Your Bible translation

[Endoscopy]

I have not nor will ever make such a claim. Did I post such a claim?

You implied it with your post.

 

[John146]

I have studied and memorized King James, however trying to sound holier than thou is offensive to most of the publicly educated people that we are trying to reach. We are no better or worse than them especially before we became saved. Get over it! We don't live in a closed Christian society and most people think those that do like Amish and Huterites are a joke.

Actually, the people I’ve witnessed to on the streets have no problem with me using the KJV when I read or quote to them. One even mentioned how beautiful it sounds unlike any modern writings.

 

[CherieR]

I have used many. As a child, I memorized a lot of KJV in Baptist Sunday School. I got saved reading an NAB, a Catholic Bible. I read the NASB for 25 years. I think it is a good translation, but very stilted, so not a good read, that many times.

Then I tried NIV a few times, but felt it was "too" contemporary, too modern, if that makes any sense. I read the NLT somewhere, but found some stuff that was just wrong. Then I switched to ESV, but I disagreed with so many of the footnotes, I dropped it after a few years. I really like Holman's HCSB, I'm going back to it, maybe sooner, rather than later. Although sometimes the Psalms were lacking. I thought the footnotes were excellent, I learned a lot from it.

I'm reading the NET, the full notes version, 60,000 footnotes. But a lot of repetition. If it sounds like I am reading for the footnotes, you may be partly right!

If I want to really get the most accurate version, I read it in Hebrew and Greek. I know the Bible well enough, that slight differences in translation don't make a difference. The message of salvation and following Jesus are the same.

Now, there are the paraphrases like the Message, which I never got through. Some of it was good, but some of it wandered so far from the Greek and Hebrew, I couldn't finish it. And the so-called formal equivalents, like the KJV in particular just gets confusing trying to follow the Greek word order, which was never meant to be followed in English. But if you want a really good functional equivalent, Martin Luther's German Bible is awesome. My German isn't that fluent, but the grammar is almost identical to Greek.

I prefer an accurate dynamic translation. Just a personal preference. I do not agree that unless you have some kind of "perfect" translation, you will be missing out on what God has prepared. There is NO Bible that says salvation is NOT by grace! (Although a few groups interpret it wrong!)

There is no Bible that tells you NOT to love God and your neighbour as yourself. No Bible I know tells us NOT to obey Christ and follow him with our hearts, minds, souls and strength. There is NO Bible that says Jesus is not returning. (Although we may disagree on a lot of the details!)

The best Bible translation is one that gets read, daily! So if KJV English is your thing, go for it. Biblegateway.com has loads of English versions. Read them, compare them. Which one keeps your interest, and you understand it? Try that one. I personally would try and stay away from paraphrases and overly formal translations. But the choice is yours!

My only concern is that you read it daily. I read 3 chapters OT and 1 NT and 1 Psalm a day. That gets me through the Bible in a year, and the Psalms twice, and some extra NT. Sorry I couldn't be more specific.

I am a bit new to the NLT and the church I go to uses it a lot but I don't think it is always on point with what the text really means at times. I did however find I enjoyed reading a chapter in Genesis from this version once. KJV and NIV are the ones I am most familiar with. Sometimes I may like the KJV and other times I can struggle with understanding it.

 

[preston39]

I am a pastor, but I do not pastor a church. I am disabled, and I simply do not have the energy to care for a congregation, although I do preach, teach, and play and sing on the worship team in my church. Instead, I am working on a PhD in Practical Theology. This is where a deep knowledge of the Bible and theology and how to help people, is the goal. Both in reconciling them to God, and healing their pain that their minds and souls are in.

But, of course, like all the half truths you have posted on this thread, you didn't get that right about me at all, did you?

As far as being hateful, what is hateful is to lie about what the Bible says, to support your cultic belief that the KJV is the only true Bible. In fact, I could show you hundreds of places, especially in the NT where the KJV is simply wrong, when compared to the Greek versions. And, the fact is, the KJV is as Catholic as you can get, being based on the Roman Catholic priest Erasmus' Translation of the NT.

Yet, there truly are no places where the difference in translation makes any difference to doctrine. I would suggest you get some books from actual scholars and study theology or doctrine. Then, you will have a literate basis for your beliefs, instead of the likes of lies from Riplinger and Ruckman.

I'd put you on ignore, but I feel it my duty to counter every single misconception and piece of ignorance you post here. Really, that first post I made on John 3:36 was worth the price of admission. About how the Koine Greek lies, and promotes works salvation?

Are you really that brainwashed that you do not know that Koine Greek is the language the Bible was written in? Once you have read the NT in Greek, you can see such interesting things that don't come through in any English version. Like John was a Hebrew fisherman. He uses all kinds of "Hebraisms" which means he writes in Greek using Hebrew word order and other concepts. Paul is very readable, and Luke, both in Luke and Acts is the most difficult Greek you can imagine, because he was Greek, and an educated Greek, at that.

Still, I do not expect you to know that. I have just learned that in the past few years as I have read through the Greek NT. But, at least know that the Bible was written in Hebrew and Aramaic in the OT, and also in Greek in the Septuagint, the OT version that Jesus and the disciples quoted the most. And that the NT is written in Koine Greek, which if you get the earlier, Alexandrian, Western and Caesarian texts, is not conflated like the Byzantine copies, which do not go back to even the second century, but arise suddenly in the 8th or so century. No connection at all to the original manuscripts, and very much added to, copyist mistakes, and so forth.

Of course, if all this makes your head explode, feel free to continue on in ignorant bliss. But, every time you post an outright lie or utter nonsense, I will try and call you on it. There are many people in this forum who believe the KJV is the only right version. They express that belief, and try and support it. But, they don't write completely, unsubstantiated garbage like you do. Sorry if it is hateful to call out someone who is incredibly vehement and totally WRONG in pretty much everything they say. I don't think there is a nice way to correctly such appalling ignorance, dressed up as authoritative.

Can you understand and explain why most of the new bible editions have been done since 1960?

 

[Dino246]

Can you understand and explain why most of the new bible editions have been done since 1960?

You are still trying with this one. You never have clarified the meaning of the opening post in your previous thread, and here you are yet again asking the same question. How about explaining it this time.

 

[calibob]

Actually, the people I’ve witnessed to on the streets have no problem with me using the KJV when I read or quote to them. One even mentioned how beautiful it sounds unlike any modern writings.

So just keep doing what works for you and God then.

 

[Dino246]

Actually, the people I’ve witnessed to on the streets have no problem with me using the KJV when I read or quote to them. One even mentioned how beautiful it sounds unlike any modern writings.

Did the person actually say, "unlike any modern writings" or is that your addition? How would it be relevant anyway?

 

[calibob]

Did the person actually say, "unlike any modern writings" or is that your addition? How would it be relevant anyway?

How would they know the difference if they were saved or been to a real christian church?

 

[fredoheaven]

Agree, allow the Bible to change us not the other way around.

The bible needs to study, requires prayer for illumination. The miner digs its ore, the fishermen must lunch out to the deep. Kjv is alive and kicking here in the Philippines. It is use by many soulwinning churches.

 

[calibob]

This reminds me of my home town when it was up in arms about English vs Latin masses, English didn't sound Holy enough the four R.C. churches became divided over it. Because the new trend towards English was against tradition. Catholics follow tradition more than Jesus for the most part.

 

[fredoheaven]

English is a very different language. In England first the Celts moved in. Then the Romans conquered it. Later the Saxons conquered it. Last the Angles conquered it. Thus the mixture of Celtic, Latin, German, and French created the confusing rules, exception to the rules and exceptions to the exceptions. Other languages only have rules. An example from Latin is cactus with the earlier plural of cactae modified now to cacti using the pronunciation of the Latin ae as a long i.

Yap, it is still the common language of today.

 

[calibob]

Yap, it is still the common language of today.

Why do you think the Apostles spoke in tongues on Pentecost? Was it not to be understood by each in their own language?

 

[calibob]

Why do you think the Apostles spoke in tongues on Pentecost? Was it not to be understood by each in their own language?

The reason the gospels were written in different languages was most likely so more could understand.

 

[calibob]

Right now here in Oklahoma we have an all Spanish speaking Baptist church with Spanish bibles. There's still controversy because of differences among them in dialects.

 

[fredoheaven]

The reason the gospels were written in different languages was most likely so more could understand.

Agree

 

[John146]

Did the person actually say, "unlike any modern writings" or is that your addition? How would it be relevant anyway?

They were just commenting that the wording was beautiful and unique, unlike any other things they have read.

 

[calibob]

How would they know the difference if they weren't saved or hadn't been to a real christian church?

@John146 Sorry. I got called away. Edits are in blue.

 

[calibob]

As you can tell by my screen name. I'm originally from California which is 30% Latino and has 11 million Catholics. Many don't speak English. Full gospel believing english speaking Christians are by far the minority over all. The last time I checked 38 million population in the state. Now subtract the Catholics, Mormons, Jehovahs witnesses, Muslims, Buddhists, Atheists, Astrologists, Scientologists, Christian Scientists. Hedonists, Wicken, Spiritist's. Odinite's and people that are pantheistic like Bahia. Let's not forget Communists and Free Masons. See how many are left. How many left speak and understand English? Let alone can read it at the level King James version was written? We need easier translations for them to read and understand! You don't give a fourth grader a psychology book.

 

[Dino246]

They were just commenting that the wording was beautiful and unique, unlike any other things they have read.

Fair enough.

 

[Angela53510]

Can you understand and explain why most of the new bible editions have been done since 1960?

I did extensively in your post on this topic. Perhaps you need to go back and read what I wrote??