Your preferred Bible version

[KarenM]

I found it very interesting that when looking through a few profiles here, many of our members prefer the King James Version of the Bible. Can some of you explain why this is your choice?

Personally, I prefer the New Living Translation (which I use myself), or The Living Bible, which my daughter uses. I find both of these versions very easy to read, and with that ease comes understanding. I'd be curious to know why KJV is preferred by so many, as I find it difficult to understand at times. Does it have anything to do with the actual translation of newer versions, and the possible "loss" of the original meaning in that translation?

In Christ,
Karen

[BroRutledge]

Hello sister Karen.

I have no problem at all with with the translations that you speak of. The truth is there, because God did not allow his marvelous truth to be hidden from the sincere searching hearts who would seek after God while reading those translations.

The reason I prefer the KJV is because it is the one that I have always read. I love it, and I find it very easy to understand. Maybe that is because of the fact that I started out with KJV and fell in love with it just the way it is.

God bless
BroRutledge

[John Atkinson]

For me I prefer to use both the KJV and the Amplified Versions.

I believe the KJV to be the most accurate of the various translations, and to be honest, the language appeals to my poetic sense. The Amplified is not a "sit down and read awhile" type of Bible. It is useful for cross refrencing as it "Amplifies" many of the words in brackets to bring out the fuller meaning of the word.

Electronically my favorite is E-Sword (http://e-sword.net/) which is a free computer Bible with dozens of lexicons and plug-ins, as well as most translation (except the Amplified) it figures :rolleyes: It is better than the one I paid $265.00 for.

[nytxn1971]

I agree wholeheartedly, John, on the KJV info. If you compare verses in the KJV to some of the modern 'versions', they don't always match the KJV... some don't even come close... and some... say just the opposite. I do enjoy the Amplified, but I won't buy it, since the only publisher I know of that puts it out is Zondervan, and I won't buy anything from Zondervan after they pushed out the TNIV.

E-sword ROCKS! Very handy for posting scripture on the board, too. :)

[nightwatchman]

Have you heard of the (MICRO) bible? What a joke! Here's the Acts2:38 version of the so called micro bible.




Then Peter answered, ``Change your hearts and each one of you must be immersed by the authority of Jesus the Messiah,{24} so that your sins may be forgiven. Then you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

[nytxn1971]

Actually, Nightwatchman, It's not a joke...

Look up repent in the dictionary. It does mean to feel pain over and change your mind about something. Also, to be baptized DOES mean to be immersed. And the word translated in the KJV as 'name' there also means 'authority'.
G3686
ὄνομα
onoma
on'-om-ah
From a presumed derivative of the base of G1097 (compare G3685); a “name” (literally or figuratively), (authority, character): - called, (+ sur-) name (-d).

Where's the 'joke'? I don't get it...

[Sandy]

I don't see anything wrong with what that version says there either. Maybe I am missing something.

[Sandy]

Karen,

I honestly believe there is a lot of error in almost all of the newer Bible versions, except maybe the NKJV and the Amplified Bible. Although I would not recommend using the Amplified Bible for a study Bible simply because it does amplify someone elses opinion of what is being said. Although in the beginning I also used the Living Bible.

But I also believe without the Lord doing the revealing, we cannot have correct understanding to begin with, no matter what Bible you use.

But I prefer to have something I believe to be as close as possible to His Word though, without getting anothers thoughts or ideas involved in it too.

There also is a lot missing that seems to me to be important from the newer Bible versions as well.

But we still need God to do the revealing no matter what IMHO.

[nightwatchman]

Nytexan1971,





Do you believe a sinner, reading this verse in the micro bible would know to be baptized in JESUS name?:confused:

[nytxn1971]

If they get immersed in the authority of Jesus Christ, is that any different?

Any time Jesus said "In my name", you can easily substitute "In my authority" and it still loses none of it's power.

Mar 16:17-18 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name (AUTHORITY) shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; (18) They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

[pastorb]

Amen Brother Ron

[ddc101]

I like the KJV.But isn't it funny to hear someone used of God give a word of prophecy and say...Ye and Thou..and such.I have to wonder sometime if they think God speaks Old English...Me..he speaks to me in a way I can understand him.Sometimes he has to hit me over the head with something as I am slow sometimes to realize its God!!!!lv sis.c

[John Atkinson]

Ha HA!

I have wondered about that one for a while :D
God speaks 1611 English. I actually knew someone once who believed that WAS the original language spoken by Adam-Paul

[nightwatchman]

You gotta be kidding:D :D :D :D heheheheh

[ddc101]

Wow....:eek: that is way too funny.But truthfully I have heard the Thou art my child and I love thee so many times through messages.I suppose its possible God uses this to make sure the person hearing the prophecy can discern his thoughts from their own because if God has ever used you this way its can be an issue to discern "Is this God or is this me?" lv sis.c

[light]

nytxn1971
If they get immersed in the authority of Jesus Christ, is that any different?

Any time Jesus said "In my name", you can easily substitute "In my authority" and it still loses none of it's power.

Mar 16:17-18 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name (AUTHORITY) shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; (18) They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.


Im sorry his Name is not authority. There is NO SUBSTITUTE FOR THE NAME OF JESUS.

[Mat 1:21] And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

[Mat 1:25] And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

[Acts 10:43] To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

[Oldpreach]

There is soooo nothing wrong when someone gives an interp using some olde english wordage. Its beautiful. That is part of the reason the KJV remains the most loved version.

The problem i have with the New Living Translation is that its still the living , but just less paraphrased. It does read VERY well in some places , then you turn the page and think " how in the world did they put this in there after how good it jst was ??" They completely destroyed Duet 6:4 ... kinda hacked Col 2:9. 1 Tim 3:16 .... well , ahh...just forget that !~ I mean , they simply do a complete addition there.

The NIV , well now , this huge. Some of the Old test actually reads well , but the New test is simply a disaster , even if i did get oneness revelations while reading it. Its the version of the NT that i first read thru. It does well about keeping the essential salvation accounts good ...and some of the oneness verses. But OH BOY , look ouuuutttt when it comes to the blood of Jesus and many other things. If you read the NIV at all , you need to take a look at the folling link , if you have not already. I feel all saints that even touch the NIV for any study need to see this...its just flabersmahing....

http://www.av1611.org/niv.html

Well , just could go on and on you know>? One of my fav subjects , manuscript and version study.

[Oldpreach]

NYTXN :

"If they get immersed in the authority of Jesus Christ, is that any different?

Any time Jesus said "In my name", you can easily substitute "In my authority" and it still loses none of it's power. "

Uh oh...lets not get to disputing the basic truths again.

I hope you agree brother that Baptism was , and is to be administered in the Name of Jesus Christ ONLY ? And also that it IS essential?

[truemessianic]

I really prefer the KJV. TLB and NLT are really paraphrases of the Bible texts. I prefer to stay with something that has been proven over time to be the most reliable version.

[dllong]

What is a "Micro Bible"?

:confused:

[nightwatchman]

The MICRO BIBLE is more or less the cliff notes of the bible.

[pastorb]

I don't believe you guys are disbuting the symantax of Name and Authority when the most important word, name, authority or mention is Jesus.

[Faithchild]

I prefer the KJV or NKJV strictly from a preaching stand point. I sometimes read the NIV. The poetic language and phrasing of the two KJV's lends itself to expounding on the nuances of a text. I find the newer translations are more direct to the point. It's like comparing the descriptive Max Lucado's writing to my own direct style writing efforts. I get the meaning from the newer translations, but without the fun and romance of reading timeless phrasing that seems easier to memorize. Of course, it's difficult for the newer stuff to compete with the familiarity of the KJV. It's simply what we're used to.

[Adoniyah]

Nightwatchman:

I would not recommend anyone using the micro-bible translation for the very reason that you gave, in its rendition of Acts 2:38.

We are baptized in the name of Jesus for the "remission" of sins - not the forgivness of sins. Forgiveness of sins and the remission of sins are two separate matters. The Word has become perverted in their rendition of that verse.

Furthermore we are not baptized in the authority of anything. We are baptized in the Name of Jesus.

I do not like that version. Thank God for good ol' King James. If it was good enough for brother Paul and Sister Silas and their poor little orphan youn' uns, Timothy and Titus, when they were in Jail, it should be good enough for us also. :)

Sis

The reason that you have heard Elizabethen English in translation of Tongues and also in Prophecy is because the Word of God has been put in their Spirit by that style of English. Since the Word of God is in there in that style, when the Word is spoken as in Prophecy, it will also come out that way.

If the Word of God was placed in a person's spirit with the modern English, it would also come out that way too.

Now, I undersand that there is a lot of fakery also. I will note this one example.

"Yea, I say unto thee my children. I know that thou art having hard times with thy finances. Do not fret over these hard times, for I say unto thee, these times shall pass for I am with thee. Yea, I say unto thee, right now, I am having it pretty hard myself."
:)

[pastorb]

Amen Faithchild, I preach out of the King James too.

When I first got saved my friend bought me a Scofield.

Then I went to a life application Study bible

Then I went to a Ryre

I have a big Black heritage Family bible

I have Greek and Hebrew bible

Also an Exegeisis bible which is almost like the greek and Hebrew

But for the last 7 years I guess I have preaching out of a Thompson Chain {KJV}

I love going to the bible book store and reading the different bibles and books.

I love the word of God, Especially when it's not destorted or redefined taking away from the original intent of the word of God.

[Hnovilla]

His Name is Jesus!

The first Bible I ever bought was a KJV. I was in a bookstore and asked the Lord to show me which Bible I should have. When I finally got to the KJV, the Lord poured out a blessing upon me...! Tell you what, I tried the NKJV not too long ago, and I could not understand it! As for all the thee's and thou's, I always read them as you and them. No biggie.
Brother Villa

[bishop1]

We ask that all, attending the Assembly, use the KJV. This alone eliminates much confusion and misunderstanding when The WORD is read because everyone follows the reading of the WORD.
We ring a town crier type hand bell and cry out 'Hear Ye - Hear Ye - Hear The Word Of The Lord' at the begining of each and every service and then we stand and read a chapter or portion of the WORD in unison, Give Thanks, Give Praise, and Come Before His Presence With Singing.
:bow:
I am now on my # 4 Thompson Chain KJV Bible.

We also give a KJV bible to every Baptismal Candidate.

[nytxn1971]

Originally posted by light
Im sorry his Name is not authority. There is NO SUBSTITUTE FOR THE NAME OF JESUS.

[Mat 1:21] And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

[Mat 1:25] And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

[Acts 10:43] To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.


G3686
ὄνομα
onoma
on'-om-ah
From a presumed derivative of the base of G1097 (compare G3685); a “name” (literally or figuratively), (authority, character): - called, (+ sur-) name (-d).

[Whosoever Will]

nightwatchman and light,

I'm a KJV man myself, and I don't trust other translations. The omission of repentance, baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and the baptism of the Holy Ghost is a HUGE omission. My pastor was and is a KJV man also.

[light]

posted by nytxn1971

ὄνομα
onoma
on'-om-ah
From a presumed derivative of the base of G1097 (compare G3685); a “name” (literally or figuratively), (authority, character): -called, (+ sur-) name (-d).


Peter specified the words we are to use in baptism. It is forever settled and it is BOUND in heaven. It can not be changed. He BOUND baptism to be in THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST.

Unless you and I or any man, woman, or child are baptized in The Name of Jesus Christ they will go to the Lake of Fire. If a man is on his death bed and repents and is filled with the Holy Ghost and is not baptized in Jesus Name he will Go to the Lake of Fire.

you said:
Well, as for my stance on baptism... I'm seeing things a little differently lately...

There's too much that has happened in the Old Testament surrounding the immersion of people.

The flood is an anti-type of baptism. The flood killed, but baptism 'brings life'.
The Israelites couldn't leave Egypt without being baptized into the Red Sea. They couldn't reach the Promised Land without being baptized into the Jordan river (I also see that baptism as the Holy Ghost baptism, since the Holy Ghost IS the promised land - Kingdom of God). There are others, but I'm starting to think differently about some things...

I still don't think God would shut someone out if there was just absolutely no way for them to get baptized (deathbed conversions, etc.) because I've seen some things that just cannot be explained by the typical apostolic doctrine.
_________________
Ron (nytxn)


Acts 2: 38 is a MUST for Salvation. No if and's or butt's. It is the doctrine of Jesus Christ.

[Hnovilla]

His Name is Jesus!

Brother nytxn: the NAME, is some circles means 'authority'. Where I was born, it means 'Savior'.
Yah = the ONE who saves weh = who WILL DO it
Yah = the ONE who saves shua = who HAS performed it

I would much rather have THAT translation, beloved.

Brother Villa

[nytxn1971]

Brother Villa (and everyoone else for that matter who has jumped on me)... I never said it was the BEST translation. I was making a point that even in that misconstrued, not-so-reliable 'version', there is truth.

When you attack someone without thinking things through, you look foolish.

[mfblume]

My thoughts on the original question may be a repeat as I did not check out all the responses.

But, the KJV is translated from the TEXTUS RECEPTUS. It is an entirely different strain of text in contrast with the entirety of all other modern translations, excepting the NKJV or the MKJV, of course.

The other strain is Alexandrian and was upheld by people notorious for thinking there really is no good copy of the Bible anywhere on earth due to very low chances of it being intact and unadulterated through the centuries. This is the SAME thinking that rules in all schools of higher learning and University level Theology. All of them!

They treat the Bible like any old ancient book that was subject to corruption by man, and tehrefore they hold their "JESUS SEMINARS" debating what is most likely not genuine in the Bible. THAT is the philosophy behind the translators of ALL the modern versions, excepting the EXCEEDINGLY VERY FEW that are Textus Receptus oriented.

In other words, the men who worked on the majority of new translations had an undergirding belief that there really is not intact word of God today. And THAT is the motivation that caused them to work with what they did -- Catholic manuscripts.

When you read the newer versions' footnotes, and see reference to "the best manuscripts do not say this..." or "the two oldest manuscripts do not say this..." they are referring to the CODEX VATICANUS and CODEX SINAITICUS, Catholic manuscripts from the faithless Alexandrian strain.

I say "faithless" because none of these folks believed God preserved His Word. So they handled it like any other book. On the other hand, the Textus receptus people's philosophy, before and after the actual KJV in english, has always been taht God has preserved His word using divine providence, despite the people He used, and we should therefore not DARE to change or add or remove from it.

So, as you can see, its not a matter of which version is easier to read. Its a matter of whether you want to trust a version contrived by people who do not believe God's Word even exists today in intact form, not corrupted, or not.

Check out THE KING JAMES VERSION DEFENDED by Edward F. Hills, for VERY enlightening thoughst along this line!

[Blest]

I prefer the KJV. Here is why:

Years ago a tract was circulating on the KJV and an XXX Bible (sorry, I don't want to make a mistake about which version I think it was). In the tract, it listed numerous places that the name of Jesus or the blood of Jesus was removed from the XXX Bible. I looked up each one of them in my KJV and the other version to verify the tract. That was convincing.

Some Bibles are a paraphrase while others are a translation . To guard against someone else's opinion, it would seem that a translation would be more accurate than a paraphrase.

Also, I was taught that the KJV was translated by a group of 40 who had to agree on the translation.

About a year ago, a sister gave me a list of scriptural errors that someone found in the NIV:
Matthew 17:21 - not there
Matthew 18:11 - not there
Matthew 23:14 - not there
Luke 2:33 - missing 'diety of Christ'
Mark 9:44 - not there
Mark 1:2 - Mal. wrote, not Isaiah
Col. 1:13-14 - skipped 'through his blood'

Blest

[Nathan]

MFBlume,

Do you believe that Matthew 28:19 was changed, an idea that is being more readily accepted by even some trinitarian scholars?

Do you believe that 1 John 5 contains an interpolation, and idea evidenced by Eusibius himself?

Do you believe that the Apocrypha is God's Word? After all, it was included in the original KJV.

And further, are you one of the paranoid conspiratists who believe that (despite the advancement in all linguistic, scientific, medical, and technological fields) biblical scholarship is declining and there is no one left who honestly wants the truth of God's Word?

The KJV is one of the greatest hindrances to biblical clarity extant today, and people need to realize that a Bible written by Catholic translators (as opposed to today's translations, which are rendered by committees of wildly diversified faiths to preserve objectivity) for an audience that spoke a language that has undergone 400 years of etymological evolution, a Bible filled with archaic words and idioms, recognized errors, and admitted interpolations -- they need to realize that that Bible needs to be retired. :)

When I read the KJV, I find it boring, lifeless, and not "on the level." I don't find it relevant. When I read other translations, I feel like the words are alive, they are written just to me, they are relevant, and they are powerful. That's just me, but I can't ignore it.

All great traditions are fought for violently. The KJV is one of them -- and it is certainly one of the last great bastions of Catholic tradition and theology pervading the apostolic church today.

Yes, I'm aware that newer translations do not include certain texts. I'm not here to get into textual criticism or a discussion of manuscript families, but I will say that translations such as the NIV are open about what they omit and why. It's not as if they're trying to "slip it past you."

One big gripe KJV-onlylists have is the newer versions' treatment of "hell." The fact is that if the KJV ever botched up anything, it botched up our concept of hell.

The KJV takes 4 unique words -- sheol, hades, gehenna, and tartaroos -- and melts them into one "hell" (though the translators did have enough sense to translate "sheol" as "grave" many times in the OT). The newer versions are much better about distinguishing these very unique places and helping us understand what Scripture truly teaches about hell.

As far as undermining the deity of Christ, in my study out of the NIV and Recovery Version (my two favorite "reading" versions, my favorite "study" versions are the ALT, the LITV, and the Recovery Version), I can clearly see the deity of Christ. I can clearly see that He is the only savior and that His blood remits sin. I can clearly see the doctrines of imputed righteousness, justification by faith, sinless birth and complete atonement -- the cornerstones of Christian theology.

I've rambled, so I'll stop. :) God bless!

[Sandy]

Nathan,

The problem is the NIV and translations like it, do take away a lot from the Word which is what bothers me. I don't really know about the other versions you mentioned.

And to be honest, I have no idea whether Mt. 28:19 was changed. But neither do I have a problem with it just the way it is written either, as Jesus does manifest Himself as all three. And when we are drawn to repentance, the manifestation of the Father is involved according to John 6:65, amongst other scriptures. And when we are baptized into Christ, the manifestation of the Son is involved in that baptism according to Acts 2:38 along with many other scriptures as well. And also, when we are baptized in the Holy Ghost, the manifestation of the Holy Ghost is involved in that baptism, according to Acts 1:5 as well as many others scripture too. And since this is basically what the Lord has shown me about that scripture, I really have no problem whatsoever with it. Because I don't see it as concerning one baptism, but direction in fulfilling all of what Acts 2:38 tells us to fulfil to begin. Which is also what I tell Trinitarians today too. And so far I have received no disagreement from them about it either.

[Nathan]

Sandy,

I can agree with you on Matthew 28:19 -- I don't see much of a problem with it, either.

I'm just pointing out that the KJV is far from the literary gem some make it out to be.

I read some stats in Christianity Today, and there has been a steady shift of pastors and teachers from the KJV to newer versions, something I'm very glad of. The KJV just isn't relevant anymore ....

And yes, as I said, the newer translations do not have everything the KJV does. It's because they're based off the Critical Text family of NT manuscripts, a different set than that from which the Textus Receptus (basis for the KJV) was derived. It has nothing to do with them just picking out things to remove.

And again, I think the Bible is clear enough -- even the NIV -- to teach you what you need to know about fundamental truths of Christianity -- in modern language at that! :)

[mfblume]

Nathan you asked,

"Do you believe that Matthew 28:19 was changed, an idea that is being more readily accepted by even some trinitarian scholars?"

No.

"Do you believe that 1 John 5 contains an interpolation, and idea evidenced by Eusibius himself?" No.

"Do you believe that the Apocrypha is God's Word? After all, it was included in the original KJV."

No.

I am just saying the philosophy behind all new translations is a bad one that proposes there really is no actual word of God today. So they contrive their seminars to debate, using natural abilities, to determine what must be genuine in the texts, and what is an interpollation.

"And further, are you one of the paranoid conspiratists who believe that (despite the advancement in all linguistic, scientific, medical, and technological fields) biblical scholarship is declining and there is no one left who honestly wants the truth of God's Word?"

No.

I believe that if someone would come along and make an easy-to-read english version from the textus receptus, things would be a whole lot better than having to resort to the Alexandrian strain of texts pushed by the people who propose there is no real word of God today.

Take care!

[Nathan]

Bro. Blume,

I disagree, but I respect your stance because it is much more intelligent than what we typically see amidst the KJV-only camp.

I'm curious ... with all the translations extant today, not one of them is based on the General Text family or Textus Receptus?

(Btw, what do you think about the fact that the TR is based on a rushed Greek manuscript based largely on the work of a Latin translation by a Catholic, Jerome?)

I did want to say that I'd been to your website some time back and enjoyed it. Keep up the good work.

[accurate]

I'm new here and really like the post. Someone wrote about "in the name of" means "in the authority of", I don't see a problem with that, but I would like to know what you think about this scripture. ->

Matthew 24:5 _"For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many."

Does this mean deceivers will come "in the authority of"? Thanks for any information.

[nightwatchman]

Here's a good ONENESS BIBLIOLOGY site.PRESS HERE (http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/index.htm#bibliology)

[Nathan]

accurate,

Yes, it does.

"Christ" is not the last name of Jesus, it is a title meaning "anointed one."

Many will come and claim that they are the Messiah, the Son of God, the Christ, etc.

Similarly, if you commit a crime and a pursuing officer tells you, "stop in the name of the law," he isn't talking about a literal name, he's talking about the authority behind that name (or entity).

[John Atkinson]

Nathan,
I am curious. Do you beleive it it absolutely essential to be baptized in the name. i.e. the name Jesus is spoken, not some vague authority of and recieve the Holy Ghost in order to be saved?

If baptism is for the remission of sins, where no baptism is, no sins are remitted.

I want to note that I do ban people from this forum, and quickly, for promoting or espousing or even mentioning any salvation outside of strict and literal observance to Acts 2:38.

This forum is for Apostolics, and Apostolics are quite literal and absolute when it comes to Acts 2:38. If anyone posting here doesn't fit there, it would be best if you found a more liberal forum to post in. because we who run this (BroRutledge, Myself) don't want you here if you are going to post veiwpoints contrary to fundamental Apostolic Doctrine of Salvation.

I am not trying to be mean or manifest a lack of love, we do love everyone, even the people we have to ban to protect the integrity of this board. By letting people who do not believe the essentiality of Jesus name spoken baptism to post their veiwpoint here, we defeat the original vision of the Cafe as being an Apostolics Only discussion board. The common ground for this community is Acts 2:38 taken literally. It is, and will remain so.

There is no need to PM me for clarification. I just want to make sure that we are on the same page, because I immediately and irrovocably ban people who post things like:

we don't have to speak the name of Jesus in baptism, and the triune formula is good enough, because it is talking about the authority of....

Thus, anyone wants to stay here and enjoy this Good News Cafe, Stay far far away from this authority is good enough and the NAME doesn't have to be spoken jazz.

Sincerely, your not even close to being a liberal board admin.

[John Atkinson]

BTW, to be on topic, I think if God isn't big enough to preserve his word, then he isn't big enough to be God.

Millions of Holy Ghost filled Apostolic KJV dedicated folks can't be far from wrong. If they were the Spirit that leads and guides us would let us know, ya think?

A whole bunch of folks are going to intellectualize and reason themselves into a devils burning inferno, where what they need to do is pray pray pray.

I still like the Amplified and the LITV as well for cross checking. The biggest downer about e-sword is no Amplified. The Interlinear I have is very close to the LITV.

I am not adept enough at textual criticism to go to deep with this. For me personally if the translation falls to the right of the kjv on the arrow I stay away from it.

[mfblume]

Nathan,

Hi again!

I studied out the philosophy behind the two strains of texts, the liberal critical text and the textus receptus. The philosophy behind these is what we need to home in on.

The fact is that all the folks with the bucks and printing presses out there in the church world are the liberal theologians who tout in our universities that God did not preserve His word. They contend there is no real word of God. And that is why the newer versions are all liberal.

I have some great info on this and will take some time soon and post it. Its' eye-opening. The spirit of thing is always the real deal.

[ddc101]

I vote with Bro.Blume and Bro.Atkinson,
I like the KJV because its translated from Textus Receptus which is a majority text.
I am interested in what you all think of a Dakes Annotated Study Bible? I don't own one but have been considering.I do currently use Thompson Chain Reference KJV to teach out of.I have no problem with the old english as I am well versed in college english and love literature.Also I think its much easier to teach from.lv sis.c

[mfblume]

The only thing about Dake's is that it puts in a thought on the trinity every single place a trinitarian mind can possibly conceive where it might be the least bit implied. For example, the reference to HOLY HOLY HOLY in Isaiah 6 is indicated by Dake to refer to the triinity. If you can ignore all the trinitarian study notes, you may enjoy it.

[Mike Newport]

The one written by men inspired by God.

[ronb]

I prefer KJV. It has the closest rendering to the original Greek & hebrew, and I feel it
is the version that brings out the little nuances of scripture. It was the Bible that I read, being led by someone as I asked question after question. It is the version that God speaks to me out of.
I have been in service when the man of God asks us all to read a certain piece of scripture. Even though he may be taking the text one way (right on point), God will
all of a sudden show me something, or sort of whisper to me, why was that done, or
why is that? It will cause me to look into & research why that is.
I wiil then look into other versions to see how they render thier version.
Personally I dislike (not Apostolic) these other preachers using different versions of
text that twist the whole meaning of scripture, that I get disgusted and turn off the radio programs, before I get into an argument with The radio.
Ronb

[daisy lover]

I prefer the truth.

[MawMaw]

Was just lookin through some of the archives and came across this thread.....someone just this week had sent me an email with a link.... showing the discrepencies in the different "versions" of the Bible. Here's a few just out of the NIV version......

The NIV "TAKETH AWAY" 64,576 words!
Don't look for the "mercyseat" in the NIV - GONE!
Don't look for "Jehovah" in the NIV - GONE!
Don't look for the "Godhead" in the NIV - GONE!
The NIV removes wonderful Bible "terms" like remission, regeneration, impute, propitiation, new testament and many others!

Despite God's clear warnings about "taking away" from His words - the NIV removes 64,576 words! Over 8 percent of God's word is "TAKETH AWAY"!
That equals REMOVING the books of Ruth, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Lamentations, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Malachi, Colossians, I Thessalonians, II Thessalonians, I Timothy, II Timothy, Titus, Philemon, James, I Peter, II Peter, I John, II John, III John, Jude and more - COMBINED!!! The equivalence of ripping out OVER 30 BOOKS of the Bible!
In case you think it's insignificant words like "thee" and "thou"? The NIV removes major portions of at least 147 verses!
Here's a small (very small) sampling of words removed in the NIV! Matt. 6:13, "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen."
Matt. 15:8, "This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth"
Matt. 19:9, "and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery."
Matt. 20:7, "and whatsoever is right, that shall ye receive."
Matt. 20:16, "for many be called, but few chosen."
Matt. 20:22, "and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with"
Matt. 25:13, "wherein the Son of Man cometh."
Matt. 27:35, "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet They parted my garments among them and upon my vesture did they cast lots"
Mark 6:11, "Verily I say unto you, it shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city."
Mark 10:21, "take up the cross."
Luke 1:28, "blessed art thou among women"
Luke 4:4, "but by every word of God"
Luke 4:8, "get thee behind me Satan"
Luke 4:18, "he hath sent me to heal the broken hearted"
Luke 11:2-4, "Our ... which art in ... Thy will be done, as in heaven so in earth... but deliver us from evil"
John 1:27, "is preferred before me"
John 3:13, "which is in heaven"
John 3:15, "should not perish"
John 11:41, "from the place where the dead was laid"
John 16:16, "because I go to the Father"
Acts 10:6, "he shall tell thee what thou oughtest to do"
Acts 15:18, "Known unto God are all his works"
Acts 20:24, "But none of these things move me"
Acts 23:9, "let us not fight against God"
Rom. 8:1, "who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit"
Rom. 13:9, "Thou shalt not bear false witness"
I Cor. 6:20, "and in your spirit which are God's"
I Cor. 11:24; "Take eat... broken"
II Cor. 10:4, "but mighty through God"
Gal. 3:1, "that you should not obey the truth"
Eph. 5:30, "of his flesh, and of his bones"
Phil. 3:16, "let us mind the same thing"
I Tim. 6:5, "from such wthdraw thyself"
Heb. 7:21, "after the order of Melchisedec"
I Pet. 1:22, "through the Spirit"
I Pet. 4:14, "on their part he is evil spoken of, but on your part he is glorified"
I John 4:3, "Christ is come in the flesh"
I John 5:13, "and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God"
Rev. 1:11, "I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last"
Rev. 5:14, "him that liveth for ever and ever"
Rev. 14:5, "before the throne of God"
Rev. 21:24, "of them which are saved"

Anyway....I'm KJV all the way. :) It's really not hard to understand.

[Bartholomew]

To some the NIV takes away, to others the KJV adds to it.
It all depends on what Manuscript they use for translation. Its not that the NIV takes away, those words are just not in the original manuscripts they base their translation on.

See that email link you received compare the NIV with the KJV, like the KJV is the standard of truth and all other translations have to be compared with it. BIG mistake. That article is nothing but a bunch of propaganda hogwash that promotes this evil doctrine of KJV-onlyism.

In fact there are many passages that portrey the Deity of our Lord Jesus in a much clearer way than the KJV. For instance Romans 9:5 and titus 2:13, from the top of my head. The NIV reads them a lot more powerfull than the KJV.
The NIV takes nothing away, its a big lie.

[Sister Alvear]

The KJ is the one I use in churches but I have several that I read at home.

[unityofpurpose]

I am a KJV with Thompson's chained reference kind of guy.

I hope someone can clarify but I was told that there is a country who's language it is impossible or very difficult to translate the scriptures.

Can't remember when, but it was on a KJV ONLY debate somewhere.

[KathiDG]

I'm die hard KJV after the preaching I heard last week Wednesday....talked about the Textus Recepticus (spelling?? lol) and everything.....

Although, I've heard the "Street Bible" "and "Brand New Bible" (I think it's called??) are pretty good for a laugh....

[sherr32]

I personally like The Message Bible. Puts it in todays language

[W. J. Maria]

To some the NIV takes away, to others the KJV adds to it.
It all depends on what Manuscript they use for translation. Its not that the NIV takes away, those words are just not in the original manuscripts they base their translation on.

See that email link you received compare the NIV with the KJV, like the KJV is the standard of truth and all other translations have to be compared with it. BIG mistake. That article is nothing but a bunch of propaganda hogwash that promotes this evil doctrine of KJV-onlyism.

In fact there are many passages that portrey the Deity of our Lord Jesus in a much clearer way than the KJV. For instance Romans 9:5 and titus 2:13, from the top of my head. The NIV reads them a lot more powerfull than the KJV.
The NIV takes nothing away, its a big lie.

Excellent points, Bartholomew. There is nothing wrong with using or liking the KJV, but saying that other translations, based on older manuscripts that had not yet been discovered when the KJV was translated, are wrong (or evil) is just very very misguided.

In his book, The Text of the New Testament (1992:99-100), the New Testament Greek scholar Bruce Metzger points out that Erasmus could not always find complete manuscripts of Greek to put together the Greek text which we call the Textus Receptus; what he did then is look at the Catholic Vulgate (a Latin translation from ca. 382 A.D.) and translate Latin portions that appeared to be missing in the Greek manuscripts back into Greek, in order to complete the Greek text. And then that resulting Greek text (the Textus Receptus) was translated (quite beautifully) into 1611 English! And so we got the KJV!

Modern New Testament scholars would never think of doing such a thing, but Erasmus was quite desperate in getting a complete Greek text!

So thank the Catholics for their unwitting contributions to the KJV!

[Bartholomew]

Excellent points, Bartholomew. There is nothing wrong with using or liking the KJV, but saying that other translations, based on older manuscripts that had not yet been discovered when the KJV was translated, are wrong (or evil) is just very very misguided.

In his book, The Text of the New Testament (1992:99-100), the New Testament Greek scholar Bruce Metzger points out that Erasmus could not always find complete manuscripts of Greek to put together the Greek text which we call the Textus Receptus; what he did then is look at the Catholic Vulgate (a Latin translation from ca. 382 A.D.) and translate Latin portions that appeared to be missing in the Greek manuscripts back into Greek, in order to complete the Greek text. And then that resulting Greek text (the Textus Receptus) was translated (quite beautifully) into 1611 English! And so we got the KJV!

Modern New Testament scholars would never think of doing such a thing, but Erasmus was quite desperate in getting a complete Greek text!

So thank the Catholics for their unwitting contributions to the KJV!

You are right, if you investigate and see how Erasmus compiled his own Textus receptus, you will think twice before you say I am a die hard KJV fan. If you only read the KJV, you will miss out on so much hidden truth in there. the following is from wikipedia:

Erasmus' first edition of the Greek New Testament was prepared in haste, because his publisher Johann Froben wished to beat into print the Greek New Testament being prepared in Spain as part of the great Complutensian Polyglot Bible project. Typographical errors attributed to the rush to complete the work abounded in the published text. Erasmus also lacked a complete copy of the book of Revelation and was forced to translate the last six verses back into Greek from the Latin Vulgate in order to finish his edition. Erasmus adjusted the text in many places to correspond with readings found in the Vulgate, or as quoted in the Church Fathers; and consequently, although the Textus Receptus is classified by scholars as a late Byzantine text, it differs in nearly two thousand readings from standard form of that text-type; as represented by the "Majority Text" of Hodges and Farstad (Wallace 1989). The edition was a sell-out commercial success; and was reprinted in 1519, with most - though not all - the typographical errors corrected.
Erasmus had been studying Greek New Testament manuscripts for many years, in the Netherlands, France, England and Switzerland, noting their many variants; but he only had six Greek manuscripts immediately accessible to him in Basel. They all dated from the 12th Century or later, and only one came from outside the mainstream Byzantine tradition. Consequently most modern scholars consider his text to be of dubious quality[1]
With the third edition of Erasmus' Greek text (1522) the Comma Johanneum(J John 5:7) was included, because a single 16th-century Greek manuscript had subsequently been found to contain it, though Erasmus had expressed doubt as to the authenticity of the passage in his Annotations. Popular demand for Greek New Testaments led to a flurry of further authorized and unauthorized editions in the early sixteenth century; almost all of which were based on Erasmus's work and incorporated his particular readings, although typically also making a number of minor changes of their own.

Wow, what a mess is this Textus Receptus. By reading the above, I don't even think I can trust a KJV bible anymore. All the adding and changing and errors and backtranslating from latin into greek, adjusting the text to suit the qoutes of early church fathers!!!!!!. You wonder what is left from the originals. And not to mention he had only 6 manuscripts not earlier than the 12 centhury at this disposal. The 12the century is a loooong way from the originals.

also from wikipedia:
No school of textual scholarship now continues to defend the superiority of the Textus Receptus; although this position does still find adherents amongst Protestant groups hostile to the whole discipline of text criticism - as applied to scripture - and suspicious of any departure from Reformation traditions.

Those protestant groups must be the die hard KJV -only people found also in our organisation. Very sad to see how people can hold on to those ignorant traditions.

Also note that the KJV bible you have is not a 1611 edition. But a AV from 1769

[Kuppa Kippah]

I like my little JPS bible.

[Crazy4Jesus]

I like KJV .. everyone else in my family prefers the NKJV. Thompson Chain for reference, along with a couple of online sites that are good for study purposes. www.blueletterbible.org (http://www.blueletterbible.org) and www.biblegateway.com (http://www.biblegateway.com)

Blessings to all,
C4J

[Brother Price]

I personally have three versions I like...

The KJV, for the historical and traditional use as well as accuracy to the original scrolls.

The NKJV, for the same reason, but in a more modern language.

Finally, the Amplified. That is an awesome study tool. I want to buy a physical copy, but the one I have with E-Sword right now is do.

[Sister Alvear]

I love to compare different Bibles...

[Bro.Sam]

Have you heard of the (MICRO) bible? What a joke! Here's the Acts2:38 version of the so called micro bible.




Then Peter answered, ``Change your hearts and each one of you must be immersed by the authority of Jesus the Messiah,{24} so that your sins may be forgiven. Then you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

Doesn't that pretty much say the same thing as Acts 2:38 in the KJV?

I haven't heard of the MICRO bible before. Is it a printed version or an online version?