My Bible's more correct than your Bible

[michel]

This appears to be a self-serving distortion of Scripture. See the thread on Psalm 12:6-7.

Then self-distortionately, and in YOUR opinion, did God promise to purify and preserve His word in the King James Bible?

 

[mr.guy]

You can quickly disarm a person in debates by making them stick to the Bible only. I lost a dear friend over a debate on Eternal Security years ago. It got to the point where it was 'Strong's Concordance this, or the NIV that'. When I narrowed the debate to the Bible only, the debate ended quickly, as, unfortunately, did our friendship. And that was tragic!

I know exactly what you mean. I lose friends all the time. But that's just the consequence of always being right. Comme c'est tragiques!

 

[Sooperhotshiz]

The NIV is the Bible I use most. It seems that the scholars tried to mix between both literal translation of the NT and paraphrasing of the NT. Other recent bibles tend to do one much more often than the other. I wouldn't use older translations such as the KJV because there have been many discoveries of scripture after it, giving more precise translation. I heard that the ESV is very literal and up-to-date, and isn't liberal at all incase you are against liberal translations like I am.

 

[Bennettresearch]

Oh were I able to read Hebrew, Greek and Latin! Maybe in the future.

I think the most common criticism of the NIV is that it is politically correct. Deut's objections are well founded. If only we had the definitive originals that even predated the Dead Sea Scrolls which are dated to the 2nd century BCE. What gives us hope however is that many of the texts we have now are identical to the Dead Sea Scrolls. Like the Masoretic texts. Some are different and publishing them would be of great service for students like me.

I have the New American Standard by Lockman Press, on disk I have the KJV, Young's and Darby's. Not complete, but helpful in showing differences in interpretation of the meaning of each word. This is where translation is important. What I don't have a problem with is that I haven't found enough discordance to prevent me from gleaning the meaning of a verse. Always open to new sources. Semantics is very important. In our everyday language we make references to things metaphorically, etc. We understand each other and the books of the Bible were written to the audience of the time. Therefore, scholars who really study these things are the most helpful for English speaking students like me.

 

[joeboonda]

There are some good books that compare the different versions to be found at your local Christian bookstore. Here is an example of a verse comparison:

John 6:47:

King James Version: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth ON ME hath everlasting life."

New International Version: "I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life."

Note that ON ME is left out of the NIV. So, believes what? That cows are blue? Believes whatever, as long as they believe? No, Jesus said to belive ON ME.

I have many good books that point out hundreds of verses that have been watered down in some of the newer translations, very worth checking into.

 

[nutshell]

I use the KJV as it is the standard Bible used in the church of which I am a member. I've looked at the NIV and other "modern" Bibles, but the twisted language really distorts the true meaning in my opinion. Granted, KJV isn't perfect, but I think it's the best we have right now. Also, in regards to translations, I've heard the German bible is one of the best.

Question: What if there was another book to confirm the teachings of the Bible and act as another testament of Jesus Christ? Wouldn't that help lessen the confusion>

 

[Bennettresearch]

Hi Joe, yes!!

It is very important to be aware of what you are reading. What I like about the Lockman Press version of the New American Standard Bible is that it is full of footnotes and they will alert you to other texts that say something slightly different. They also have referenced the Dead Sea Scrolls. It also points out things like the Greek use of past and present tense, which reads differently than it would in modern english.

Hey Deut, if you come back would you tell me what the Tanach is? I guess I could do a google on it.

Nutshell, you have hit upon the main topic of debate about the Bible. The canon was closed and unfortunately anyone who disagreed with it was in peril. I shudder to think of all the books that were burned. This is why there was all of the excitement over the discovery of the Gnostic texts in Nag Hammadi. We finally had at least something to compare to our Bible.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Hey Deut, if you come back would you tell me what the Tanach is? I guess I could do a google on it.

Great idea.

 

[Bennettresearch]

Yer a panic Deut.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Yer a panic Deut.

Did you get your answer?

 

[Bennettresearch]

Oh yes I did, thanx.

For the sake of someone else as ignorant of the subject as I am, The Tanach is the 1917 english translation of the Jewish Bible, Torah, etc. I found a good site, www.sacred texts.com. Good source for comparison of the OT to other Bibles and at first glance has translations of texts considered to be only read in Hebrew. A good service for those of us who don't speak the language.

Oh, by the way, sorry to bother you with such trivia Deut.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Oh yes I did, thanx.

For the sake of someone else as ignorant of the subject as I am, The Tanach is the 1917 english translation of the Jewish Bible, Torah, etc.

Er ... actually, no. The Tanach (or TaNaKh) is the name of the Jewish scriptures, a body of text including

• Torah - the Chumash or Pentatuch
• Nevi'im - the Prophets (e.g., Isaiah)
• Ketuvim - Writings

It is roughly equivalent to the Christian OT, and has nothing to do with a particular translation or edition.

 

[Katzpur]

I'm a staunch supporter of the King James Bible. To me, there's no other. I believe that where the King James differs from the Originals, the Originals are wrong.

This makes absolutely no sense to me. How could a translation be correct and the original document be wrong?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

This makes absolutely no sense to me. How could a translation be correct and the original document be wrong?

Excellent :biglaugh:

 

[michel]

This makes absolutely no sense to me. How could a translation be correct and the original document be wrong?

Good one, Katz.

 

[Bennettresearch]

Ohmygod!!


The politicalization of scriptures? How can this be? Yeah Katz, I agree too.

 

[Deut 13:1]

Nothing beats mine...

 

[Merlin]

I have the KJV and the NIV although am a bit frustrated at the slight twist on words in the NIV that alters the meaning just enough to make a huge difference in the lesson being taught. I always have to go back to the KJV. I'm getting ready to add the NKJV and an english version of the Septuagint (thank you James) as more help in my bible study.

I don't know that there is any *one* best. Perhaps the answer is to have several and compare....then if you have a question on translation of a word, there are many knowledgeable people here on RF who can translate from Greek and Hebrew.

normally, people only change Bibles until they find one whose translation they agree with.

When you found one where the word had been changed to affect the meaning of the passage, how do you know the first one was correct? Maybe the new one is correct?

 

[Merlin]

If you want the most accurate bible, learn greek/latin, and read the original text. The translations of almost all english bibles are somewhat messed up. For example, some greek words mean (example) the plural form of "you", but in the english translation, it means the singular form. Personally, i use the Douay-Rheims bible, which is pretty accurate.

Mark did not write in either of those languages! Try learning Aramaic as well

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Nothing beats mine...

Nonsense ...