Favourite Bible Translations

there is no english standard...different publishing houses have different standards. an oxford english dictionary will be different from a collins as a websters.

anyone who studies language will see it changes as words come in and out of use.
what is common even today will not be ten years later.

actually it does. Gutenbergs bible was the first printed bible and mass produced so the book was exactly the same with the copies, before that it was hand written words could be spelled any way you liked. That bible was in german.

Its dictionaries that collected words and defined them, and gave the meanings and how the words were to be used. There is a link.

Imagine you hand copying the bible how long that would take you?

Id rather have a perfect bible than a “clear bible.” What one thinks is clear, another is confused. Clear is still subjective. I want a correct English bible even if that means I have to study to shew myself approved unto God.😉. We are talking about the word of God. I don’t really want it to sound like me.

If you would rather go on misunderstanding words & confusing yourself you are free to do so.

That's irrelevant in relation to printing & reading today's books in standard established languages.

If this happens to be your favorite English Bible Version explains why. Is it really returning “from” or returning “to”? Thanks

New International Version
When Barnabas and Saul had finished their mission, they returned from Jerusalem, taking with them John, also called Mark.

English Standard Version
And Barnabas and Saul returned from Jerusalem when they had completed their service, bringing with them John, whose other name was Mark.
New American Standard Bible
And Barnabas and Saul returned from Jerusalem when they had fulfilled their mission, taking along with them John, who was also called Mark.

NET Bible
So Barnabas and Saul returned to Jerusalem when they had completed their mission, bringing along with them John Mark.

International Standard Version
When Barnabas and Saul had fulfilled their mission, they returned to Jerusalem, bringing with them John who was also called Mark.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
After they had completed their relief mission, Barnabas and Saul returned to Jerusalem, taking along John who is called Mark.

If you studied Greek you would know that either is an acceptable translation. Besides, does it really matter? Is my salvation at stake? 🤓

so which one is right?

we see in chapter 13 they are sent out to start their ministry. So did they really return from, or did they return to Jerusalem. Where they would be sent out?

Is your salvation dependent on which on is right?

let’s be serious now

Actually

the KJV NASB NKJV etc use the Greek ek. From

the others use the Greek word eis. To

so no. Either is not acceptable

Exactly! Did you not catch the sarcasm.🤓

I prefer translating from Greek and comparing to KJV and Geneva Bible of 1560, which was the most widely used English Bible of it's time.
a decent Greek version here: https://en.katabiblon.com/us/?text=LXX

What I caught was the arrogance I have come to expect from you

If you are going to submit a verse to make a point you should at least indicate where the verse is.

The translations footnote that verse appropriately. Perhaps not the KJV. I didn't look & I don't know as I hardly consult it.
Are you interested in textual criticism from a scholarly POV? Not all manuscripts agree.
Or are you simply looking for problems to dwell on?

The NET as usual provides the most detailed appraisal of the verse. Acts 12:25.


tc There are a number of variants at this point in the text: εἰς (eis, “to”) in א B M sams syhmg; ἀπό (apo, “from”) in D E Ψ 36 323 453 614 1175 al; ἐξ (ex, “from”) in P74 A 33 945 1739 al; ἐξ ᾿Ιερουσαλήμ εἰς ᾿Αντιόχειαν (ex Ierousalēm eis Antiocheian, “from Jerusalem to Antioch”) in a few later manuscripts and part of the Itala. A decision on this problem is very difficult, but for several reasons εἰς can be preferred. It is the most difficult reading by far in light of the context, since Paul and Barnabas were going to Jerusalem in 11:30. It is found in better witnesses, א and B being very strong evidence. The other readings, ἐξ and ἀπό, are different from εἰς yet bear essentially the same meaning as each other; this seems to suggest that scribes had problems with εἰς and tried to choose an acceptable revision. If εἰς is the earliest reading, ἀπό may be a clarification of ἐξ, and ἐξ could have arisen through confusion of letters. Or ἐξ and ἀπό could both have independently arisen from εἰς as a more acceptable preposition. Despite such arguments, however, the case for εἰς is not airtight: either ἐξ or ἀπό could be preferred on other lines of reasoning. The reading ἐξ enjoys the earliest support, and εἰς could have arisen through the same confusion of letters mentioned above. The immediate and wider context seems to mitigate against εἰς as the original reading: The aorist participle πληρώσαντες (plērōsantes, “when they had completed”) seems to signal the end of the mission to Jerusalem with the famine relief, so it would make sense in the context for the team to be coming from Jerusalem (to Antioch) rather than to Jerusalem, and 13:1 certainly presents the scene at Antioch. The later addition εἰς ᾿Αντιόχειαν after ᾿Ιερουσαλήμ in some mss seems to be a clarification in light of 13:1 (notice that some of the mss that read ἐξ add εἰς ᾿Αντιόχειαν [945 1739], and some that read ἀπό also add εἰς ᾿Αντιόχειαν [E 323 1175]). Thus, the idea of spatial separation from Jerusalem is strongly implied by the context. This problem is so difficult that some scholars resort to conjectural emendation to determine the original reading. All in all, the reading εἰς should be preferred as that of the initial text, recognizing that there is a good measure of uncertainty with this solution. For additional discussion, see TCGNT 350-52.

Just having a quick look, it seems that Bible Hub doesn't display notes as they appear in printed Bibles. I'm not a regular user of Bible Hub & I wasn't aware. I suggest Bible Gateway. There the text is displayed with all the notes at hand just as they are in our printed Bibles. Even the NKJV has notes. Such a thing as extensive notes can't be expected from the KJV because of it's antiquity.

There is no point in Christians falsely accusing translators & scholars of deception when they have done the most honest thing & provided explanations where they have had difficulties.
It is not beneficial to the Body of Christ or to unbelievers we want to reach to keep up these attacks.

[QUOTE="Lucy-Pevensie, post: 4446667, member: 265160"

The translations footnote that verse appropriately. Perhaps not the KJV. I didn't look & I don't know as I hardly consult it.
Are you interested in textual criticism from a scholarly POV? Not all manuscripts agree.
[/QUOTE]
I'm interested in this Not all manuscripts agree. But why? Thanks for any input.

I use logos, and even the KJV has notes there, I guess it depends on what king you have, do you have a KJV study Bible? It will have notes. Others may not

I apologize if you think I’m arrogant. That’s not me at all. Confident in the Lord‘s promise to preserve his words? Absolutely!

I’ve come across unbelievers that think it’s a joke that we have more than one bible. We cannot somehow get our facts straight.