Best English Language Bible?

Spartan85

Pigeon
God however, is interested in minutia -
Matthew 10:29-30
Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father. But the very hairs of your head are all numbered.

If God numbers our very hairs, it is obvious he cares about little details; of which there are many examples -
Leviticus 10:1-2

And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the LORD, which he commanded them not. And there went out fire from the LORD, and devoured them, and they died before the LORD.

What did these two do wrong? Werent they worshipping God? They were probably even saved men, devout in their faith, but The road to hell (so to speak) is paved with good intentions...

The Orthodox is a tool of the Russian state, in the East at least, I hardly think they are ‘putting up a fight’ against Putin.
The true fight is for the Word of God
You believe in the separation of church and state? The Orthodox have a different perspective. Putin is a great man. Dont believe the lies you hear from U.S. media. He understands the vital role the Church has in effecting the culture and building the people up.. They suffered for decades under atheist communism and now they are a strong Christian country. The leaders in the States are Luciferians. The United States is an evl country because the church has abandoned its role to be salt and light.
Not directly, though the Orthodox and Catholic Church were united until 1054. Protestants reject not only Catholicism, but, in its core, Orthodoxy.

Truly, it is a shame how hate-fueled some Protestants are towards Tradition and don't see the importance of it. Could you build a community and culture solely on the Bible? Yes. Should you reject churches that preserve their culture and nationality if they still exist? No. What I see in the IFB movement and some other non-denominational Christians, is that they argue and think like unbelievers. They can quote and read the Scriptures until the cows come home, though I don't believe that some are filled with God's Holy Spirit. Either are they too weak, overcompensating their lack of masculinity, stiff-necked, prideful, unloving etc. What I like about Catholics and Orthodox is that they don't expect everybody to be a scholar or monk and let you be. The excessive legalism in these Protestant churches makes one severely repressed in action and thought.
I agree. I have observed the same thing especially with Pentecostals. There are a lot of effeminate men and even sodomites in Pentecostal churches.
 

Timothy Crow

Sparrow
Is there such a thing as a best English translation? It is a matter of personal taste I believe. Of course the longevity and popularity of the King James speaks for itself but then many do not agree. I have a few different versions, one 33 year old NIV that I used often in my younger years. A Geneva bible, a New American Catholic version and the two that I use exclusively, the KIng James and NASB. I would say that if you are going to use your Bible for more than just a table or bookshelf ornament then get one that you will read. Also, I believe that churches should choose one translation for their service so that everyone can be on the same page. Different versions will have different wording that some may see in a different way.

A good study Bible for starters, but be advised, some have commentary with a specific agenda. I prefer a good reference Bible as you can flip through and see related passages. But then, this is all just my opinion.
 

Aboulia

Robin
The Orthodox is a tool of the Russian state, in the East at least, I hardly think they are ‘putting up a fight’ against Putin.
The true fight is for the Word of God

Orthodoxy first and foremost cares about what's true, it doesn't care for worldly power. That's what separates it from Catholicism. We have no worldly centre. Why would the Russian Orthodox fight Putin? The man has been a boon for Russia. Russia would be a third world state if it weren't for him. He jailed bankers exploiting the country, recently, the US just gave banks billions of dollars (for a second time, first time was 2008 if I remember correctly with "quantative easing") while not doing really anything for the people. The US media cries about Putin because the US media is controlled by the very rich and Putin doesn't let rich globalists exploit his country.

Not directly, though the Orthodox and Catholic Church were united until 1054. Protestants reject not only Catholicism, but, in its core, Orthodoxy.

I wouldn't go that far. Orthodoxy and Catholicism are vastly different, and most Protestants nowadays don't really know or understand what they're protesting. The Protestant identity is a negation. It was originally based on rejection of the corruption in the RC Church. Hence the whole works/faith nonsense. They're rejecting the mechanical sense that all you have to do is follow the dictates of the RC Church, and as long as you go to confess all your "mortal sins" to a priest you'll be saved. And they're right to reject that. Unfortunately they've degenerated into "Scripture is of my own private interpretation, and as long as I can get other people to agree with me it must be right."

What I like about Catholics and Orthodox is that they don't expect everybody to be a scholar or monk and let you be. The excessive legalism in these Protestant churches makes one severely repressed in action and thought.

Funny that you say that, the legalistic attitude where everything is defined in Roman Catholicism is what pushed me away from it. Thomas Aquinas was quoted at the end of his life saying “The end of my labors has come. All that I have written appears to be as so much straw after the things that have been revealed to me."
 
The US media cries about Putin because the US media is controlled by the very rich and Putin doesn't let rich globalists exploit his country.
Good joke man. Putin is the other side of the same coin. His mother was Jewish and he contributes a lot to the fight against "antisemitism" in Russia and pays tribute to the Juden in Israel. Russia today is the very definition of oligarchy and that is where lawmakers and politicians derive their gibs and power from. Russia is not a Christian holy land, and if you knew Russians you would know that. The generation born in the 90s is almost (if not as) bad as in the West. Orthodoxy is a cultural accessoire for most, and that is it.

You seem to have contempt for the Catholic Church and the West. Neither the Catholic nor the Orthodox Church are perfect.

t. Russian guy, not a Catholic
 

Aboulia

Robin
Good joke man. Putin is the other side of the same coin. His mother was Jewish and he contributes a lot to the fight against "antisemitism" in Russia and pays tribute to the Juden in Israel. Russia today is the very definition of oligarchy and that is where lawmakers and politicians derive their gibs and power from. Russia is not a Christian holy land, and if you knew Russians you would know that. The generation born in the 90s is almost (if not as) bad as in the West. Orthodoxy is a cultural accessoire for most, and that is it.

You seem to have contempt for the Catholic Church and the West. Neither the Catholic nor the Orthodox Church are perfect.

t. Russian guy, not a Catholic

The worldly Orthodox churches are completely lacking. There was no part in history where the Church was ever in a utopia status. If I recall correctly one of the sainted Holy Hierarchs was complaining about the impiety of the people at the time, and was wondering if any were going to be saved (inb4 delusional baptist shitpost). However, Russia is an infinitely freer country than Canada. I understand Russia is not to be idolized. If they fight unjust persecution of Jews I have no problem against that. However, I'm against the definition of antisemitism being "anything Jews don't like". Look at the link below, Someone like this from the link below would have been jailed, his home burnt, and his assets destroyed through fines if he were living in the West. Russia still allows people to reasonably fight for what they believe in. The West has denied this for at least 30 years at a minimum.


You're right that I do have contempt for the Modern West, It's not just Roman Catholicism, although RC theology is at the root of the modern world. Modernity stemmed from Protestantism, which stemmed from Roman Catholic theological errors.

The original meaning of "perfect" is "not lacking anything". In that sense the Orthodox Faith as handed down by the apostles is perfect. There are so many errors nowadays, plus the debasement of language, plus the war against the passions that makes it even more difficult.

As a sidenote, I'm not in communion with anyone in the WCC (of which the ROC is a member), Ecumenism is a heresy, Branch theory of Christianity is wrong. it implies that there is no truth.
 

Samuel

Pigeon
I always took the verse about doing unto others (ie the golden rule) as to be the most important phrase in the bible. In a way I think Jesus referred to it several times as being 'the one and only rule' above all else (but not the only rule, just the most important one.)
If you're beating the crap out of another christian metaphorically for interpreting the same bible (or another variant of it) differently than you, I imagine you're not following the most important rule.

What I like most about the KJV is you open it it, and page 1 is genesis.
What I don't like about newer printed bibles is you open it, and page 1 is a publication page. Pages 2-4 are probably some other crap printed for corporate reasons and man-made legal rights of those corporate entites who printed the physical book. Then around page 5, you might get the table of contents or genesis.
Page 1 in a lot of newer bibles will have the words 'printed in china' somewhere towards the bottom. China persecutes Christians in their own country and censors pop culture in America; it's highly likely they mess with bibles they print.

The last page specifically says 'do not add or remove pages from this book' (regardless of how you want to take the context of the word 'book' I'm sure God could have intended it to have more than one context, being eternal and us being mortal)

What I like most about newer printed bibles is they're easier to read; but I don't want spiritual understanding to come easily. I don't think it's meant to. I think it's meant to come over the course of a lifetime and grow over it with the person understanding it.
We always think of these things as events rather than journeys. But we are thinking of these concepts from our mortal life and the perspective that it limits us with.
If the princples of the original ministry of Christ are preserved, then I think we can adjust the words used to explain them. That being said, I prefer the KJV overall because I was good at shakespeare in highschool. I had a bit of an obsession with knights, dragons, and ye olde english. It might have structured sentances in a different order than modern english, but it really did a better job of using words to paint a clear picture (assuming you understand what the words meant)

Thats a fair call, indeed we are to love our neighbours as oirselves, and yet there are also numerous examples of not only Christ rebuking his detractors, ‘Ye vipers, ye are of your father the devil’, but also his own disciples ‘get thee behind me Satan’ - there is a clear commandment to contend for the faith, hate the evil and love the good, cast down imaginations and every high thing that exalts itself againt the knowledge of God, judge believers by a higher standard than the world (who am I to judge those without), rebuke false prophets, reject heretics, break fellowship with backsliders and reprove the unfruitful works of darkness..
and on and on.
How are we to reconcile these somewhat contradictory concepts?
The Chrsitian life is about balance. A time to love and a time to hate a time of war and a time of peace.

It starts with a deeper understanding of ‘love’.
Love is patient, kind, longshffering, gentle, kind etc, but love also hates that which is false, evil, and destructive - that is say, to hate sin is righteous -
Leviticus 19:17
Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and not everyone who names the name of Christ is actually honest, well intentioned or even good. There are many Judas’, Korahs, Baalims and such like who delight in corrupting Gods word, for filthy lucre or just plain enjoyment of seeing others fall.
The naivity of those who think we should just put aside our minute differences, and compromise for the sake of peace, entirely misunderstand that the ‘narrow way’ is narrow for a reason -
Matthew 7:21-22
Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
Matthew 7:23
And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

As regards the readibilty of the comparitive bible versions... the KJV is demonstrably the easiest to read, dispite fallicious claims to the contrary -

The Bible for Today published an interesting and revealing book titled, The Comparative Readability of the Authorized Version, by D.A. Waite, Jr. Using computer readability software (Grammatik 4.0, Grammatik 5.0, Word for Windows) Mr. Waite, spent hundreds of hours, lasting over three years, analyzing every word in the King James Bible, the American Standard Version (ASV), the Revised Standard Version (RSV), the New American Standard Version (NASV), the New International Version (NIV), the New King James Version (NKJV) and the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV).

The Comparative Readability of the Authorized Version is an exhaustive and serious study. It contains very detailed tables, charts, documentation, analysis of every conceivable readability tests known. The King James Bible outscored the new versions in virtually every test.

Some of Mr. Waite’s analysis:

"According to the F-K [Flesch-Kincaid] formula 74.3% of the books [in the KJV] are on or below the sixth grade level, and 94% are on or below the seventh grade level! . . . And the FRE [Flesch Reading Ease] rated 97% of the KJV books as Fairly Easy or Easy! These were all first place statistics!"
(D.A. Waite Jr, The Comparative Readability of the Authorized Version, p. 80)
Mr. Waite summarizes his extensive analysis:

"If any of these seven versions is authorized to boast about its success in these rigorous readability contests, it is the Authorized Version. [KJV]. If any has the right to flaunt the crown of victory, it is the KING James Bible."
(Ibid, p. 80)
Dr. Rudolf Flesch’s book, The Art of Plain Talk, he makes the following noteworthy statement about the King James Bible:

"The best example of very easy prose (about 20 affixes per 100 words) is the King James Version of the Bible: . . ."
(Rudolf Flesch, The Art of Plain Talk, p. 43)
 

Aboulia

Robin
You believe in the separation of church and state? The Orthodox have a different perspective. Putin is a great man. Dont believe the lies you hear from U.S. media. He understands the vital role the Church has in effecting the culture and building the people up.. They suffered for decades under atheist communism and now they are a strong Christian country. The leaders in the States are Luciferians. The United States is an evl country because the church has abandoned its role to be salt and light.

I agree. I have observed the same thing especially with Pentecostals. There are a lot of effeminate men and even sodomites in Pentecostal churches.

Not quite. Church and State were always to remain separate entities, but to work towards the one purpose of unifying the nation. Church and State is problematic on it's own. It was meant to be Church and Monarch. The Russian Coat of Arms represents this idea symbolically. They took the basic coat of arms from Byzantium, added a monarch scepter in one hand, and the orb+cross (Jesus Christ over the world) in the other, In the centre is a depiction of St George slaying the dragon(devil). The purpose of the Church is to declare what's true, and the job of the monarch is to lead his nation the best he can according to the truth, thereby slaying the dragon that demands human sacrifice.

In reality it doesn't always work out, sometimes the Metropolitan makes errors, more often than not it was the Tsar/Emperor/King wanting more power, can't really blame them though. Being a good monarch is an unenviable job, they would have to check not only their personal desires, but the greed of the nobility, power comes with heavy responsibilities in a properly ordered world.
 

Samuel

Pigeon
Not quite. Church and State were always to remain separate entities, but to work towards the one purpose of unifying the nation. Church and State is problematic on it's own. It was meant to be Church and Monarch. The Russian Coat of Arms represents this idea symbolically. They took the basic coat of arms from Byzantium, added a monarch scepter in one hand, and the orb+cross (Jesus Christ over the world) in the other, In the centre is a depiction of St George slaying the dragon(devil). The purpose of the Church is to declare what's true, and the job of the monarch is to lead his nation the best he can according to the truth, thereby slaying the dragon that demands human sacrifice.

In reality it doesn't always work out, sometimes the Metropolitan makes errors, more often than not it was the Tsar/Emperor/King wanting more power, can't really blame them though. Being a good monarch is an unenviable job, they would have to check not only their personal desires, but the greed of the nobility, power comes with heavy responsibilities in a properly ordered world.
Isaiah 40:17

All nations before him are as nothing;
and they are counted to him less than nothing, and vanity.
 
However, Russia is an infinitely freer country than Canada.
You are right. Russians tolerate differing viewpoints more than an outlining personality, in the West it is the other way around. There are Pan-Slavistic groups that are basically Russian National Socialists, and as it seems they are tolerated. Pan-Slavism is promoted by political and public figures such as Zhirinovsky or Dugin. Though the development of Russia is uncertain. It was the first Communist country and you can feel that. The younger generation seems to be more obedient to the state - now in times of the "pandemic" - than your average Westerner. Also, abortions are a greater concern in Russia than in the West, and nobody talks about it. On the other hand, you can beat up sodomites and nobody will do anything about it. So that's a great plus.
 

Hermetic Seal

Kingfisher
Gold Member
I always took the verse about doing unto others (ie the golden rule) as to be the most important phrase in the bible. In a way I think Jesus referred to it several times as being 'the one and only rule' above all else (but not the only rule, just the most important one.)
If you're beating the crap out of another christian metaphorically for interpreting the same bible (or another variant of it) differently than you, I imagine you're not following the most important rule.

I agree. This is why I don't think it's necessary to go all Independent Fundamentalist Baptist Autistic on people who use translations other than the KJV.

What I like most about the KJV is you open it it, and page 1 is genesis.
What I don't like about newer printed bibles is you open it, and page 1 is a publication page. Pages 2-4 are probably some other crap printed for corporate reasons and man-made legal rights of those corporate entites who printed the physical book. Then around page 5, you might get the table of contents or genesis.
Page 1 in a lot of newer bibles will have the words 'printed in china' somewhere towards the bottom. China persecutes Christians in their own country and censors pop culture in America; it's highly likely they mess with bibles they print.

Kind of a strange reason for preferring the KJV, but you know what? Nothing wrong with that. Again, it's still a good translation, especially if you prioritize literary beauty over the most nitpicky accuracy to earliest manuscripts. In all honesty, the textual advantages to newer translations don't make much difference in day-to-day Bible reading, it's mostly relevant to folks doing scholarly work, research, and that sort of thing.

My main ESV was actually printed and bound in the Netherlands and doesn't seem to have any textual differences with my old ESV Bible (which I think is Chinese) or when I refer to the text on BibleGateway during study. I'd have to see some evidence of this actually happening.

China doesn't care about what Bible we read in English, they just care about controlling the narrative in their own culture. And yes, China censors, but you have it backwards, that's American culture that they find offensive in their own country. And usually it amounts to some progressivism they find disagreeable, like sexuality or violence. I see no evidence that China censors American pop culture outside of China, and even if they did, it would probably benefit us, given how degenerate things are in the west.

The last page specifically says 'do not add or remove pages from this book' (regardless of how you want to take the context of the word 'book' I'm sure God could have intended it to have more than one context, being eternal and us being mortal)

Although I agree we shouldn't add to scripture, which has been pretty universally established since the early 2nd century, John is clearly just talking about adding to the prophecy in Revelation.

If you like your bible verses relegated to footnotes and cast aside as ‘may or may not be accurate’,
I guess that is a reflection of how highly you esteem the wisdom of man over God, likewise for your distain for the ‘name above all names’, as if removing the name of our precious Lord and Saviour isnt one of the most blasphemous acts anyone could do.

This is a silly argument. It's not a matter of "wisdom of man" versus "wisdom of God." It's "accuracy of KJV translators" versus "accuracy of later translators." I don't equate the KJV with the "wisdom of God." There is no perfect translation. And I could use this same non-reasoning to argue that you're engaging in blasphemy by adhering to a translation that adds to the name of God extra words that weren't in the original manuscript. But that would be silly.

I care first and foremost about the truth and accuracy to the original text. If it says "The Lord Jesus" in a particular verse in Greek, then the translators shouldn't change it to "The Lord Jesus Christ" just because they felt like it needed extra emphasis - but if they do, it's not a huge deal because no doctrine is impacted and there are dozens if not hundreds of instances of variations of "Jesus," "Jesus Christ," "the Lord Jesus Christ," and so on. Bottom line, using this as an argument for why the KJV is so superior is disingenuous.

This verse you provided is a great example:

1 Corinthians 16:22 If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha.

Man, I have no idea what those last two words mean, which is weird since a super advanced computer simulation said anyone should be able to understand the KJV translation! I'm starting to wonder if that's actually just someone advancing their weird fundy agenda. Hmm, let's see what it says in the ESV:

"If anyone has no love for the Lord, let him be accursed. Our Lord, come!"

Oh, okay. Now I understand what it means - But wait! Uh oh! They left out "Jesus Christ!" They must be trying to censor His name!

Let's see what dastardly deeds the ESV commits in the next few verses!

23 The grace of the Lord Jesus be with you.
24 My love be with you all in Christ Jesus. Amen.

Oh. In these verses it calls Him both "Lord Jesus" and "Christ Jesus." That doesn't seem like "removing the name of our precious Lord and Saviour" to me. The affirmation of Jesus' identity is strong in both versions.

If you had somebody read this chapter in the KJV and then in the ESV, and then asked if the name of Jesus was censored, they would look at you like you were crazy.

Good luck ‘being saved’ my friend - whenever I deal with the ‘conservative’ scholastic types who favour themselves wise, and love to use logic, reason and appeal to church tradition to explain all the error and contradictions in their bibles, I am reminded of
Luke 18:17
Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein.

Are you really implying that I'm "not saved" because I don't think the KJV is the only valid translation? First, you are in no position to evaluate my faith. Second, the way that you talk about the KJV and the implication that it's perfect reminds me of how Muslims treat the Koran. I worship the Lord, not the Bible. Scripture is wonderful and an essential part of any Christian's spiritual life. But it is not God.

How dare I, when some skeptic appears shouting about some alleged contradiction in the Bible, investigate the issue and learn from those who understand the Bible better than me, rather than waving a KJV Bible at them and shouting to Just Have Faith!
How dare I learn from cultural context studies that help us to understand the social world of the Bible so we can avoid taking things out of context!
How dare I care about resolving alleged contradictions and inconsistencies wielded by skeptics to attack Christians and undermine their faith!
How dare I want to accurately represent what the original manuscript said in a readable and accessible way, rather than throwing unnecessary stumbling blocks, like saying only a 400 year-old translation is accurate, in front of people interested in Christianity!

Your post doesn't refute a single thing I said previously, and sidesteps virtually all of it. Throwing up a bunch of Bible verse you take out of context might make you feel clever, but it's not an argument. I know you're not going to change your mind, but the reason I'm going to the effort of writing this is that I want it to be clear to those reading this thread that KJV Only is not normal Christian belief, it's not accepted by the vast majority of Christians, and there are plenty of good Bible translations out there. Again, KJV is a good translation and if you like it, then that's great - just don't tell people it's the only valid one or that you're somehow less or deceived if you prefer another.
 
Kind of a strange reason for preferring the KJV, but you know what? Nothing wrong with that. Again, it's still a good translation, especially if you prioritize literary beauty over the most nitpicky accuracy to earliest manuscripts. In all honesty, the textual advantages to newer translations don't make much difference in day-to-day Bible reading, it's mostly relevant to folks doing scholarly work, research, and that sort of thing.

My main ESV was actually printed and bound in the Netherlands and doesn't seem to have any textual differences with my old ESV Bible (which I think is Chinese) or when I refer to the text on BibleGateway during study. I'd have to see some evidence of this actually happening.

China doesn't care about what Bible we read in English, they just care about controlling the narrative in their own culture. And yes, China censors, but you have it backwards, that's American culture that they find offensive in their own country. And usually it amounts to some progressivism they find disagreeable, like sexuality or violence. I see no evidence that China censors American pop culture outside of China, and even if they did, it would probably benefit us, given how degenerate things are in the west.
I guess I don't have any direct evidence China censors culture outside of it's own country. I have first hand testimony from roommates about censorship in their own country. I also have used an app called 'WeChat' which is an official China app for social networking (approved behind the great firewall which is a real thing) and is monitored / censored (I've had posts removed on it which were seemingly harmless but promoted Canada) even though I'm using it in Canada and shouldn't be subject to censorship; but it's their product technically.
While this might be a bit of overlap in the censorship: I do believe China censors things their country produces even if exported. This could include the bibles they print, and I won't discount the possibility they do just yet. I'd have to do a detailed comparison between two different KJV versions to see myself, but I'm not about to do that.
So I'll give them the benefit of doubt and say that if they do, God's grace will protect believers from being affected by any of those changes in any significant way. And I'll give myself the benefit of doubt and say if they don't, I can not worry about it either way because it's probably a waste of my energy to do so.
I'm steadily shedding layers of hermit lifestyle the further I go into my faith. I can let go of prejudgments as I do that.
Something else I like about the KJV is it allows me to regularly compare English over the centuries, and see how it's evolved. See what ways words are used compared to how they were if they're still used--and that lets me communicate better across age gaps. I'm 38, so that's crucial for me right now.

Although I agree we shouldn't add to scripture, which has been pretty universally established since the early 2nd century, John is clearly just talking about adding to the prophecy in Revelation.
Hear me out on this one. I am not disagreeing with your point but elaborating on it: I'm suggesting that the reason the bible it so hard for so many people, and why there is so much disagreement--is because it's written by God. God isn't a mortal. God doesn't think in linear time--born, live, die--God sees all of time from long before and after the lives of any one individual person. God sees every possible outcome, and can account for them all.
God wrote that bible. God wrote revelation, with John's handwriting. God knew that revelation would be most significant in 70AD but God also knew that people would read it 2000 years later. God knew that it could mean one thing in one time, and something completely different in a future time (and yet another different meaning 5000 years later) so it's possible the images being described can be events which will take place as a cycle--not a specific historical era. God knows civilization goes through patterns of behavior--rises, falls, collectivism, individuality, order, chaos--etc
We have seen civilization go through repeating cycles of itself since we have been studying civilizations. God has seen far more and knows far more. How can you so easily dismiss the word of God as a linear series of events which came, went, and won't happen again?

I care first and foremost about the truth and accuracy to the original text. If it says "The Lord Jesus" in a particular verse in Greek, then the translators shouldn't change it to "The Lord Jesus Christ" just because they felt like it needed extra emphasis - but if they do, it's not a huge deal because no doctrine is impacted and there are dozens if not hundreds of instances of variations of "Jesus," "Jesus Christ," "the Lord Jesus Christ," and so on. Bottom line, using this as an argument for why the KJV is so superior is disingenuous.
On a side note to this comment (which wasn't for me right?) I've always thought of "Lord" and "Christ" as titles and "Jesus" as His name translated to english.
One of my beefs about the KJV is the way Lord is written distinctly as both "Lord" and "LORD" (I still haven't wrapped my mind around that one, outside of perhaps a distinguishing between God the Father and God the Son)
 
Last edited:
I'm a King James man going way back (like the dramatic prose.)

What is the most faithful to the original material though?

If there are better Old and New Testaments list them. Break it down even further (this is the best Gospel, these are the best versions of Paul's writing etc) if necessary.

I've also heard the Orthodox use more than 66 books. Thoughts?
I like nkjv by nelson. It keeps the king james poetry and has the older masoretic and alexandrian texts in foot notes and primarily uses receptus textus
 
If God wanted to, he could reach you with fortune cookies and candy hearts.

His spirit reaches men in many ways and can flow through any Bible as long as it isn't designed to deceive.

On person connects with the grandeur of the language of the King James.

Another might need the accessibility of the New Living Bible.

It is easy to get into the mindset of the Bible as just another text to read and debate about.

Or to nitpick over phrasings and definitions of specific words.

Spectrumwalker is on the right track.

God is for everybody, Jesus is for everybody, the Bible is for everybody.

The muscular Christianity of the people saying you have to know Aramaic or Hebrew or Greek is not in line with the spirit of Jesus at all. It is more of a way to discourage people or make them doubt themselves and the veracity of their spiritual experiences.

I have read accounts, long ago, sorry no references, of missionaries who had translate the Bible for aboriginal people who had never even seen a sheep. So how do you describe the Lamb of God?

Many problems like this crop up when you try to communicate spiritual truths to different people of the world. These missionaries made many changes and paraphrases in order to reach the people they were ministering to in language and metaphor they could understand.

According to an academic Biblical scholar, these Bibles are highly inaccurate and to be dismissed.

According to the spreading of the good news of the gospels, a long way from home, in trial and sacrifice, leaving all that you know to reach out to an alien people and share with them the most important thing you know, these translations of the Bible are more valuable than a million translations worked out in comfy reading rooms of respected universities by dusty scholars who don't like their routines interrupted.

These translations are more valuable than a perfect Greek gospel written down a day after the Ascension which no one can read.

Jesus said, "Follow me."

He also made the point of describing the kingdom of God with many different metaphors and similies, and sometimes he would even say, as if having exhausted his creativity, in Mark 30:



That was NIV.

Would it be better with the New Living Translation?



Or the English Standard Version?



Are these differences really worth being concerned with? Jesus was trying out all sorts of different ways of communicating an overarching truth so he could connect with the different sensibilities of different people, not so we could argue over whether faith is a mustard seed or the ability to calm the waves and walk on water.

Sometimes I think people get so wrapped up in the minutia of textual analysis that the miss the forest, the forest being Jesus, and the spiritual concepts he is trying to convey, the personal connection he is trying to make.

My favorite Bible is a paraphrase Bible, and it is my favorite because when I was a teenager who didn't feel like anyone cared about him, a local youth pastor took me aside before a meeting and gave me a copy of the Bible telling me how special it was for him.

Which is more important? The accuracy or the connection with a person who in turn connects another person to Jesus?

Knowing Hebrew or making a pimply kid feel noticed?

What is the spirit of this whole enterprise, and what is really important?
Masoretic texts are purposely flawed by rabbis in the tenth century
 

JCleetus

Newbie
I won't comment upon Bible translations here. What I suggest is a useful book on how we got the Holy Bible:

From God To Us: How We Got Our Bible By Norman Geisler and Willam Nix. Most of this book is concerned with Canonicity: What was kept and what was thrown out.

Here is a partial listing of the chapters:

Chp 1: The Character of the Bible
Chp. 2: The Nature of Inspiration
Chp. 3: The Inspiration of the Old Testament
Chp. 4: The Inspiration of the New Testament
Chp. 5: The Evidence for the Inspiration of the Bible
Chp. 6: The Characteristics of Canonicity
Chp. 7: The Development of the Old testament Canon
Chp. 8: The Extent Of the Old Testament Canon
Chp. 9: The Development of the New testament Canon
Chp. 10: The Extent Of the New Testament Canon

Chp. 12: The Major Manuscripts of the Bible
Chp. 13: Additional Witnesses to the Bible Text

Chp. 20: Modern English Bible Translations

While critics have claimed the inspiration of the Bible is largely based on the faith of it's readers, I would point out that the four Gospels are essentially historical narratives. The Gospels name leaders and places. Furthermore, at least during Christ's time on earth, there is significant pagan testimony as to his life and his crucifixion. A sample passage from Tacitus' Annals corroborates the Crucifixion, by describing the persecution following Nero's firing of Rome:

Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome ...

 
Last edited:

Hermetic Seal

Kingfisher
Gold Member
Don't need Hebrew, just Greek. The New Testament was written entirely in Greek, and The Septuagint was a translation of the OT comissioned by Ptolemy of Egypt for the Library of Alexandria approved by the High Priest of Jerusalem roughly 200 years before Christ came, The Septuagint is blockier, and doesn't have the poetic beauty of some of the Masoretic text, but it's a totally unbiased translation since it was done only using texts written before the time of Christ. The Masoretic text by comparison is roughly 1000 years older than the Septuagint, it is a corruption as it was edited by Jews hostile to Christ hundreds of years after Christ's death/resurrection. The whole purpose was to introduce plausible deniability since the Jews could now say (dishonestly) that Christ didn't check all the boxes and therefore wasn't the Messiah.

I've seen this mentioned here and there, but I have no idea what are good resources for learning more about this. Any books or other resources you'd recommend?
 

ralfy

Sparrow
For Catholics, here are some guidelines for translation:


The gist is that the translation has to be based on updated scholarship and must be acceptable for liturgical use.

That means the best English language Bible for the Church is whatever is used for liturgy and, for personal use, the latest versions, i.e., NRSV-CE, NABRE, the RNJB, and the ESV-CE.

For versions that may be used for both liturgy and personal use, wait for the new versions of NABRE and the CE of NRSV-UE.
 
Top