Favourite Bible Translations

[eternally-gratefull]

I understand your argument, but what about when it comes to facts? There are truths that are different within the versions.

Luke 10:1

NASB - Now after this the Lord appointed seventy-two others, and sent them in pairs ahead of Him to every city and place where He Himself was going to come.

KJV - After these things the Lord appointed other seventy also, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself would come.

Which is true? Did the Lord send out 70 or 72? This is about truth not salvation. This is about trustworthiness.

The fact is there is no perfect English text. It’s impossible because of the flaws of the English language

even if we admit the KJV is the best translation or closest, it still has flaws and is still not a perfect translation

 

[John146]

actually it is you who single yourself out

you your own worse representative as the arguments you make only make sense you you. Other people just try to point that out to you

fact is, If god made an old English Bible perfect he can also update it to modern language so everyone can understand

What other versions are attacked because they are "too difficult" to read?

 

[John146]

actually it is you who single yourself out

you your own worse representative as the arguments you make only make sense you you. Other people just try to point that out to you

fact is, If god made an old English Bible perfect he can also update it to modern language so everyone can understand

Updated words change the true meanings of Scripture. Words, plural, are important to God.

 

[Dino246]

Is the following a true statement knowing that there are numerous sons of God throughout Scripture? Was Jesus God's only son? If you leave out the word "begotten" the verse becomes false.

16 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life.

What does that have to do with my question to KJV1611?

To answer your question, there is no issue, because any reader with at least a moderate degree of intelligence is going to understand the distinction presented by the word, "only"... and all the more if they have read Genesis 22.

 

[KJV1611]

A translation is a translation. Which is wonderful, of course, I appreciate all translations, but it's still not and never will be the original text, which finds us having to check the original when we deeply study something. There are no true perfect synonyms over languages, except for "Ok" and "Coca-Cola", every language has its own system for conveying thought. I don't share the notion that translations are inspired, not in the same degree. I also don't share the notion that the Bible is the Spirit, the Spirit quickens and gives understanding, but as for the Bible, it speaks about God, but to an atheist it's useless, he will not see the light even from the original. I'm sorry... I revere the message, but the Bible text is still an object to me - even original - no matter how I turn it, I am wary of revering objects might be a personal thing.

Ok, but Jesus specifically said his words are spirit, whose spirit are they if they aren't his?

Joh 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

 

[Dino246]

What other versions are attacked because they are "too difficult" to read?

Which versions are ATTACKED at all, because they are too difficult to read?

NONE.

You just have a chip on your shoulder such that you read any criticism of the KJV as an "attack", but you blithely "attack" other translations freely.

 

[SoulWeaver]

Ok, but Jesus specifically said his words are spirit, whose spirit are they if they aren't his?

Joh 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

For that very reason I differentiated previously, that I feel reverence for the message, but its text I see as an object. A word apple points at an apple but can't be eaten. Jesus says words "the truth shall set you free" but it's just an object, unless the message is taken up. You yourself would have no problem burning a KJV Bible if it meant saving someone from freezing to death (hypothetically, if it was the only thing possible to start the fire). Because you'd not be burning the message of the Bible, but an object out of necessity (and because of reverence for the message, that'd be the last resort for any one of us).

 

[Dino246]

Not according to the experts...see also post #824

Um... clearly you didn't read what I wrote, but glossed over it.

As to post 824:
"
Matthew 9:17 - NASB / wineskins - KJV / bottles
Matthew 1:11 - NASB / deportation - KJV / carried away
Luke 6:22 - NASB / ostracize - KJV / separate you from their company
1 Thes. 2:18 - NASB / thwarted - KJV / hindered
1 Tim. 3:3 - NASB / pugnacious - KJV / striker
1 Tim. 3:8 - NASB / sordid - KJV / filthy
1 Tim. 6:16 - NASB / a pang - KJV / sorrows
Hebrews 7:2 - NASB / apportioned - KJV / gave
Hebrews 12:1 - NASB / encumbrance - KJV / weight
Revelation 6:8 - NASB / ashen - KJV / pale
Revelation 18:1 - NASB / illumined - KJV / lightened

EVERY SINGLE ONE of the words you highlighted from the NASB is in my everyday vocabulary.

Whereas...
- "bottles" is misleading, because the KJV word does not refer to glass containers;
- "separate you from their company" is verbose;
- "striker" is misleading as it's not in current usage in that sense;
- "gave" is less precise than "apportioned";
- "weight" in that context is inferior to "encumbrance" which encompasses a wider range of possible causes;
- "lightened" is misleading because the term today means "made less heavy".

You have no argument... as usual.

 

[KJV1611]

For that very reason I differentiated previously, that I feel reverence for the message, but its text I see as an object. A word apple points at an apple but can't be eaten. Jesus says words "the truth shall set you free" but it's just an object, unless the message is taken up.

You can't see the spirit of Christ, his perfection, his personality, his mannerisms, his sense of humor and the way he relates to us in the scripture?

Every cult out there has that "warm fuzzy" Jesus feeling in them.... That's not the real Jesus.

 

[Dino246]

Nope, that's a preference thing. I speak modern English, but I study the word in the KJV English. It's really not that difficult. Again, it comes down to desire. There are many things in all versions that are difficult to understand. People single out the KJV because there are some of us that actually believe it is God's holy word preserved in English.

No... just, no.

In five years on this site I have never seen anyone start a thread or post an argument singling "out the KJV because there are some ... that (sic) actually believe it is God's holy word preserved in English."

In twenty years of learning about the issue, I have never come across anyone doing that.

Not even once.

That's just the massive chip on your shoulder whining again.

 

[SoulWeaver]

You can't see the spirit of Christ, his perfection, his personality, his mannerisms, his sense of humor and the way he relates to us in the scripture?

Every cult out there has that "warm fuzzy" Jesus feeling in them.... That's not the real Jesus.

Are you accusing me of being a cultist, being guided by feelings, or not seeing His character when I read the Bible? That's quite a misrepresentation of what I said.

 

[Dino246]

You can't see the spirit of Christ, his perfection, his personality, his mannerisms, his sense of humor and the way he relates to us in the scripture?

I can, and I don't need the KJV to do so.

 

[KJV1611]

Are you accusing me of being a cultist, being guided by feelings, or not seeing His character when I read the Bible? That's quite a misrepresentation of what I said.

I didn't accuse you of anything, I asked if you could see those things I mentioned. And I distinguished between the real Jesus in the bible from what some people call Jesus, not you, CULTS. None of that was an accusation against you.

 

[SoulWeaver]

I didn't accuse you of anything, I asked if you could see those things I mentioned. And I distinguished between the real Jesus in the bible from what some people call Jesus, not you, CULTS. None of that was an accusation against you.

Of course, I am able to discern the character of Jesus from the Bible.

 

[KJV1611]

I can, and I don't need the KJV to do so.

Where do you see God not being able to preserve his word WITHOUT ERROR in the character of Jesus.

Where do you see anything to do with Jesus in a state of disarray or loss or decay.... none of those things line up with the character and personality of Jesus.

 

[KJV1611]

Heb_4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Why does the bible say the bible is alive if it's not truly alive?

 

[eternally-gratefull]

What other versions are attacked because they are "too difficult" to read?

What other version has a cult that says theirs is the only inspired version?

 

[Probonowono]

I'm a big fan of the Good News Bible, simply because its plain speaking. Otherwise I will go for the NIV when studying or occasionally the Amplified because one of my favourite preachers Joyce Meyer uses it.

 

[Lanolin]

LOL cat Bible is difficult to read
so is the Chinese Bible as I havent learned all the characters
Da Jesus Bible in pidgin might be easier

I cant make head or tale of NASB and the Message just makes me laugh.

 

[Dino246]

Where do you see God not being able to preserve his word WITHOUT ERROR in the character of Jesus.

Where do you see anything to do with Jesus in a state of disarray or loss or decay.... none of those things line up with the character and personality of Jesus.

I'm sorry that you see such things in the KJV. Maybe it's time to switch to a better translation.