Favourite Bible Translations

It's self explanatory

Why use a translation that requires a translation?

Gods word dosent change with political correctness, Ebonics, or the rapper out on the street corner

Gay still means Happy in my book

Actually that statement comes from the bible.

Because it reflects the spirit of Christ. No errors, no contradictions, a consistent message through and through. Word and number patterns that could never happen by chance.

Please provide the scriptural evidence supporting your assertion.

The NIV, ESV dosent preserve the verses below in Gods word, they are preserved in the KJV

It's not a matter of let's hold hands and skip down the yellow brick road to the Kingdom of OZ

One translation is preservation, the other isnt

You cant have a Dollar bill without serial numbers, it's a (Counterfeit) of the true currency?

Below, Verses Missing In The Greek, Alexandian Text Type?

Matthew 17:21
Matthew 18:11
Acts 8:37
Roman's 16:24

I fully understand my english KJV that is supported by the Greek Byzantine Textual Family, including the text the church received and used (Textus Receptus)

I dont use the new translations, supported by the 1%< minority of manuscript evidence, in the Alexandrian Text Type

It's that simple, its not archaic words as you claim, its a completely foreign Greek Text, that the Church has never used or received.

Its that simple Byzantine v Alexandrian

Fallacy: circular reasoning.

I have refuted the claim of evidence by word or number patterns several times; I'm surprised you repeat it.

Are you expecting to get more meaning from a 2000 year old language?

Meanings of words change It's not rocket science.

But what about quit? Quit ye like men does not mean quit acting like a man, it means Act like a man. How about prevent? We will not prevent them that are asleep, (means go before) There are many examples. You will find yourself translating KJV to people you are talking to. Why? Because the English words have changed meaning. We must retranslate the Greek word to the current English word of that same meaning of the Greek word.

Once Again, The Argument Is Byzantine Vs Alexandrian

The Church used and received the Byzantine textual family, the Church didnt use the 1%< Minority Alexandrian Text that supports new translations, it's that simple

Westcott & Hort in 1881 didnt produce Gods truth in their Greek Text, that is supported by this Alexandrian Text Type

The Nestle-Aland didnt produce Gods truth in their Greek Text, using the Alexandrian Text Type

It's that simple, Byzantine Vs Alexandrian

Below, Verses Missing In The Alexandian Greek Text Type?

Matthew 17:21
Matthew 18:11
Acts 8:37
Roman's 16:24

But what about quit? Quit ye like men does not mean quit acting like a man, it means Act like a man. How about prevent? We will not prevent them that are asleep, (means go before) There are many examples. You will find yourself translating KJV to people you are talking to. Why? Because the English words have changed meaning. We must retranslate the Greek word to the current English word of that same meaning of the Greek word.

You are not able to discuss it because you refuse to examine the source documents or consider the arguments of those who do. It is just "anyone who questions the KJV is denying the Inspired infallible Word of God" rhetoric and there you shall remain.

No need to act like you have a scholarly answer for your blind fanaticism. Just admit your blindly fanatical about the KJV and be done with the conversation.

But they are not missing from the English bibles you are persecuting.

There is less than 5% difference between the two families of texts in the first place.

Most modern English translations either footnote or bracket certain words, phrases, sentences, and a couple of paragraphs.
Only those which are not found in all manuscripts. This is honest & truthful on the part of the translators.

They are not "missing". Rather their presence/absence in various manuscripts are explained.
It’s not a major concern. No one is trying to hide or eliminate anything. And there is no "corruption."
No one reading the NASB or NIV is unaware of them.

But you are still wilfully avoiding the line missing from the KJV with no explanation.

So you believe that these guys who were speaking already knew how to speak all these languages?

Act 2:8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?
Act 2:9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,
Act 2:10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,
Act 2:11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God

Again, way off topic, so I won't go into details, but as a sort of overview, the so-called "list of nations" in verses 9-11 is just that; a list of geographical places. Specifically, the lands of the Diaspora (both Eastern and Western). It is not a list of languages. In fact, nowhere in the entire Pentecost narrative is even one language ever referenced by name, and nowhere does it imply that even though there were Jews from all over the Diaspora, that communication between them all was ever an issue to begin with.

One has to ask - if I were a Jew living in one of these places in the 1st century AD, what would be my native language, the language of "hearth and home", the language "wherein I was born"? Would it have ben a local language, or something else?

In a nutshell, the language of hearth and home for someone from the Western Diaspora was Greek. These countries had been Hellenized for centuries and Greek was beginning to be seen as an acceptable language for Judaism. For Judea, it was Aramaic, and for those of the eastern Diaspora....it was also Aramaic.

Though the Eastern Diasporan lands were never Hellenized, and each had its own language(s), they were never the language of 'hearth and home' for the Jews. The language of hearth and home, the language 'wherein they were born' was Aramaic. They of course spoke the local language in varying degrees of fluency, just like today's immigrants in the US do for English, but at home and amongst themselves it was Aramaic.

A lot of people, a lot of places, but for Jews amongst themselves, really only two languages: Greek and Aramaic, with Aramaic being by far the one most spoken.

The verses mentioned in the NIV, ESV, are missing in the main body of the Text, they are mentioned in footnotes as being in (Other) Manuscripts/Texts

These verses are non-existent in the Greek text that supports these translations

To mention a verse in a footnote, dosent mean its included in the reading, sorry

Exactly, you have to STUDY the word in order to rightly divide it.

If you can't read a sentence because it's placed in brackets on a page you are already reading that would be your inadequacy.
Nothing is hidden.