• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is King James bible THE best bible? Why?

Protester

Active Member
its NKJV for me it's easier to read and understand, thats the only reason..

Well, read the marginal notes! I would suggest that you might pick up a MacArthur NKJV Study Bible, to help you over what you don't understand. Now, the NKJV did remove some of the more blatant errors of the KJV like not calling Passover, Easter, and it doesn't refer to the Holy Spirit as an inanimate object.:thud:RESTATING THE OBVIOUS ABOUT BIBLE TRANSLATIONS So, the NKJV is a good Bible, if you remember to check the center column!
 

e.r.m.

Church of Christ
Basically that question. I don´t really consider myself much of a christian today, but I do have curiosity on which is the bible version considered to be the most accurate one and I´ve heard of this name.

If it is the most accurate, why? if you think it´s not, why?

There's a lot to be said about poetry and eloquence, of which KJV is a master and this quality attracts many people. A lot of what you heard that KJV is the best, is based on tradition. One of those things that people hear growing up and never question, similar to how myths get passed along (e.g.-we only use 10% of our brains, few people think to question the statement's validity, but it's been proven hogwash). When you ask people why they believe KJV is "God's authorized version", they cannot give a straight answer. I believe KJV is a good version, along with others. I tend to the like the literately accurate as PWfaith was explaining, my favorite is the NASB, but I read the NIV as well. I have found errors in both versions, but more in the NIV. In their quest to explain the meaning, they sacrifice a few important truths (mostly by adding things the Bible doesn't say). But the NIV is still pretty good. I have recently heard that the Holman Bible is currently the most accurately translated.
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
Comparisons...yes of course...

When I was younger sitting in a pew...I noticed the age of book held by someone sitting next to me.
He noticed my attention and quietly showed me the text.

The book was written in "English", but of dialect long forgotten.
He carried the book to hear sermon and compare as the priest called book and verse reference.

Then I bought some copies of bible from various sources.

Over the years I find catch phrase have been altered or omitted.
Some bibles strike the book titles and then rewrite the text....heavily.
Other copies, obviously have agendas, but without cross referencing your study, you may never realize such things happen.

I use King James, 1960 version.
Some 'old English'...some catch phrases to research....
but a better text than many others.
 

obi one

Member
Basically that question. I don´t really consider myself much of a christian today, but I do have curiosity on which is the bible version considered to be the most accurate one and I´ve heard of this name.

If it is the most accurate, why? if you think it´s not, why?

If you look in the front of the King James bible, I think you will find that it was written for the Glory of King James. That seems to be a questionable starting point.

As for an interesting bible, which was translated from the original Aramaic text, the language used by Yeshua, try the Eastern, Aramaic bible. The differences between the Eastern and Western versions are very interesting an can be informative.

If you simply want a good study bible, then try the New American Standard Bible, Reference edition. It has reference notations to relevent material in other parts of the bible. It will help you tie the bible together.

Keep in mind that portions of the bible are the "Word of God", and therefore are by the Spirit of Revelation, and therefore understood only through that same spirit. Just as Yeshua prayed and fasted, so must you in order to receive insight. Also keep in mind that the bible was was assembled by man, and that according to Yeshua, the tares and the good seed will be intermingled. You have to winnow the wheat to get out the chaff.
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
It is the manual for men on how God works.
Huh! Tony a founder of a Bible Bulletin board agrees with my title! Question - What is the basic theme of Scripture? It's always nice to have a third party endorsement.

According to Jesus, the basic theme of his preaching and teaching was:
God's kingdom.
-Luke 4v43.

Jesus taught us to pray "thy kingdom come" in connection to God's will or purpose being done right here on earth as it is in heaven.
In other words, the same good conditions that exist in heaven should come to exist on earth.
Jesus, as king of God's kingdom, can and will fulfill the words to his model prayer.
-Luke 19 vs11-15

Before Jesus ushers in Peace on Earth toward men of goodwill,
Jesus said first the global 'good news of God's kingdom' would be proclaimed on an international scale.- Matt 24v14.

Daniel chapter two describes a rise and fall of governmental kingdoms.
Verse 44 concludes that it is God's kingdom that will replace all earth's kingdom's opposing God's kingdom.

Of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end...and upon his kingdom....henceforth forever....Isaiah 9v7; Psalm 72v8

So, a basic theme permeating the whole Bible if the fulfillment of God's purpose for earth by means of his Kingdom in the hands of Christ Jesus as the promised 'seed' of Genesis [3v15; 12v3;22v18; Rev 22v2]

God's grand purpose to be carried out is by means of his kingdom is apparent:
see: Rev. 11v15; 12vs1-12,17; 19vs11-16; 20vs1-3, 7-10; 21vs4,5; 22vs3-5
 

Protester

Active Member
If you look in the front of the King James bible, I think you will find that it was written for the Glory of King James. That seems to be a questionable starting point.

As for an interesting bible, which was translated from the original Aramaic text, the language used by Yeshua, try the Eastern, Aramaic bible. The differences between the Eastern and Western versions are very interesting an can be informative.

If you simply want a good study bible, then try the New American Standard Bible, Reference edition. It has reference notations to relevent material in other parts of the bible. It will help you tie the bible together.

Keep in mind that portions of the bible are the "Word of God", and therefore are by the Spirit of Revelation, and therefore understood only through that same spirit. Just as Yeshua prayed and fasted, so must you in order to receive insight. Also keep in mind that the bible was was assembled by man, and that according to Yeshua, the tares and the good seed will be intermingled. You have to winnow the wheat to get out the chaff.

I do have some disagreements in the last paragraph, however. Conservative Christians consider the entire Bible the Word of God, please see Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.

You should be able to get the essence of God's Word just by using a good reference Bible, if you are not near a good conservative Bible preaching, teaching church I would suggest you get a Amazon.com: macarthur study bible nasb: Books or Or one of the Amazon.com: The Ryrie NAS Study Bible Hardback Red Letter (9780802489203): Charles C. Ryrie: Books Either of these should be of great help in studying The Word.


2 Timothy

15 and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
17 that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.
---Scripture Quotations Taken from the NASB
 

jtartar

Well-Known Member
I personally disagree that the NWT is an accurate or good literal translation
Jehovah's Witness Bible Translation Examined

pwfaith,
I don't blaim anyone from claiming the New World Translation is not a good one.
What that actually shows is; a lack of an accurate understanding of the Complete Holy Bible, both Hebrew and Greek.
You know, I hope that there are many words in Hebrew and Greek that can be accurately translated more than one way. It is left up to the translator to know the right translation to use at each time this problem arises. That cannot be done unless a translator knows the understanding of the Purpose of God, which very, very few understand. Some translations put varient scriptures in between the different books.
I have put many thousands of hours studying the NWT. Many word that are used are strange to the readers of other translations. The changes in the words were an attempt to help everyone to better underatand God's message to all mankind.
Many of the scriptures you, and others have cited, if they were changed to the way you want, they would then make the Bible disagree with itself. There is a term called Intertextuality, which means that EVERY SCRIPTURE in the Bible is related to other scripture, the entire Bible is harmonious. The NWT is an attempt to harmonize the scriptures so that a person can understand God's message without so much time looking up references. If you look up all references to any scripture that sounds different in the NWT, you will find that it agrees with all other scripture.
The only thing I do not like about the NWT is: it has added too many words to the actual text, which does not make it inaccurate, but to my mind it make the NWT, not a translation at all, but a commentary on the Bible.
 

jtartar

Well-Known Member
Basically that question. I don´t really consider myself much of a christian today, but I do have curiosity on which is the bible version considered to be the most accurate one and I´ve heard of this name.

If it is the most accurate, why? if you think it´s not, why?

Me Myself,
What is it that makes one translation better than another??? To me it is being able to see the truth of God's word in the text, without looking up a myriad of references.
This is the biggest problem in reading the KJV. As in all Bibles, it has the truth, but the wording makes it very difficult to understand exactly what is said. If you follow all the references in the KJV, you will find the truth. The fact is ALL Bibles tell the truth, God Himself has promised that He will protect His word, Ps 12:6,7. If God allowed His Bible to become adulterated, how could He judge the World, Rom 3:5.
Just like English, Hebrew and Greek have many words that mean different things. If a translator does not know what God's purpose is, he can translate a word wrong, even though it technicly is translated correct, which gives the reader the wrong understanding. Sometimes there is what is called Aubergine, a loss in translation, or misunderstanding of Cultural Exoressions. These problems leave a reader with much research to get the correct understanding that the original writers meant the reader to have.
If you take into consideration these problems, the KJV of the Bible is probably the worse translation to read for correct understanding.
According to Bible scholars there are well over 20,000 errors in the KJV. These are minor, and have almost nothing to do with the Bibles message to men. These errors a almost all to do with numbers, and names, of which many people had several different names in olden times, because of being in an area having many different languages.
There is no other Bible that tells the truth in the text, without a lot of research, as the New World Translation of the Scriptures. I know thaere are many critics of the NWT, but if you research any scripture that seems different that the familiar words found in some Bibles, you will invaribly find that the translation is accurate. Here is something very important to remember; any translation MUST be HARMONIOUS throughout. Some translators cause the Bible to contradict in some places, because they do not take into account what other scriptures say. Intertextuality is true.
It is true that Bible translators do not understand the message of the Bible, on the most part, they just understand what words mean, which may not give the proper message, if the translation is not in complete harmony with all other scriptures in the Whole Bible, Hebrew and Greek, 1Thess 2:13, 2Tim 3:16,17, 2Pet 1:20,21. Remember, if words are translated inaccurately, they are no longer God's word, 1Pet 1:25, John 17:17.
The NEW WORLD TRANSLATION of the Holy Scriptures is BY FAR the most accurate as far as telling the message to men from the Almighty God, whose Proper name and Personal name is Jehovah.
 

Protester

Active Member
Jtartar

I would point out to you that many groups disagree a few about the NWT. Some biblical experts were not very happy how they were referred to as being contributors to the NWT, Dr. Mantey's Letter to the Watch Tower Society Anyway, just as a matter of reference so that people can see what the Southern Baptist convention thinks of the NWT,
The Jehovah’s Witnesses’ New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures – Part 1

The New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses--Part 4


The most famous, (infamous?) disagreement about a translation of a verse comes with,...John 1:1.
http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/bible-for-dummies/BD0805W3.htm
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
Why the disagreement about John 1v1 ?

Jesus was in the beginning.
But, Jesus was Not before the beginning as God was before the beginning.
That is because Revelation [3v14] says Jesus is the beginning of the creation by God.
God is from everlasting [Psalm 90v2] so God is Un-created being Creator.
God had No beginning whereas Jesus had a beginning.
Since Jesus was God's first creation then Jesus as the Word was 'with' God.
That is why God could say 'Let US make...' at Genesis [1v26] because God was addressing his first creation through whom all things came into existence.

The same Greek grammar rule applies at both Acts 28v6 B as at John 1v1.
Yet the letter 'a' is added at one verse and omitted at the other.
So, we are dealing more with Greek grammar than doctrine.
That is also true of John 10v33. There is no letter 'a' there, but in verse 36 it is plain that the Jews accused Jesus of blasphemy because Jesus said that he is the Son of God.
The Jews were not accusing Jesus of Jesus calling himself God, but God's Son.
 

pwfaith

Active Member
Why the disagreement about John 1v1 ?

I would suggest Jesus is God! - John 1:1

This article breaks it down a bit more but there is much dispute over this verse in that it was translated "a god" rather than just "God". It completely changes what is being said.

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
—New American Standard
“In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.”
—New World Translation

Anyway, this article is good.
 

SaintAugustine

At the Monastery
The translation of the KJV, has a interesting history...and even their introduction they hope that future generations will do even a better job at translation...yet you have all that beautiful language ....consider the lilies, restoreth my soul (psalm 23), and a host of others.
 

Shermana

Heretic
I would suggest Jesus is God! - John 1:1

This article breaks it down a bit more but there is much dispute over this verse in that it was translated "a god" rather than just "God". It completely changes what is being said.

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
—New American Standard
“In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.”
—New World Translation

Anyway, this article is good.

And I recommend this article.

The Trinity Delusion: John 1:1

The best argument for the "Word was God" translation uses a recently invented concept called "Colwell's rule" which is not a rule at all, and falls flat in several verses where it should apply but doesn't. It is clearly an Anarthrous Theos, no different than its use in Acts 12:22's "voice of a god".

It's important to remember that, despite what many Trinitarians think, the JWs are hardly the first or only group to translate it as such:

The missing article at John 1:1c has been the source of all kinds of speculations and fodder for debate and opportunity for academics to write many articles books on the subject. One of the more significant problems associated with this issue is how Trinitarian apologists portray themselves as correct if indeed the Watchtower's translation, the NWT, is shown to be incorrect. This kind of portrayel suggests that only two possibilities exist when such is not the case. Indeed, Trinitarians themselves have two different interpretations.

  • Trinitarian Translation & Interpretation #1: "the Word was God" = Jesus was divine by nature (Jesus was "what").
  • Trinitarian Translation & Interpretation #2: "the Word was God" = Jesus was the one God (Jesus was "who").
  • Modalist Translation & Interpretation #1: "the Word was God" = Jesus was God the Father.
  • Watchtower Translation & Interpretation: "the Word was a god" = Jesus was a god (but not the God).
  • Another Translation & Interpretation #1: "the Word was a god" = the non-personal word was divine (what).
  • Yet Another Translation & Interpretation #2: "the Word was a god" = the non-personal word was God (who).
Even Moffatt and Goodspeed, very prominent Trinitarian scholars, argued that it should be read as "Word was Divine" because they felt that "Word was God" was Modalism, not Trinity.

Either way, we can see that the "Word was God" arguments rely on faulty grammar and Trinitarian tradition rather than consistent textual analysis, and this was an ancient way of reading the texts in minor (i.e. non-mainstream non church-approved) versions since the 1600s.

It is also important to remember that angels were in fact called "gods" (See Septuagint translation of Psalm 8:5) and Justin Martyr for one references Jesus as an angel. And he also calls Jesus "A god" with the Anarthrous Theos.
 

garrydons

Member
Personally, I would not say it is the best Bible. The Best Bible or more correctly Scripture is in the original version. Various English translation of today came from Greek. The Greek came from Latin. The Latin came of Hebrew. Along the way there were already mistranslations. I would prefer to read the recent translation of the Scripture-"The Scripture" which is believed to be translated directly from the Hebrew language. In translating the Scripture, one should have a thorough knowledge of the Hebrew language.
 

Trey of Diamonds

Well-Known Member
Personally, I would not say it is the best Bible. The Best Bible or more correctly Scripture is in the original version. Various English translation of today came from Greek. The Greek came from Latin. The Latin came of Hebrew. Along the way there were already mistranslations. I would prefer to read the recent translation of the Scripture-"The Scripture" which is believed to be translated directly from the Hebrew language. In translating the Scripture, one should have a thorough knowledge of the Hebrew language.

The best modern translation of the oldest existing documents, the Alexandrian Texts, is the New Jerusalem Bible. The King James version was a translation of the Antiocheian Text which is younger than the Alexandrian. Note that I said translation as opposed to interpretation which many of the modern bibles today use. I am opposed to interpreting the bible during the translation process, interpretation should be left to the reader.
 

Protester

Active Member
I really believe that the Ankerberg site did a good job of explaining, the problem with...John 1:1

This site, explains many of the problems with, The New World Translation: A corrupt sectarian paraphrase? as it does with the "KJV Only" advocates refuted!

There are churches, that still use the King James version of the Bible, and they are not all primitive Baptists at that, but only one group uses the NWT and that is the Jehovah Witnesses. This alone should make one think about the accuracy of the NWT

,but to look at a secular comment on the JW translation, you can always look at Wikipedia Biblical criticism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia .
 
Last edited:

Shermana

Heretic
Again, it is a very common (and telling) Trinitarian misconception that the NWT is the first and only Bible to use such a rendering, and is usually a dodge to avoid the issues of the actual grammar involved, it's been translated that way by numerous smaller (i.e. non-church-sanctioned) versions since the 1600s and by many today. Goodspeed and Moffatt (and to a degree Wallace) prefer "Word was Divine" because they believe the traditional rendering is actually modalist. The Arians were translating it as "A god" (in their equivalent) since day 1.

For comparison, see Acts 12:22.
 

Protester

Active Member
Yes, I would suggest you do look at, NETBible: Acts 12:22 . You will see that they are not talking about Jesus and all but Herod, and one would wonder if there were even many Jews in the crowd saying that? By the way, the Net Bible is something that Dr. Wallace worked on. This site gives numerous translations of a Bible verse, from accepted Bible versions, I would also suggest that you look at the notes after the different renditions of a verses given.

A comment from Dr. Wallace:

F
Further, calling qeoj in 1:1c definite is the same as saying that if it had followed verb it would have had the article. . . . (i.e., “the Word” = “God” and “God” = “the Word”). The problem with this argument is that the qeoj in 1:1b is the Father. . . . This, as older grammarians and exegetes point out, is embryonic Sabellianism or Modalism. The Fourth Gospel is about the least likely place to find Modalism in the NT.5

from The Deity of Jesus Christ
 

Shermana

Heretic
And that's why Wallace prefers "Word was Divine" because "and the Word was God" is clearly Modalistic. Moffatt and Goodspeed said the same. Regardless though, it is an anarthrous Theos, and should be read as "a god", Colwell's rule simply doesn't apply, and isn't even a rule to begin with, and as a "rule" it is disproven in numerous places. Numerous versions OTHER than the NWT have used "and the word was a god" for centuries (or other variants like "godlike being") http://www.scribd.com/deleted/14780372

For instance, this version was made half a century before the NWT:

(12) A.N. Jannaris Ph D, “[A]nd was a god" A.N. Jannaris Lecturer of Post-Classical and Modern Greek - at the University of St. Andrews, Scotland
“Zeitschrift fur die Newtestameutlich Wissencraft”, (German periodical) 1901
 
Last edited:

Mehr Licht

Ave Sophia
The New King James version is very similar to the KJV but uses more modern English. Right now my favorite is the NASB though.
 
Top