Which Bible to purchase?

  • 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.
Dec 2, 2020
172
84
28
#81
So I decided to get a copy of "The King James Only Controversy" by James R. White as recommended.
I will begin with reading through that analysis first. I'd like to thank everyone for their input on the topic. Perhaps the best solution will be for me to get a KJV and NIV and simply read one book from one, then one from another.
As for my own consideration... I've been thinking. The Bible itself was not created by God. It was created by man, collecting THE SCROLLS believed to be the Word of God. While this indirectly makes the Bible the Word of God, it also brings to question to me what scrolls might have been left out of it due to prejudice and human failings (or lost material or destroyed material).
I believe anything written before the date of official canonization might be an appropriate marker (thus anything written after would be appropriate to disregard, I believe the Gnostic Gospels fall into this category?).

However it's also my understanding that the process of choosing for canonization also was based on which scriptures in majority agree with each other versus contradicting. But as we know, even the best intentioned person praying for guidance can still make mistakes.

We are imperfect, but Christ loves us anyway and still gives us our salvation.

At this particular point I am going to go forward with the aforementioned action and then will try to obtain a list of all or most of the existing translations, and look at the history of each one. At that particular point I will choose which others to read (aside from NIV and KJV). I am selecting those two and will simply compare them as I read them. I've also been told honest translations that may be missing a verse or two have footnotes regarding such, and usually have it down there to address it.
In the end what matters most is one's relationship in Christ and accepting that He was the Son of God and died for our sins, rose from the grave, ascended to Heaven and atoned for us, and that accepting that forgiveness and sacrifice, and having the Holy Spirit in us. After all, it's not like the actual tome that we call the Bible existed in those days, and yet people were still saved after He rose again.

Again thank you everyone for your input. I will personally be closing out of this topic at this point, thank you and God Bless you all!
 

Magenta

Senior Member
Jul 3, 2015
60,135
29,451
113
#83
You cannot have it both ways. The duty of a faithful translator is to translate, NOT interpret. Therefore a word-for-word translation of the Bible is not only necessary, but imperative. Since you have already been using the King James Bible, you could obtain a King James 2000 Bible, which would give you the same Bible but without any archaisms.
You do realize you have just contradicted yourself here? :unsure::giggle::geek:
 

Kolistus

Well-known member
Feb 3, 2020
538
276
63
#84
Satan's greatest "triumph" in the realm of things having to do with the Word of God is --- the Alexandrian/Wescott-Hort manuscripts.

And, therefore, all of the bible translations that came from those manuscripts. They are all corrupt. Because, those manuscripts are corrupt.

Why is this so hard for people to understand?
I can lead people to Christ from a Bible translated from the Alexandrian manuscripts.

But there is something fishy going on with these new bible translations, many of them are utter trash by trying to mingle in gender neutral terms and try to remove sodomy as a sin. (One particular translation has removed entire parts of Romans 1 for this purpose, not an english translation)

The fact they keep cranking them out so much and the scholars appear to be more and more liberal in many cases, its like a spiritual wasteland when it comes to bible translators now. I would be extremely careful with some of these new translations coming, especially know as we move closer to the time of jacob's trouble.

My favorite english bible is the KJV, tested and proven, stands the test of time and has been the standard and still is. The Bible translations from the 1700s 1600s tend to be better because the people translating were more serious than the liberal scholars of today who dont mind having extravagant plays and music performances like in hollywood in their church. Anyone involved in that type of false end times interfaith "christianity" is incapable of producing a good bible translation.
Back in the days such interfaith trash didnt exist.
 
Dec 2, 2020
172
84
28
#85
You do realize you have just contradicted yourself here? :unsure::giggle::geek:
I'm going to agree here. Because when you're translating you actually DO have to translate words, but also the ideas they represent. For example, if you don't know the idea or thing the word means, then you can't match it to the one in the English language that relates to it. And to do it accurately, you DO need to understand the idioms and expressions, and it doesn't hurt to understand that culture's way of thinking. And then there's grammar structure. Have you noticed when you place a sentence in English and one in Russian next to each other, then you translate the words, the order of the words is different than what we use?

And this is what I mean when I say that I want to get a good translation. I feel if it's done right there's no NEED for other translations. I admit KJV is nice and flowery and poetic, but the message doesn't change when you cut through all that.

Also off topic but Magenta, I'm assuming you like anime? I'm guessing by the signature. For some reason your signature and your response reek of adorable. (Don't take that wrong or forward. Just an observation).
 
Dec 2, 2020
172
84
28
#86
I can lead people to Christ from a Bible translated from the Alexandrian manuscripts.

But there is something fishy going on with these new bible translations, many of them are utter trash by trying to mingle in gender neutral terms and try to remove sodomy as a sin. (One particular translation has removed entire parts of Romans 1 for this purpose, not an english translation)

The fact they keep cranking them out so much and the scholars appear to be more and more liberal in many cases, its like a spiritual wasteland when it comes to bible translators now. I would be extremely careful with some of these new translations coming, especially know as we move closer to the time of jacob's trouble.

My favorite english bible is the KJV, tested and proven, stands the test of time and has been the standard and still is. The Bible translations from the 1700s 1600s tend to be better because the people translating were more serious than the liberal scholars of today who dont mind having extravagant plays and music performances like in hollywood in their church. Anyone involved in that type of false end times interfaith "christianity" is incapable of producing a good bible translation.
Back in the days such interfaith trash didnt exist.
And this, this is exactly the kind of thing I want to watch out for. With all the attempts at political correctness that is where I worry. As for the Alexandrian manuscripts... I heard they deleted things because they didn't agree with them. I have also heard some things were deleted because they were actually ADDED in KJV and were not there in the first place.

It's hard to tell without finding the original copies, or copies of the originals untranslated, and then without learning Hebrew and Greek and doing it myself.

If this world lasts long enough maybe I'll get around to learning them.
 

GaryA

Truth, Honesty, Love, Courage
Aug 10, 2019
9,825
4,314
113
mywebsite.us
#87
Read this book:

Defending the King James Bible by D.A. Waite
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
#88
Read this book:

Defending the King James Bible by D.A. Waite
I can read both books

and then look at reality and know niether the KJV or any other version is perfect.

so why should I read books which wish to cause division? As a believer I should have more important things to do, such as figuring out who I need to serve today. Not which bible I need to use
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
25,470
13,783
113
#89
I can lead people to Christ from a Bible translated from the Alexandrian manuscripts.

But there is something fishy going on with these new bible translations, many of them are utter trash by trying to mingle in gender neutral terms and try to remove sodomy as a sin. (One particular translation has removed entire parts of Romans 1 for this purpose, not an english translation)

The fact they keep cranking them out so much and the scholars appear to be more and more liberal in many cases, its like a spiritual wasteland when it comes to bible translators now. I would be extremely careful with some of these new translations coming, especially know as we move closer to the time of jacob's trouble.
There are indeed many translations of Scripture, and a few are actually corrupt, but it is fallacious to suggest that all modern versions are corrupt just because a few are.

My favorite english bible is the KJV, tested and proven, stands the test of time and has been the standard and still is. The Bible translations from the 1700s 1600s
The KJV is not the standard, though many people assume it is. There are no major English translations from the 1700's, unless you count the 1769 Blaney revision of the KJV.

tend to be better because the people translating were more serious than the liberal scholars of today who dont mind having extravagant plays and music performances like in hollywood in their church. Anyone involved in that type of false end times interfaith "christianity" is incapable of producing a good bible translation.
Back in the days such interfaith trash didnt exist.
This broadbrushing is even worse than that earlier in your post. You have presented no evidence whatsoever that the scholars of prior centuries were any better than those involved in serious translation work today. Instead you contrast the earlier with the worst of today. That too is fallacious.

By all means, keep reading the KJV if you choose, but please don't use ridiculous arguments to support your choice.
 
Dec 2, 2020
172
84
28
#90
Read this book:

Defending the King James Bible by D.A. Waite
I'm going to guess this provides also a good set of counter arguments in favor? I'll check it out. It's always good to hear both sides of the argument. Thank you.
 

Nehemiah6

Senior Member
Jul 18, 2017
26,074
13,774
113
#91
...so why should I read books which wish to cause division?
Who caused division? The ones who continued to stand with the KJV or the ones who started attacking it for absolutely no reason? For over 300 years all English-speaking and English-reading Christians had only one Bible -- the Authorized Version. That is a historical fact. Check any conservative commentary prior to 1900 (and even some after that date).

Along came the unbelievers and skeptics and decided to cause division by attacking the Bible which had stood the test of time. And today it is those who continue to support corrupt bibles who maintain division and encourage spiritual confusion.
 

Nehemiah6

Senior Member
Jul 18, 2017
26,074
13,774
113
#92
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
#93
Who caused division? The ones who continued to stand with the KJV or the ones who started attacking it for absolutely no reason? For over 300 years all English-speaking and English-reading Christians had only one Bible -- the Authorized Version. That is a historical fact. Check any conservative commentary prior to 1900 (and even some after that date).

Along came the unbelievers and skeptics and decided to cause division by attacking the Bible which had stood the test of time. And today it is those who continue to support corrupt bibles who maintain division and encourage spiritual confusion.
who attacks the KJV for no reason?

most of the voices against the KJV are in response to the KJV only cult
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
25,470
13,783
113
#94
For over 300 years all English-speaking and English-reading Christians had only one Bible -- the Authorized Version. That is a historical fact.
This is a complete denial of reality. Or maybe the history books are all lying, and Tyndale actually produced his edition in 1926, not 1526.

It's really difficult to take seriously someone who blatantly distorts historical fact while claiming to state historical fact.
 

GaryA

Truth, Honesty, Love, Courage
Aug 10, 2019
9,825
4,314
113
mywebsite.us
#96
I'm going to guess this provides also a good set of counter arguments in favor? I'll check it out. It's always good to hear both sides of the argument. Thank you.
You are very welcome. The full title of the book is:

DEFENDING THE KING JAMES BIBLE--A Four-fold Superiority--Texts, Translators, Technique, and Theology

- which should help somewhat in giving you a better idea about the content of the book.

If I had thought about it at the time, I would have posted the whole title the first time.
 

oyster67

Senior Member
May 24, 2014
11,887
8,705
113
#97
DEFENDING THE KING JAMES BIBLE--A Four-fold Superiority--Texts, Translators, Technique, and Theology
...and Time-Tested to boot. She's a good 'ole boat. I'm very fond of her and like to think of her as being elegant. I think it's ok to use others as well, though. Liking one doesn't mean you have to hate or fear all the rest.
 

mustaphadrink

Senior Member
Dec 13, 2013
1,987
372
83
#98
Ok, so, allow me to clarify, I am used to the NIV and during my Mormon stint (am no longer such) I have a huge copy of the KJV like... the size of half my chest (because bad eyes I asked for a large print copy. I'd rather have something smaller now because glasses are good.)

I do not have my old NIV version.

What I am looking for is a copy that is not missing or having added verses (i've heard this was a thing regarding the Alexandrian copies and ones that came after due to disagreements in doctrine) but also ideally one that translates the idioms into something I can understand (for example we know in Greek there's more than one word for love, like eros or agape, versus English which has to add a qualifier like "romantic" or "brotherly" or "familial").

So. I'm looking for accuracy of thought because word for word isn't always effective except for comparison, to study the concepts.
But also one that is true to the canon of the original scriptures.

I had also been told modern version have had things removed simply because they weren't in the original manuscripts (or other manuscripts that also contained them).

So in regards to the add/remove bit, I'm looking for an untampered version, and the translations that came after that stayed true. But also were translated by context so I can understand the concepts they are referring too.

Any scholars interested in helping me sort this out?
To clarify: please no debating or fighting in this thread. Simple present your recommendation, why and how it meets the above criteria please, I do not wish to start a translation war.

Thank you in advance everyone! I've heard that the Masoretic Texts of the Old Testament are good, and that the Sept version of the New Testament was good, I simply don't know what Bible versions contain what I'm looking for in quality control.
The very best version is the Holy Spirit because he said he would lead you into all truth. Regardless which version you use, unless you are being taught by the Holy Spirit it will all be a waste of time. I suggest you look at various versions and the one which resonates with you is the one to use. Then let the Holy Spirit lead you into all truth.
 
Dec 2, 2020
172
84
28
#99
...and Time-Tested to boot. She's a good 'ole boat. I'm very fond of her and like to think of her as being elegant. I think it's ok to use others as well, though. Liking one doesn't mean you have to hate or fear all the rest.
Time tested is also not a bad consideration. When you have hundreds upon hundreds of years as a text being actively used to nurture people's spirits and their faith, there is something to be said for that too.

As I said, I'll read both (have to wait until payday to order the other one) and then compare the cases. Then research the claims that the arguments within them are based on. It's rather hard to research an objection (or praise of) a particular position in an argument or claim if you don't know what it is, why it's there, when it started, and what the data being used to backup the claim is, after all. I know very little about the KJV Only vs Non KJV Only debate so it would be an uninformed decision of me not to consider both sides.

As for asking the Holy Spirit to guide one... I've noticed a lot of people will say that but they will have conflicting views, both claiming the Holy Spirit said so, while both claiming that the other does not have the Holy Spirit.

For sake of finding the truth, it isn't that I doubt the Holy Spirit so much as I am cautious of others CLAIMS of it being the Holy Spirit.

I will be so much happier when we are in Eternity and don't have to think about this stuff because it will be indisputably right in front of us daily...
 

GaryA

Truth, Honesty, Love, Courage
Aug 10, 2019
9,825
4,314
113
mywebsite.us
...and Time-Tested to boot. She's a good 'ole boat. I'm very fond of her and like to think of her as being elegant.
Indeed.

I think it's ok to use others as well, though. Liking one doesn't mean you have to hate or fear all the rest.
I am not afraid of any of them; rather, I simply believe that the KJV is [still] the best available English translation - and that - the Westcott-Hort manuscripts are [deliberately] currupted manuscripts.