What is best translation of the Bible?

[gbzone]

English is a TERRIBLE language from a biblical standpoint.

Maybe  to the Chinese :) yes
But then again  Chinese  is to me  !
But God is neither.
HIS message then  remains the same .
Its the accuracy of the translation of the message  that is then paramount.

And accuracy is exactly the issue.  Neither Hebrew or Greek can accurately be portrayed in English.

Hebrew (as is typical in all Semitic languages) has multiple levels of meaning all true at the same time. There is NO WAY to convey that in English [and it is why there will never be an authorized translation of the Koran. - no way to show all 7 layers of meaning in another language]

And Greek has subtle shades of meaning that cannot be shown in English. 

If I may I will answer both of your posts in this one.

Now was there not  at one time  one common language?
and have not  (so I have read)  linguist historians or experts found  (so far)  that all the languages  of men have about 4  common roots?
They too will be led if they have the time  and the skill  to  the truth of scripture .That like science has been forced or led or driven to acknowledge that all things  started from one point.

Now i will accept  that French  is not Chinese  .Chinese is a very old language as too its written  form.
But the principle is the same . Having my wife who was French translate  a biblical tract  from English to French took more words to say the same thing  than the English. This was checked for its accuracy  by another 'qualified'  to do so.
But I do not and cannot accept  that a message said in one language  cannot be accurately translated in another.
God is neither English or Chinese nor indeed an Arab.
The message therefor does not change .
How many words  it will take to say the same things will depend on the language. But it can be so done.
Not only is this proved in theory   but it is  also manifest  in practice.
In the UN ,The so called Eu  and the red telephone  connection between the USA and Russia.
Are there not a myriad of translators? all translating what another person is speaking  into another language?
If it was not believed  that it could be done why have them?and in the case of the USA and Russia
we would have been at war long ago.

You are going down the same road as the Moslem's . Who  have said to my face  that the only word of God  they say of the Koran is in Arabic.
This was a man who I had been talking to over a number of weeks in English and the time he made this claim  he had in his hand a book. On one page was in Arabic and on the opposite one the English translation.
Now seeing that he had often quoted those things  in the Koran  in English to me .That is to say  he had repeated what was in the Koran in Arabic  and told them to me in English those doctrines and precepts  they hold.
I was a little surprised at this statement that it is only the Word of God in Arabic.
So I asked  him if he had been lying to me all these weeks. He now was the one surprised and  said no!Which he had not .
I then asked him that the book he held  in his hand was that lying to? He said no.
I pointed out to him that the English translation then was an accurate  one then and therefore told the truth.

He said yes.
Then I asked Him if God was an Arab or an Englishman......That argument is in my previous post.

I have to then disagree with you entirely  your supposition that the message of God cannot be accurately translated.

For is not God over all?

Then we come to gen1:1

Whether it should be heaven or heavens.

Now to some who have asserted the same argument you have  face to face  they have acknowledged it can be translated either S OR N.
If you search these forums not that long ago when I put this up. It was also conformed by those who say they understand Hebrew  that this is so.
You yourself have acknowledged that languages can have "multiple  levels of meaning all true at the same time."
Hebrew in particular.
I can believe that. But your argument underpins mine  not yours.
For not only does it  confirm what i have repeatedly said in these forums  that  if you wish to study Greek and Hebrew if it was possible you will need to lean more upon Him who leads us into all truth  than you would   in English!
But they are in truth needing the same wholehearted leaning and trust in the Lord.

So Let us look at this word on  Genesis 1:1.
I can only argue  in English as I do not  know Hebrew.
BUT  what should it be in English  HeaveN or heavenS?

I would also argue that what is true in English  will be the meaning of it in Hebrew.

Gen 1:1 IN the beginning God created the heaveN                    and the                                     earth.
Gen 1:2 and the EARTH was without  form and void a........

NOT heaveN.

From gen1:2  all that is ever spoken of is the EARTH.

Now if in the beginning God created the .........HEAVEN................and the................EARTH.

and from gen 1:2 all that is being spoken of is the EARTH

What heaven  then is spoken of  when it says  and the waters that were above the firmament and the waters that were below the firmament  and the firmament he called ............HEAVEN!?

If then  this heaven  is clearly of the EARTH  then it is not the HEAVEN that was created  in the beginning .

For this heaven  between the clouds and the sea as it were of now.

IS not the HEAVEN  that is not of earth. That HEAVEN is clearly where Gods throne is and where the angels are and where Lucifer was cast down from to the earth.

But there is also another heaven were the stars and planets abide. But this heaven  is also in this creation of EARTH.
For this also is after Gen1;1 "he made the stars also" at the time of  a greater and lesser light .

In conclusion  then we have a HeaveN  and an Earth, That were created in the beginning.
and two other heavenS that were created at the same time as the EARTH was given form .

To conform this we needs must go to gen2:1 Now there is does say  and rightly so heavenS . For now it is speaking of the earth only.

For it is talking about  days  and the 7Th day. Thus  we have the heaven where the birds fly  and the heaven where the stars and planets and the sun and moon are  for seasons and times etc.
So it is the two heavenS.
Now as I understand it  by those who say they can read Hebrew .That the same word is used  in both gen1:1 and 2:1.
I don't doubt it if  Hebrew can mean either and both be true.

BUT you cannot use the same word in English!

But seeing that  in Hebrew  it can either be heaveN or heavenS  then it is not  inaccurate to use  heaveN   in one place  and heavenS in the other.
Why?
Because of the message  and the order of God demands it.

To use a negative to prove it.
I have seen two versions  of the bible.One called "The students  bible"  where it perports to make the scriptures easier to understand.

They have  put gen1:1 as this.

"In the beginning God created the SKY and the earth"

Do I need to say how preposterous that is?

BUT  if you have gen1:1 as heavenS that is a reasonable rendition  ! For  those heavenS  of gen2:1 speak of the earth  and so if you have the same word  in English  in both  to say SKY  can be construed as right!
So from one error  based upon our "better understanding" has led to an even worse one  and in turn misleads others and denies HEAVEN and the throne of God!

The mesasage  then of Gods word is that in the beginning God created the heaven where all the angels dwell and set his throne etc. and the earth.

It was not therefore  heaven that was in darkness  but the earth.
and it was not God who needed light it was man.

Therefore  it is heaveN  and not heavenS.

The accurate translation  into English  that does not violate the meaning of the Hebrew,

My apologies  for the length of the post .But It needed to be  fully argued as I could make it  on such a grave subject.

in Christ
gerald

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

That's ridiculous Gerald.  You take the English over the original language.

Heavens.  There are multiple heavens.

[gbzone]

Yet I have found that the new KJv makes the same error of translation in Gen 1:1  as most other new versions of the bible.
By putting heavenS instead of heaveN

Ah - the problem with english.

  בְּרֵאשִׁית בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְאֵת הָאָֽרֶץ׃   

Bereshit bara Elohim et ha-Shamaim v'et ha-eretz

Shamaim is plural in Hebrew - Heavens

But in another  Opost  it was conceded that it CAN  be also singular.
This I do not doubt.
and it was conceded by those who say they understand Hebrew.
Thus in the context of Gen 1:1  it should be singular HEAVEN.
and in the context of Gen 2;1  is should be plural.  HEAVENS

in Christ
gerald

[gbzone]

That's ridiculous Gerald.  You take the English over the original language.

Heavens.  There are multiple heavens.

I am saying  that  Gods message CAN be accurately translated  into any language.
I am also saying  that   asserting that the Hebrew says this or the greek says that  does not prove anything.
as if it is the LANGAUGE itself that is the final authority  and not the SPIRIT OF TRUTH.

For I see nowhere in scripture that knowing Hebrew even if your mother tounge  is any guarantee  of understanding the scriptures as they are in Christ.
I offer for your consideration  the proof of this .,The Pharasees and the Saducees as well as Saul of Tarsus.
Nor then do I think Greek is either.

What I do say is that if you learn Greek and Hebrew
if it is possible (which I doubt) then you must all the more lean upon Him who leads us into all truth  than lean upon your understanding of Greek and Hebrew.
In truth  wether in Chinese English or any other language  all men MUST lean not upon their own understanding  but trust in the Lord to lead them into all truth.

Thus I say  that gen1:1  should be translated HEAVEN  and I have given my reason and argument for it.
I have never yet heard  of an argument  that undermines it  wether in Greek Hebrew or English.
In truth I don't expect to.
Nevertheless I listen to any that  are given.
Yet curiously  no thought  is given to my argument  as to why I think it should be HEAVEN .
So certain are you  of Hebrew.

But assertions as I have said many times before are no argument.
I say this not for needless contention   but for that contention of THE faith .
and my opposition to the MIS leading  of inacurate translations.

In Christ
gerald

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

What you're suggesting is basically that we ignore the 's' on the end of the word that makes it plural, because the Chinese version doesn't have it there.

It's not a matter of great learning to recognize a plural word or a singular one.

Jarrod

[gbzone]

Im not sure how much clearer I can be.

In the beginning God crated the                        HEAVEN                                 EARTH           

AND THE                                                                                                      EARTH  was without form and void.
There was no darkness in                                  HEAVEN     but on the             EARTH.

Now if you hold this                                         HEAVEN      in your hand.
and then  another person takes the                                                                 EARTH  in thiers.

You take                                                         HEAVEN  and go into another room.

and while your there. We shall now talk about the                                             EARTH. IN GEN1:2 AND ONWARDS.

and understand that from verse 2 onwards  scripture is only talking about the       EARTH.

Go down the list  of all those things  that pertain to the                                        EARTH.
Till you come to the firmament. which he called .....................HEAVEN.!

Now if the person in the other room has HEAVEN . this             heaven is clearly  not the same one at all or spoken  of the first time.

Then  the first HEAVEN  in gen 1:1  must be singular as it speaks of the HIGHEST heaven  where Gods throne is.

and genesis 2:1  are the LOWER heavenS of the                                                      EARTH.

Now if that  is not clear .Anybody wishing to say anything about it. can you address  how you can explain it any other way.
Or how gen1;1 can be speaking of all three! But argue the case  don't  assert your understanding of Hebrews!

in Christ
gerald

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

And I'm not sure I can be much clearer.  That interpretation is in opposition to the text.

Look at the rest of Genesis 1 after that.  It's about creating the sun, and moon, and starts, and the firmament of the heaven... and you want me to believe that is only about the                                  EARTH?
and not about the                               HEAVENS?

Asinine.

[Cody1611]

I'm KJB Only.   

[gbzone]

And I'm not sure I can be much clearer.  That interpretation is in opposition to the text.

Look at the rest of Genesis 1 after that.  It's about creating the sun, and moon, and starts, and the firmament of the heaven... and you want me to believe that is only about the                                  EARTH?
and not about the                               HEAVENS?

Asinine.

The TWO heavenS   were made in the context of the EARTH.

The one where the stars are "he made the stars also " and the two great lights one to rule the day and the lesser to rule the night.
and the FIRMEMENT "which he called HEAVEN"  where the birds fly.

In the beginning God created the HEAVEN  and the EARTH.

VERSE 2.  AND the EARTH was without form and void.
From verse two onwards  for the rest of the chapter  scriptures speaks  only of the EARTH.
The 'EARTH'   is bigger than you think.
For not only   does it cover  this planet. But also all that is SEEN.

It was not HEAVEN that was in darkness . But the EARTH .
it needed not the light of the sun and the moon. But the light of HEAVEN.

THAT heaven needed no sun or moon  ;for God is the light thereof.
Thus the earth that was in darkness  needed the light not of the HEAVENS of sun and moon.FIRST.
But rather  he who is the true light that overcometh the world of darkness.
For did not God command the light to shine in the darkness? that was in our hearts and are we not of the EARTH?

AND is it not written the darkness comprehended it not?
God ALWAYS brings light  before he starts a work.

in Christ
gerald

[JonahGirl4]

I read the KJV. I feel more a sense of reverence that helps me. Most of the time, I understand it as well or better than other translations. I do like to use biblos to compare verses that give me trouble. Some verses are easier to understand in different translations.

The only real complaint I have about any versions are the ones that have translated the verse Jeremiah 29:11 to include the word prosper. That changes the meaning a great deal from "thoughts of peace, and not of evil, to give you an expected end". People seem to latch onto that word money, and that is a real shame when so much of the rest of the bible tries to lead us in the opposite direction.

[BlackSepulcher]

The NIV CLEARY AND BLATANTLY makes LUCIFER -- The Lord Jesus Christ! WHAT BLASPHEMY! WHAT PERVERSION! And Christians claim the NIV is a "better translation"!

Lucifer is an old name for the planet which is now called Venus. And, Venus is *wait for it*
The first star you see in the morning, or, the morning star.

Anyhow, the Devil was the morning star. Once.
He was a Cherubic lord in charge of the Earth, to watch over it as it's prince. Since then, God's Son has stepped in and taken that title from him, as the Devil had perverted the Earth.

So be done with your much over-enunciated conviction 

[gbzone]

There  are any number of books that  compare the KJV  with  most if not all  modern versions.
From   an academic point of view  or the comparisons of orginal texts and what each   version  uses   what original text  then you can   find substantive proof  as to integrity of the KJV  and the inconsistancies  both in translation  and  ommissions   and additions .That   are either inconstant with ALL scripture  and in some cases  deny fundament biblical truths.

Your doubt   as to the KJV's  trustworthy ness based upon    anothers error   of universalism   is misplaced.
People   will always    and have done so   "twist the scriptures to their own destruction.
Indeed are we to doubt the Word of God spoken to Adam as to what was good to eat and what was evil to eat .
Just because the serpent added the word NOT   to it?
and asserted it was good to eat  ? in the (false)light of what HE SAID?

There are invariably   only two  arguments  I have ever heard  against   the KJV .

1) The   supposedly archaic language
2) That   some verses  it is alleged  are not in the original texts .  Yet  I have never   heard (nor do I expect to hear one) any biblical argument as to how those verses   are at variance  or contradict   any scripture. Indeed they do not.

There is now a sub  argument   that implies  you cannot  get an   accurate translation from the   the original texts .  You may hear the  assertion  but no sound biblical argument    for such folly.

The language.
In the beginning was the  Word.
What are words?
If not expressions    of thought?
is it not written  "My ways   are not your ways  and my thoughts are  higher than your thoughts"?
How is it then    men   seek to  bring the Word of God    down to the level    of mens thoughts  and expression  rather  than be transformed   by the renewal of their  minds by liftng  them up to His?
If then you believe the  Bible  is the Word of God .Should you not   then expect  a far higher and loftier  use of language    than is used   in the market place?

It is beyond dispute that the KJV   is written   in the finest   English   there is and has been.
To suggest    that it is  uninitellagable  is absurd and though it is not  Elizabethan English .No one  says   Shakespeare    cannot be understood  and needs to be 'modernised'?
In truth   he says more   in a sentence   then modern day authors say in  a paragraph or chapter.
How much more then    the Word of God ?
What   shakespear demands   is concentration  and focus   and a lot of thought .
Who ever said   University was supposed to easy?
How much the more then    does God  demand we THINK! and will he not  by His Word stretch our minds?
Not in some   dead end    philosophical  worldly way.
But by HIM   who created  all things   and with wisdom  set out the heavens .
I would suggest that what men lack the most   is   not  knowledge  but WISDOM  and the wisdom of God  at that .
and we know do we not that" the fear of God  is  the beginning of wisdom"
Those   then who subject    the scriptures  to mans reasoning   and 'wisdom'  have none or very little fear of God .
For   in truth   it is man  who   needs to subject his reasoning   and  'wisdom'  to Gods .
The reason    why many CLAIM to" have a better  understanding"  But clearly do not    by their   'interpretations  of scripture  and  'translations'

The most  simplest of one is Gen  1:1 ..

Where nigh on all  modern translations  have rendered it as  heavenS and have thus  made gen 2:1  the same  as gen 1:1   heavenS.

Where it can be proved by reasonable biblical argument   that gen 1:1  should be rendered  heaven.

That   will be for another post.

in Christ

gerald

[gbzone]

The NIV CLEARY AND BLATANTLY makes LUCIFER -- The Lord Jesus Christ! WHAT BLASPHEMY! WHAT PERVERSION! And Christians claim the NIV is a "better translation"!

Lucifer is an old name for the planet which is now called Venus. And, Venus is *wait for it*
The first star you see in the morning, or, the morning star.

Anyhow, the Devil was the morning star. Once.
He was a Cherubic lord in charge of the Earth, to watch over it as it's prince. Since then, God's Son has stepped in and taken that title from him, as the Devil had perverted the Earth.

So be done with your much over-enunciated conviction 

There  are a number   of  problems with your  thinking.

The first   is that   considering   that we are talking about   Lucifer  that arch deceiver  and the father  of all lies  and our mortal enemy . Wisdom  dictates that we  walk with extreme  care  and give no room   for him to do any work  at all by our lax and loose  use of scripture.

  I do not see  anywhere   in scripture   that as Lucifer  he was  lord in charge   of the earth.

What I do read is that he was cast DOWN   from heaven  TO the earth  and his power  is in the "air."
I also read   that  it was Adam  who was given dominion  over all creation. NOT  Lucifer.
and Adam was given that   dominion   in the garden of Eden.

I do find  later though  that Adam  by not believing  God   but believing the serpent  and doing that which was evil   in the sight of  God.
In obeying  sin became the servant/slave   of it and thus became  subject  to sin and death.
Now  it is also written that  the devil  had the power  of death. Now the gifts   of God  are without   repentence .
It is not unreasonable then  that Lucifer  was given that gift  or power  by God  IN RIGHTOUSNES.
Now Adam  would  never have died  had he not eaten of that  tree which was evil in the sight of God to do.

But like  Baalam who  taught  the children  of Gods enemies  how to ensnare them   using  Gods own righteousness  to do so .
For he said   take your daughters and let them marry the children of isreal  and they will marry  them   and be led astray  into  worshipping the idols  of your daughters.  and the God  of isreal  who is a jealous God  will  bring  judgement upon them and you will overcome them.
So then did  Lucifer   now called  Satan   use the mouth  of a serpent   to deceive  and lay  a snare  for Adam and eve so that  in doing that which  was evil  in the sight of God .Death  would  now have dominion   over all the earth. For death entered the world and death through sin.

and  in righteousness  did God  cast them out of the garden and more .But in mercy   he gave them a covering   and in great  love a promise .
But to the serpent   he judged  and  gave him no inheritance bust dust and ashes.
Thus  sin was already condemned and judged   and the serpent cast down .

The promise being   that this  ONE ("it")   male ("he") child  born of a woman ; therefore a man but not of Adams  seed (the seed of the woman)  would  bruise the serpents head (fatal) But in that bruising of the serpent  his heel would be bruised ( not ultimately fatal)

Now if the   covering   would have restored them   then there would have been no  need of the promise . But God willing to  show  that  the covering of animal skins  or sacrifice of animals was but temporary  He gave also  a promise  that  would be eternal.

Now Did not God  say  "In the day ye  eat thereof  ye shall surely die"?
Are we to  believe the father of all lies  then when it is clear that   they did not die for  another 800 odd years ?
No  ! Not at all.
For death now reigned .But God  had created man with so much life   that that death that now worketh in him   took 800 odd years  to manifest itself.
Now it takes  but  three score and ten.

But  that being true   this  also is true .
When  a person  is truly   and wonderfully and biblicly BORN  again  by the Word and the Spirit  of God . Then  they have passed from death to Life  .
and have been translated   from the kingdom of darkness  to the kingdom of Gods dear Son.
For there is no condemnation to those who are in Christ jesus .
For where in as before  death reigned  now does  or should Christ .
"he then that ahs the Son  has life  ........"

Now  if death   took time to ma nifest  itself   in the life of Adam.
Then  likewise that  new life  that resurection life will take  some time to manifest  itself   in the life of the child of God . Albeit  a new Born  shows life .  That life  will grow   and manifest  itself   unto maturity .

Now if that be true  this also is true .

That even as the  first  Adam could not die   save if he sinned.
Nor then could the last  Adam die and was not subject to sin or death  . How then could he die ?
The wonder and glory of God  who sent His only begotten Son  who knew no sin  to become sin and so  for our sakes under the law died .
IN that  he could not die  he had therefore to willingly  to lay down his life .
Oh the love of God.
Now in that   ALL power   is of God   then  as Jesus  died for sin. Death  could not say  nay . The gates  could not be closed  against  him . "Open up ye gates ........"
and so  the gates   of death and hell  could not shut him out . Now in that    though he dies for sin under the law  .
We need to remember that "the power of sin   is the law "   
He himself   had never sinned  .Nor was born in sin   for he was not of the  seed of Adam.
Then  death  could not hold him   for the law was fulfilled as to was Gods righteousness .
God could then  justifiably  raise  him from the dead.
and by doing so  destroyed  or made of none effect  all  principalities and powers one of which  clear was the power of death.
"For it was through the fear of death  than the devil  brings men into bondage."
Thus  God through the very means  by which  satan had ensnared man ;death . He now  used  to deliver man  and give  him something  he could not have obtained  .
and by taking the keys of  death  and hell .It shows there is  no place Stan can call  his own .and no place he  can hide  not even death and hell .and there is no pit  that God  cant deliver a man from or the devil  can say Nay if God  so wills.

Now  is the prince of this  world cast down said jesus .

That  utter  and complete  defeat  of the serpent  was accomplished  ON CALVARY and at HIS resurrection from  dead.

But it is  clear  that  he still  is getting his way .
But even as that death  in Adam took time to manifest itself .
Even as it takes time   for that life  in a newBORN  child of God  to fully manifest itself .
So also then   does that  defeat   of Satan will take time  to manifest itself also .
and as the day draws  nearer his wrath  will  be the more striking   for his knows "his time is short"

Glory to God .

in Christ

gerald

[F4R]

gbzone,

Greetings, as this is my first post on these forums, I pray that we will all get to know each other well.

I see that you bring up some good points, but here is the very first question that must be asked when someone brings in a King James Only perspective.

"Who has ruled that the KJV is the rule and standard by which all other translations must be measured?"

Let's start with that, and then reason from there. God Bless.

[DaveW]

In the beginning God created the HEAVEN  and the EARTH.

The word "heavens" is plural..  Shamayim.  The singular would be shamay, but does NOT appear in the Hebrew scriptures. Every instance should be in the plural.

[Red Baker]

"Who has ruled that the KJV is the rule and standard by which all other translations must be measured?"

Of course, no one has ruled.  It is a matter of faith, first and foremost, at least with me.  Even though there are other reasons. I trust in Psalm 12 that God has preserved his word from the hands of the wicked, even though even within our own generation hundreds of new versions have hit the world's market, and will continue to do so, no doubt.  For the most part up until just over a hundred and thirty years ago, the KJV was almost used exclusively by both the godly and ungodly English speaking people of this world. 

That being said, if one desires the "Cotton Patch" version, etc.~ then I am not going to waste my time with him to convert him from that; generally there is no profit in doing so.

[DaveW]

"Who has ruled that the KJV is the rule and standard by which all other translations must be measured?"

Jimmy, a British monarch, dead now almost 400 years ....

[DaveW]

"Who has ruled that the KJV is the rule and standard by which all other translations must be measured?"

Of course, no one has ruled.  It is a matter of faith, first and foremost, at least with me. 

Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the [rhema = SPOKEN] word of God.

So God spoke to you personally that the KJV was it?

[ccfromsc]

Wow! Mention Bible translations in English and watch the KJV Only start up with their nonsense. OK Folks The KJV was not the FIRST translation into English!! Did you know that?  Also the Great Bible and the revision known as the Bishop's Bible are also Authorized versions of an English Monarch. Now when the Pilgrims and others who fled Europe to come here for religious freedom, they did not USE the KJV. They used the Geneva Bible and the Bishop's Bible. In Fact they detested the KJV and found it to be a trap of the Crown.

There are many good translations now in English: the HCSB, NET, NLT, NASB, NIV, NCV NKJV

[Bob Carabbio]

SInce in the final analysis, the "Bible is the Bible"  and the AUTHOR of the Bible is present to "Give wisdom" when we really desire it -

SO the BEST TRANSLATION - is the one you'll actually READ.

SInce I'm OLD, and have been reading the KJV for nigh onto 66 years, It's the "BEST translation" for me (and makes looking up Scriptures in a concordance, falling off a log easy).  Right now the "Best Translation" for my wife is "The Message", and she likes the "Good News" Bible also.

The "Safety" about translations is that the Holy SPirit WILL NOT empower - what He didn't say.

[New Creation]

Funny story, when I was first saved I downloaded the bible app and started reading (Default is KJV). My girlfriend asked me how my reading was going and I replied, "It's ok but I wish I could understand the old english, someone should translate it." 

For what it's worth I really enjoy the poetry of the KJV. Quoting psalm 23 from the NLT (though still true in meaning) kind of lacks a certain dynamic.

My first read through of the NT was with the NLT. My next read through of the NT will be with the amplified bible.

As for my classes (free from onlinebiblecollege.com) I use bible gateway and I pull up verses I want to study in NIV, NLT, KJV, AMP (in that order). I would like to get all the basics down before I start digging deep into Greek and Hebrew.

Well I'm done rambling. I hope someone enjoyed my little story at the top 

[Free Christian]

I like the KJV but would have no problems if some of the older words no longer in use were changed.
I hear the 21st Century KJV is good and has had that done. Im yet to get a copy but will in the near future.
My problem with so many of the new versions are, firstly, many of those who translated them held or hold unbiblical doctrines and used highly questionable manuscripts. And secondly they omit things, take away from Gods Word.
They have in some omitted things and there is nothing there but a footnote, or place portions in brackets and tell the reader that maybe this was not in the original. Either God says something or He doesn't, they place a question mark over Gods Word and create doubt. In many, references to Christs blood are omitted, worship that was given to Christ omitted, changed portions of the Lords Prayer, removed entire passages, changed references to homosexuality, the list goes on.
Imagine if this was done to any great literary work, the uproar there would be, but so many Christians accept it without question and explain it all away. They would be upset for mans work to be altered and tampered with but don't mind if Gods is!

[DaveW]

My problem with so many of the new versions are, firstly, many of those who translated them held or hold unbiblical doctrines and used highly questionable manuscripts. And secondly they omit things, take away from Gods Word.
They have in some omitted things and there is nothing there but a footnote, or place portions in brackets and tell the reader that maybe this was not in the original. Either God says something or He doesn't, they place a question mark over Gods Word and create doubt. In many, references to Christs blood are omitted, worship that was given to Christ omitted, changed portions of the Lords Prayer, removed entire passages, changed references to homosexuality, the list goes on.

Perhaps.  Or - OTOH - could it be that an ancient Catholic/Orthodox scribe ADDED to the text what he wanted it to say and thereby corrupted the original? 

[Free Christian]

Hi Dave. The KJV was carefully created and in a time when the RC teachings were seen, rightfully so, as corrupt.
They were very careful not to include RC influence.

[littleoldme]

The best translation is the one you create yourself from the Greek manuscripts.

Jarrod

True, but if you don't have time for that there is the NASB.

[notreligus]

Hi Dave. The KJV was carefully created and in a time when the RC teachings were seen, rightfully so, as corrupt.
They were very careful not to include RC influence.

DaveW is referring to some things which are true.

There are older manuscripts that are available since the KJV was translated.   They do not agree with some of the manuscripts used to translate the KJV.   An example is tied to 1 John 5:7.  Only three out of many, many other available manuscripts (according to Craig Keener in his Bible Background Commentary of the New Testament) had the wording for 1 John 5:7 as presented in the KJV added by Spanish scribes in margin areas of those manuscripts.  Folk who refuse to find any flaws in the KJV claim that the ASV opens the door to the devil and the Jehovah's Witnesses' denial of the Trinity.  Someone has even written a booklet called, "The ASV: The Devil's Bible."  That's one person's opinion.  The ASV has often been praised by many scholars as the most accurate English translation ever.   The Bible is not going to stand or fall on one verse.   Too much is made of this IMHO.

The KJV is a fine, reliable translation, but others are equally fine. 

1Jn 5:6  This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.
1Jn 5:7  For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
1Jn 5:8  And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.  (KJV)

1Jn 5:6  This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not with the water only, but with the water and with the blood.
1Jn 5:7  And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is the truth.
1Jn 5:8  For there are three who bear witness, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and the three agree in one.  (ASV)


Some scholars believe that Gnostics may have promoted the idea that Christ's body had no blood but that He was as a demigod (as Greek gods) with a watery fluid throughout His body.

The translation of a single verse has been used to argue over the Trinity, Christ's deity, and - drum roll - water baptism.   We Christians waste a lot of time splitting hairs. 

[Peace Warrior]

I read, write, and speak English as my primary language of communication. So understanding, I use the KJV. Period.

As far as the NKJV: The NKJV version that was first published, in 1979 if I recall correctly, is NOT nearly the same as the NKJV of 2014/today.

Proponents and supporters of the NKJV like to lament that it is from the same Greek Text as is the KJV, which in some instances the NKJV does indeed have the fuller readings from the Greek (as does the KJV); however, as I mentioned above, the NKJV has changed dramatically over the years and I reiterate, the NKJV is NOT even the same bible as the previous NKJV bible. For instance, in 1983, the NKJV publisher added footnotes that denied the fuller readings, which are in the KJV, and stated that those verses shouldn't have been included.

Moreover, relatively speaking the New Testament is not too large of a collection of works; however, when a scholar compared the New Testament found within the NKJV against a copy of the Textus Receptus, he found where the NKJV translators chose to use over "2,000 dynamic equivalences," or to call a spade a spade, THEY CHOSE NOT FOLLOW THE GREEK TEXT AT OVER 2,000 PLACES IN THE NKJV. So knowing, while the publishers of the NKJV may, technically speaking, advise that their translators used the same text as the translators used for the KJV Bible, they cannot say they followed it as accurately as the KJV translators, which critically important to note here is that these discoveries of over 2,000 places they did not follow the Greek text is just from the New Testament alone.

Seriously, think about it, if the NKJV of the New Testament doesn't follow the original Textus Receptus in over 2,000 places, can the proponents of the NKJV honestly assert that their bible was derived from the exact same place as was the KJV Bible? Insomuch as the original editions of the NKJV, of course the answer is no, but then as far as the current, today's published version of the NKJV bible, the answer to this question would be, "**** NO!"

Lastly, considering that the KJV New Testament has less than 8,000 verses, and over 2,000 times the "translators" of the NKJV chose NOT to follow the Greek manuscript from which the KJV was derived, how can anyone with an ounce of integrity hold to the incredible notion that the NKJV bible is an honest rendering, "just like the KJV?"


Please do NOT get me started on neither the NKJV bible's ORIGINAL butchering of the Old Testament, nor the NKJV's evolution of its Old Testament translation through the years since it was first published in 1979.     ugh...

[nod2014]

I recommend getting a bible that has different translations next to each other.

[Alan]

I recommend getting a bible that has different translations next to each other.

Even if one does not possess a Bible with parallel translations, using a web app such as BibleGateway can prove to be quite useful.

[JB]

"Me, Myself, and I" Translation. LOL !!!         

[WorldWithoutEnd]

I love the KJV, ESV, and YLT.

I have a disdain for paraphrases.

And I refuse to touch the NASB and HSCB because they translated the Greek word "ouranos" in Matthew 24:30 (also see 2 Cor. 12:2) into English as "skies" instead of "heaven". I see it as a premillennial and futurist corruption of Jesus' words when He was really citing Daniel 7:13-14 prophecy in this verse.

"Skies" in the original Greek should be "mesouranema" or "aer" neither of these Greek words were used in Matthew 24:30.

However, I'd prefer to read the Bible in the original Hebrew and Greek texts as no English translation is PERFECT!

[WorldWithoutEnd]

I love the KJV, ESV, and YLT.

I have a disdain for paraphrases.

And I refuse to touch the NASB and HSCB because they translated the Greek word "ouranos" in Matthew 24:30 (also see 2 Cor. 12:2) into English as "skies" instead of "heaven". I see it as a premillennial and futurist corruption of Jesus' words when He was really citing Daniel 7:13-14 prophecy in this verse.

"Skies" in the original Greek should be "mesouranema" or "aer" neither of these Greek words were used in Matthew 24:30.

However, I'd prefer to read the Bible in the original Hebrew and Greek texts as no English translation is PERFECT!

kai tote fanhsetai to shmeion tou uiou tou anqrwpou en tw ouranw kai tote koyontai pasai ai fulai thV ghV kai oyontai ton uion tou anqrwpou ercomenon epi twn nefelwn tou ouranou meta dunamewV kai doxhV pollhV

And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

Matthew 24:30

oida anqrwpon en cristw pro etwn dekatessarwn eite en swmati ouk oida eite ektoV tou swmatoV ouk oida o qeoV oiden arpagenta ton toiouton ewV tritou ouranou

I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven.

2 Corinthians 12:2




Compared to HSCB and NASB:

"Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky,and then all the peoples of the earth will mourn; and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the  sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory.

Matthew 24:30


Strong's #3772 ouranoV; ouranos; oo-ran-os' perhaps from the same as oroV - oros 3735 (through the idea of elevation); the sky; by extension, heaven (as the abode of God); by implication, happiness, power, eternity; specially, the Gospel (Christianity):--air, heaven(-ly), sky.





kai eidon kai hkousa enoV aggelou petwmenou en mesouranhmati legontoV fwnh megalh ouai ouai ouai toiV katoikousin epi thV ghV ek twn loipwn fwnwn thV salpiggoV twn triwn aggelwn twn mellontwn salpizein

And I beheld, and heard an angel flying through the midst of heaven, saying with a loud voice, Woe, woe, woe, to the inhabiters of the earth by reason of the other voices of the trumpet of the three angels, which are yet to sound!

Revelation 8:13



kai eidon allon aggelon petwmenon en mesouranhmati econta euaggelion aiwnion euaggelisai touV katoikountaV epi thV ghV kai pan eqnoV kai fulhn kai glwssan kai laon

And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven,having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,

Revelation 14:6


kai eidon ena aggelon estwta en tw hliw kai ekraxen fwnh megalh legwn pasin toiV orneoiV toiV petwmenoiV en  mesouranhmati deute kai sunagesqe eiV to deipnon tou megalou qeou

And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God;

Revelation 19:17


Strong's #3321 mesouranhma; mesouranema; mes-oo-ran'-ay-mah from a presumed compound of mesoV - mesos 3319 and ouranoV - ouranos 3772; mid-sky:--midst of heaven.

[tooldtocare]

? - what (:- 

[tooldtocare]

I will answer my own question ~~~

The one that needed NO translation (:-

[Jason_NC]

I love the KJV, ESV, and YLT.

I have a disdain for paraphrases.

And I refuse to touch the NASB and HSCB because they translated the Greek word "ouranos" in Matthew 24:30 (also see 2 Cor. 12:2) into English as "skies" instead of "heaven". I see it as a premillennial and futurist corruption of Jesus' words when He was really citing Daniel 7:13-14 prophecy in this verse.

"Skies" in the original Greek should be "mesouranema" or "aer" neither of these Greek words were used in Matthew 24:30.

However, I'd prefer to read the Bible in the original Hebrew and Greek texts as no English translation is PERFECT!

I would love it if someone would do a YLT in modern english.  But I use the ESV for my personal study.  That's also what my pastor preaches from.  (I went to the ESV before I started going to my current church.)