Bible "versions"?

  • 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.

glen55

Active member
Jul 10, 2021
168
26
28
69
Grace And Peace, Precious friend(s). I believe it is a very serious matter
to determine Which version of “the Bible” Is “The Correct Word Of God!”

I am sure we All agree, do we not, that we are All going to each give an
"account To HIM,"
(2 Corinthians 5:10), According to His Gospel of Grace,
To
Paul (Romans 2:16), correct?

Thus, in Light of Paul's "...knowing therefore The Terror Of The LORD..." {v. 11}, to me,
I humbly present why I personally believe KJV Is “The Best Bible” to read/study:

(1) Q: Is IT not God’s Pure And PRESERVED WORD!?:

The WORDS Of The LORD Are Pure WORDS: as silver tried
in a furnace of earth, Purified Seven Times. Thou Shalt Keep THEM,
O LORD, Thou Shalt PRESERVE THEM from this generation for ever.”

(Psalms 12:6-7 KJB!)

Now, Comparing This, with a couple of newer versions, what do we find?

NASB: “The words of the Lord are pure words…You, Lord, will keep them;
You will protect him from this generation forever.

NIV: “The words of the Lord are flawless…You, Lord, will keep the needy
safe and will protect us forever from the wicked,...

Do these Also claim God’s “Purity And Preservation for ALL generations”?

They both claim “pure/flawless” words, but, then they both
Omit Some Of: “Preserve THEM from this generation for ever” and
Change words TO the noted “Different” words above. How is that Purity ?

Q: Will The Holy Spirit, our Blessed Teacher, Help us understand
The Purity of These Words,” considering these newer versions
have Changed Them? How, then, do we “study AND agree”?

{Diligent/Noble Berean students can find MANY of These Changes
{And, Also “omissions”}, and Prayerfully/Carefully decide for themselves
about the “Purity of God’s Words,” and which version is best, for them,
correct?}

(2) I personally have decided on Both “The Purity And The
Preservation Of The Authorized Version/underlying manuscripts,”

for the following reasons:

Q2: Is The Following the “Reason” why the newer versions Cannot claim:

God’s Promise To “Preserve HIS Pure Word for ALL generations”?

Since the newer versions did not appear until about 1880,
would not that be a “Lack Of Preservation,” due to the fact
that the underlying {older/better?} manuscripts had to be
“Re-discovered/translated,” Skipping the generations since 1611?

Can that be God’s Purpose For HIS Pure/Preserved Word?
+
(3) God's Pure/Preserved Word Is ABOVE All Else! Is IT not?:

"I will worship toward Thy holy temple, and praise Thy HOLY
Name for Thy LovingKindness and for Thy TRUTH: for Thou
Hast MAGNIFIED Thy WORD Above All Thy Name!
"
( Psalms 138:2 KJB! )

imho, unless I am mistaken, on Judgment Day, I would Not want
one of the "good deeds done in my body," to be “Bad, by my claiming”
that corrupt/Changed/Missing words {translated from older/hidden
{UNpreserved} manuscripts into “newer easier-to-read/understand
versions,” are to be:

God's Pure Word, Which Is Magnified Above All Of God’s Pure/Holy Name,”

would you, Precious friend(s)?
Finally:

IF it is true that “Many {~~ 2,800?} Of “God’s PURE Words”
are missing {ie: Acts 8:37 NASB et al?} from newer versions, then,
IF the “version user” Cannot read Them {because They are missing},
how is it possible then, for that one to obey God’s Exhortation:

“man Shall Not live by bread alone, But By EVERY Word
That Proceedeth Out Of The Mouth Of God!

(Matthew 4:4 cp Luke 4:4; Deuteronomy 8:3 KJB!)?

Just wondering: How can God's "children of light" be in agreement
when each uses a Different Problematic version?: Are we not all,
By A Faithful God:

"...Called Into Fellowship With God's SON, The LORD JESUS CHRIST"
(
1 Corinthians 1:9 KJB!), And, should we not all be:

"Endeavouring to keep The Unity Of God's Spirit In The Bond Of
PEACE!..." (
Ephesians 4:3 KJB!), obeying God's Exhortations!:

...speak...the things which become Sound Doctrine!”
(
Titus 2:1 cp "SAME mind And judgment!" 1 Corinthians 1:10 KJB!)?

Being faithful And Pleasing to our LORD and Saviour, JESUS CHRIST, Correct?

--------------------------------------------

Addendum:

Some do Not like archaic words in God’s Preserved Word, but isn’t
that Why God Commands us to “study” (2 Timothy 2:15 KJB!)? I.e.:

“...we which are alive and remain unto the coming of The LORD shall not
prevent [precede] them which are asleep…” (1 Thessalonians 4:15 KJB!)

Once I “studied & found the meaning,” have never had any problem since. Amen?
+
I would also, when Prayerfully/Carefully “studying, like to know," When "God Is
Addressing"
one person {singular: thee, thine, & thou}, or More than one person
{plural: ye/you/your}. Could make a Huge Difference in His Pure Words, correct?

Since newer versions have Totally Lost these distinctions, considering
“you/your” Could be Either singular OR plural, causing Confusion, of
which
God Is Not the author of,” (1 Corinthians 14:33 KJB!), correct,
Precious friend(s)?

Conclusion: Besides changing God’s PURE Words, is there not Also
HIS “Command NOT to Add, Nor To Take Away From HIS Word!”?
(
Deuteronomy 4:2, 12:32; Revelation 22:18-19 KJB!)
+
"found a liar" (Proverbs 30:5-6) cp "every liar" (Rev 21 : 8, 22 : 15, 19 KJB!)

So, yes, I sincerely believe This Is “A Very Serious And Important”
decision Of faith to be made! After all, "a corrupt {#} version Will
Cause a corrupt faith,” correct? Since God’s PURE Word Teaches:

...faith cometh by hearing, and hearing By The WORD Of God!”
(
Romans 10:17 KJB!)

Be Blessed!

{#} Corruption had Already Begun in "Paul's day," thus it should not
surprise us, that it very well Could be in our midst, today, correct?:

"For we are not as many, which corrupt The Word Of God: but as
of sincerity, but as of God, in The Sight Of God speak we in CHRIST."
(2 Corinthians 2:17 KJB!)

Precious friend(s), instead of All of the Mass Confusion, is not
God's Simple Will Much Better? to be continued in (2a) below...
Sons of Man study secular history, awaken sons of God don't .Paul knew it was all allegory and Imagination was God in man not classic theology Saul and all sons of man are blind about thinking like sons of God in them, Phil 2:5Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
17,129
3,689
113
I appreciate the response, but I disagree. I was trying to see if there were people that looked at what the Father literally says as His word and not a translated bible.
A translation can be the pure, holy word of God.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
25,470
13,784
113
Sons of Man study secular history, awaken sons of God don't .Paul knew it was all allegory and Imagination was God in man not classic theology Saul and all sons of man are blind about thinking like sons of God in them, Phil 2:5Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
Um... punctuation?

Wise men study many subjects, "secular" and "sacred". History is neither, exclusively.
 

fredoheaven

Senior Member
Nov 17, 2015
4,110
960
113
Perhaps the very compelling reason why there is a need for comparisons of versions is that each version may have told different stories, while at some point they agree with each other but at some point, they disagree with each other. I believe the KJB is a written Final authority among these many modern versions as many of them compare themselves to it.

Even the NASB says
The NASB 1995 refined the differences in style between the ancient languages and current English by removing the archaic Old English vocabulary, such as “thee,” “thy,” and “thou.”
https://www.lockman.org/nasb-bible-info/more-information-nasb-1995/

One Man's vision for the NIV
Howard Long, an engineer from Seattle, was known for his passion for sharing the gospel and his love for the King James Bible. One day, he tried sharing Scripture with a non-Christian — only to find that the KJV’s 17th-century English didn’t connect.
https://www.biblica.com/niv-bible/niv-bible-story/

But, I found this as the KJB says
Ecclesiastes 12:10 The preacher sought to find out acceptable words: and that which was written was upright, even words of truth.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
25,470
13,784
113
I believe the KJB is a written Final authority among these many modern versions as many of them compare themselves to it.
Versions don't compare themselves; they are inanimate and lack the capacity to exercise rational thought.

The KJB is not the standard, regardless of who thinks it is. The original-language texts are the standard. Comparing any two translations can tell you nothing at all about which is correct, or even superior.
 
Aug 20, 2021
1,863
310
83
no life in any book without the spirit of a man n or god...hopefully both. Every man become a translation when they mention the words of the book.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
25,470
13,784
113
I have found NASB and NIV wishy washy, plus people that read from them tend to have more arguments than those that stick with KJV because of the differences, and they have way more questions...because of all the missing verses and words in those versions!

Its like they read it and they are like they are doing a jigsaw puzzle with heaps of missing pieces.

Im like why not read the KJV and then you wont have this problem, but a lot of people now refuse to entertain the idea...dismissing it as 'too oldfashioned'
Why do you think that the newer versions are missing pieces, instead of thinking that the KJV has extra pieces? Neither situation is desirable. We are told not to add to Scripture just as loudly as we are told not to take away from it.
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
17,129
3,689
113
What a translation "can" be is irrelevant. Its present actual nature is relevant.
Just so we’re clear that a translation can be the holy word of God without error. That’s a start.
 
Aug 20, 2021
1,863
310
83
k should be 101 right?The holy spirit...that perfection in translation.bible are perfect in there imperfections.Like the name Israel implies we need to struggle sometimes 2 understand gods word.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
25,470
13,784
113
Just so we’re clear that a translation can be the holy word of God without error. That’s a start.
Let's start with reality, not hypotheticals.
 
Aug 20, 2021
1,863
310
83
Duh! word perfect
Ecc 10:19
A feast is made for laughter, and wine maketh merry: but money answereth all things
 

fredoheaven

Senior Member
Nov 17, 2015
4,110
960
113
Versions don't compare themselves; they are inanimate and lack the capacity to exercise rational thought.

The KJB is not the standard, regardless of who thinks it is. The original-language texts are the standard. Comparing any two translations can tell you nothing at all about which is correct, or even superior.
Many translators of the versions compare it to KJV. Comparing does tell us which is true. Still the preacher would like to sought out acceptable words in the written truth.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
25,470
13,784
113
k should be 101 right?The holy spirit...that perfection in translation.bible are perfect in there imperfections.Like the name Israel implies we need to struggle sometimes 2 understand gods word.
With respect, it is difficult to understand your posts. Perhaps your command of written English isn't that great, in which case I would encourage you to put effort into learning.

Bibles are not "perfect in their imperfections". I don't know where you got that idea, but it's wacky.
 

glen55

Active member
Jul 10, 2021
168
26
28
69
Um... punctuation?

Wise men study many subjects, "secular" and "sacred". History is neither, exclusively.
Saul was confirmed wise for bible study to sons of man or called first Adam. Second Adam doesn't need its letters thought to be secular history, after Paul awakened was inside himself then he taught what the OT represented when knew it was all allegory for sons of God, when he was son of man then it was secular history that produces nothing new under the sun.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
25,470
13,784
113
Many translators of the versions compare it to KJV. Comparing does tell us which is true. Still the preacher would like to sought out acceptable words in the written truth.
No, comparing one translation to another cannot tell us which is true. It's fundamentally impossible. The only thing you can determine is which aligns with your presumptions. If you come with the presumption that one translation is correct, you will conclude that the other is incorrect, but your reasoning will be faulty and your conclusion invalid.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
25,470
13,784
113
Saul was confirmed wise for bible study to sons of man or called first Adam. Second Adam doesn't need its letters thought to be secular history, after Paul awakened was inside himself then he taught what the OT represented when knew it was all allegory for sons of God, when he was son of man then it was secular history that produces nothing new under the sun.
With respect, I find your post incomprehensible. I have no idea what you're trying to say.
 
Aug 20, 2021
1,863
310
83
only the holy spirit can thats y they r imperfect some people worship bibles...thus missing out on god.