Bible versions-Is there only one?

There are many translations and revised versions of Bible’s(NIV, Amplified, King James, Living Translation, AS). Did any of these lose essential Biblical meanings and teachings via the translation process? If so, which ones? If true, should those versions be avoided by Believers?

The oldest manuscripts to date found in the ESV, NET, NLT, prove valuable in showing the deity of Christ. They also use Granville Sharp's Rule which clarifies Christ's deity. I use the KJV but assist it with these and a few more.

Sample: “So I want to remind you, though you already know these things, that Jesus first rescued the nation of Israel from Egypt, but later he destroyed those who did not remain faithful.” Jude 5 (NLT)

Oh boy... here we go again....

The question should have been worded a little differently. "Is there only one reliable and trustworthy English language translation today?"

And the answer is "Yes". Only the King James Bible (the Authorized Version of 1611) can be trusted to present translations of the Hebrew and Greek faithfully. And for those who object to the archaic language, the King James 2000 Bible addresses that issue (even though actual archaisms are not that many). Furthermore this Bible has been trusted by Bible-believing Christians for over 400 years. That speaks for itself. For those who falsely claim that this Bible has been also *revised", all you need to do is compare the original with the current standard Bible to see that this is false. Only spellings, punctuation, and other insignificant changes have been made. See here: https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org

Could there have been some legitimate improvements or updates more recently? Certainly. But they would have been few and far between. However the Revision Committee that was assigned this task by the Church of England in the 19th century SABOTAGED the King James Bible as well as the Received Text. Thus we have the corrupted English language bibles ever since 1881 (which includes all modern versions).

I say no.

Because we do not have the original manuscripts to 100% be sure. But we have enough copies and fragments to be already 98% sure of what the originals had to say. 2% are places like the end of Mark or some areas where commas was added when in the scrolls there where no chapters, verse numbers or commas. All of those was put in later.

With these copies and fragments we can use textual criticism to compare and contrast to see what was the most common transcription over the years. And this is what Greek and Hebrew scholars translate to English. In translation to English according to the translator must try to use the best English word. Hebrew and Greek didn't have as many words as English so one word like love would have multiple interpretations in Hebrew or Greek where as love in English we have words to describe the different types of love.

This is how we get different translations. The translators prefer 1 English word to another. Usually they are so similar it doesn't make much of a difference. Sometimes it may change the whole meaning.

Also some Bible's are produced by certain groups with certain doctrines. So some words will be different to better convert to their doctrine.


Even using the Early Church fathers writing's helps to determine scripture due to their many writings that contain scripture.

So really it is always a good habit when studying to compare translations and if something still dont seem right then look up the Hebrew/Greek to English translation.

My personal opinion is most translations are not dangerous or a threat to accuracy. Rarely will I find a verse where the word used is completely wrong. I mostly use the NIV.

Seems so they get more oddly by the minute

There are strengths and weaknesses to every translation. While I don't use paraphrases for study (The Message, the Living Bible), even they can be useful for showing how others see a passage. I'd say it's far more important that the believer reads whatever version they have than which version it is. Those who are interested do well to learn what the issues are around translation strategies, sources, and particular strengths. There is no perfect translation... despite what you will eventually be told here.

God teaches us all in an instant as pertaining to our Salvation in Jesus Christ. The being when the Holy Spirit enters into us. We actually learn all worthu learning by the Holy Spirit, thus we may learn from any version of the Word as long as it truly attempts to follow Jesus, Yeshua in its copilation.

As a linguistics sudent and longtime student of the Word, I know there is not one acceped version of the written Word that is totally accurate, and here theHoly Spirit will either affirm or hold in abeyance one's understanding of certain points.

As long as we have learned we are saved by faith in Jesus, Yeshua, and His great sacrifice for each of us on the Crosse, we are on the Way He has provided for each one of us. Praise Yeshua, amen.

So close and yet so far. The KJV can be trusted when we are told that: "God watches over his word to perform it" (Jeremiah 1:12) Yet this is a horrible translation because IT is "usually in reference to a lifeless thing". God's word is the Word of Life. So we have to go back to the original language if we want to understand. We can use the KJV if we want to claim the promises of God.

We can use the different translations as a Bible commentary. For example the NKJV says: "I am ready to perform My word.” Although ready to perform seems different from watching over His Word. As if they are adding something that is implied but still we are not suppose to add to the Bible. The modern term they use is decree. This is a official order issued by a legal authority.

Since the whole point of translating the Bible is to make it accessible in every language, that is a false premise. Hardly a few Christians are Hebrew or Greek scholars, but any ambiguity can always be addressed through concordances, lexicons, and other Bible study tools.

When the Holy Spirit is guiding anyone, he or she may obtain truth from a cookbook. Trust our Father and the gifts He has given you always.

I have to admit to having some affinity for the language of the KJV, the more formal terms like thee and thou....to me they add weight and signficance to the words I'm reading or saying. A great example of this is the 23rd Psalm. To me the meaning is the same whether its the KJ, Revised Standard, or likely any other...but words like:

"He restoreth my soul: he leadeth me in the paths of righteousness..." I find the language more reverant. However there's no real difference with the RSV's: "he restores my soul. He leads me in paths of righteousness..."

Of course it may be that I'm just old, but the language of the KJ.....it just strikes me as Biblical, set apart from every day language.

There's another aspect to the KJV, for those who like to preach against things....the word abomination is most prevalent in the King James. The RSV uses words like detestable instead....and while abomination and detestable mean the same thing, abomination sounds so much more fire and brimstone.

It depends what is meant by "version"
Does the OP mean "translation"?

Accessible in every language except modern English by your KJVO reckoning though.

Excuse me, sorry, I've just re-read the OP. Answered my own question.

We do understand there was Bibles before the KJV? Including the Reformation Bible that the Pilgrims had on the Mayflower called the Geneva Bible preceding the King James Version by 51 years. The King didn't like the anti tyrant vibe from the Geneva Bible that had commentary from the reformationionist that fled to Geneva, Switzerland that at that time was protecting religious freedom.

For the kjv crowd you also had The Great Bible of 1539 was the first authorised edition of the Bible in English, authorised by King Henry VIII of England.

The King James Version (KJV), also known as the King James Bible (KJB) or simply the Authorized Version (AV), is an English translation of the Christian Bible for the Church of England, begun in 1604 and completed as well as published in 1611 under the sponsorship of James VI and I.

So I do not see why people only support the KJV like it is the oldest English translation, etc.

Nothing wrong with it because even though it is a direct copy of the Geneva Bible. All the scriptures are the same except King James eliminated the commentary.

Tyndale paid a hefty price for his English translation in 1536

From what I’ve read the Genevan Bible relies significantly upon the Tyndale and so was the KJV and there’s was also the Bishops bible

Yes there is a timeline of Bibles and all influences the next. But that is the point. I know some people who believe the KJV is the closest to the original language just because they believe it is the oldest English translation we have.

Which is easily proven false.