disciples asked him privately, "Why could we not cast it out?"
Mark 9:29 And he said to them, "This kind cannot be driven out by anything but prayer."[1]

notice how fasting has been completely taken out and put into the footnotes,saying some versions add fasting. I wouldnt want to be responsible for
adding or taking away from Gods holy word

Yes, Lion. (I always like your posts)


Another subtle one is where 'God was manifest in the flesh......'
is changed to 'He was manifest in the flesh...............'

 

[MahogonySnail]

ESV is based upon best original and earlier texts than the KJV uses.

In the ESV Matt 17 verse 21 is missing. Why?

Because it was added into the KJV to make Matthew agree more with Mark.

The word fasting in those verses you mentioned was a later addition and found their way to the protestant and catholic bibles. Fasting is a man-made tradition closely tied to the works-based doctrines of the catholic church.Isaiah 58 makes that clear.

Modern versions take these out because they are erroneous additions to God's Word in the KJV, rather than taking away, as you suppose. If it's not in the original then Jesus never said fasting, he only said prayer. And if we use the KJV we are using a version which has added to God's word by what the KJV scribes thought best.

 

[greatkraw]

ESV is based upon best original and earlier texts than the KJV uses.

In the ESV Matt 17 verse 21 is missing. Why?

Because it was added into the KJV to make Matthew agree more with Mark.

The word fasting in those verses you mentioned was a later addition and found their way to the protestant and catholic bibles. Fasting is a man-made tradition closely tied to the works-based doctrines of the catholic church.Isaiah 58 makes that clear.

Modern versions take these out because they are erroneous additions to God's Word in the KJV, rather than taking away, as you suppose.

earlier is not better

this has been discussed before

 

[charisenexcelcis]

earlier is not better

this has been discussed before

Actually, earlier is better. This is the value of the Dead Seas scroll. This is the value of the fragments that prove the age of the NT. It is also valuable in getting as close as possible translation to the autographs. The logic twists used to justify using manuscripts that are further removed from the originals is baffling. The KJV is a fine version and every version should be subject to scrutiny. You can choose to use the Authorized Version and that is fine. The translation team of the Authorized Version used the best and oldest manuscripts that they had and translated in the best way they could.

 

[greatkraw]

Actually, earlier is better. This is the value of the Dead Seas scroll. This is the value of the fragments that prove the age of the NT. It is also valuable in getting as close as possible translation to the autographs. The logic twists used to justify using manuscripts that are further removed from the originals is baffling. The KJV is a fine version and every version should be subject to scrutiny. You can choose to use the Authorized Version and that is fine. The translation team of the Authorized Version used the best and oldest manuscripts that they had and translated in the best way they could.

Charis, people mumble 'Dead Sea Scrolls' and then push their agenda.

1 The major areas of disagreement are in the New Testament.
2 The Dead Sea Scrolls have nothing to do with the New Testament

The KJV has majority text support

The so called neutral texts rely on just 2 manuscripts Sinaiaticus and Vaticanus

They actually disagree WITH EACH OTHER more than either does with the KJV(Majority text)

 

[charisenexcelcis]

Charis, people mumble 'Dead Sea Scrolls' and then push their agenda.

1 The major areas of disagreement are in the New Testament.
2 The Dead Sea Scrolls have nothing to do with the New Testament

The KJV has majority text support

The so called neutral texts rely on just 2 manuscripts Sinaiaticus and Vaticanus

They actually disagree WITH EACH OTHER more than either does with the KJV(Majority text)

GreatKaw. I did not say nor do I believe that the KJV is a poor translation. Nevertheless, if you take the same assuptions, that the Dead Sea Scrolls were put away because they were inferior and therefore we should use the later manuscripts we would not benefit from them. The KJV translated the OT before the Dead Sea scrolls and so they are part of the discussion.
You knowledge of the manuscripts are flawed and prejudiced. As for disagreements, because the Greek language is one based upon the word form rather than order, the vast majority of the differences do not effect translation, but you should know that if you have a year of serious Greek study. Not only does the KJV have majority test support, but so does almost every other translation. Now as for pushing agendas, what is yours. What is your stake in the KJV. Why aren't you talking about the translation of specific verses rather than staying in the generic argument that you are.

 

[MahogonySnail]

There's a few problems with the claim of majority text support. The KJV actually doesn't follow the majority text in many places but adopts verses from the Latin Vulgate (i.e. Catholic) for most of the minority texts in the KJV. So modern day protestants /evangelicals in particular, would probably want to use the best versions that are least touched by Catholicism/Orthodox denominations over the years, also given that the Majority Text is fairly late (5th centuary) and there are older and probably more original texts available today than the KJV translators had. If you're high church Anglican or Lutheran you might love the KJV but if you're presbyterian or baptist you'd probably go with a ESV or ASV or NIV, at least a version which makes clear which verses are not in the original (normally they are italicised).

 

[MightyLionOfJuda]

ESV is based upon best original and earlier texts than the KJV uses.

In the ESV Matt 17 verse 21 is missing. Why?

Because it was added into the KJV to make Matthew agree more with Mark.

The word fasting in those verses you mentioned was a later addition and found their way to the protestant and catholic bibles. Fasting is a man-made tradition closely tied to the works-based doctrines of the catholic church.Isaiah 58 makes that clear.

Modern versions take these out because they are erroneous additions to God's Word in the KJV, rather than taking away, as you suppose. If it's not in the original then Jesus never said fasting, he only said prayer. And if we use the KJV we are using a version which has added to God's word by what the KJV scribes thought best.

what proof do you have to indicate that fasting was added later on to agree with mark?I fail to see how fasting is a man made tradition when it is a clear act of puting your flesh into subjection to your spirit.Pray about that because despite your theological knowledge and historical accuracy which Im sure far surpases my own, I fail to see the evidence that fasting is a tradition and not a command from Christ as is shown in other passages such as matt 6:16-18 where he explains how to fast.if it was purely traditionary why would Jesus even address it in a preserved part of the Bible if it was just one of the pharisees many traditions.There is no evidence to indicate that fasting is part of a works based christianity as it greatly helps you lean on God because you are denying your flesh as is commanded so many times in scripture and when and only when combined with prayer can help you grow faster spiritually.

 

[MahogonySnail]

Well bible scholars and Dr's of theology with experience and knowledge and training far greater than our own have seen it is an addition and THAT IS WHY MODERN BIBLE VERSIONS DON'T HAVE THOSE VERSES IN THERE.

And yes I agree fasting is good, and I can't see how it would hurt to combine fasting and prayer. But as this topic is about what is original..let's focus on what is the original. I suppose if a prosperity preacher was translating the KJV they'd say prayer, fasting, AND tithing 10% faithfully. .

If it is not in the original however, it does show the verse cannot be used as strongly as it may be, to support any sort of ascetisim or similar to do with fasting. It makes sense to me that it's an addition according to tradition. See Isaiah, God clearly says He is not pleased with self-denying acts of going without food or self-harm etc.