most accurate Bible ?

[lizzyhermit]

I have really been impressed with the Bible knowledge of the membership and would like to know what version/translation of the Bible currently available today is felt to be the most accurate and closest rendering into English of the Holy Writings.



No poll, as I don't want to bias the choices.



And I would hope this doesn't engender Bible bashing, just valid comments as to what version/translation and why. Let's be positive, upbuilding and bring honor to God's Word.



BTW, I am in no way suggesting anything, but tommorrow I am picking up a KJV with illustrations by Rembrandt to add to my library. Size is about 18" x 12" x 5". Huge book but a work of art in both the written word and illustrations.

 

[wcaldwell]

I'm NIV-positive

 

[E7mack96]

King James here

 

[RustyJC]

I study with a KJV, a NIV, an Amplified and a Strong's Concordance along with a good Greek/Hebrew to English Bible dictionary.



Rusty

 

[The patriot]

KJV here

 

[me4osu]

New American Bible

Contains a few books the NIV and KJV don't have.



Whichever one you get, buy the study version. They explain things quite well, plus they usually have maps and timelines.

 

[Paychk]

"The Amplified Bible" direct translation from Hebrew and Greek to English. Most translations are accurate word for word, but Hebrew and Greek are more expressive than English. Put another way, a single Greek word can have different meanings, depending on those around it. So this Bible puts those other meanings in parenthesis next to the key word, so they are available to clarify your reading. This Bible is published by the Zondervan Publishing House. I find it very understandable, something I can't say for the KJV.



http://www.zondervanbibles.com/amplified.htm

 

[klenger]

New KJV (not exactly new anymore).

 

[CumminsPuller]

The King James Study Bible by Thomas Nelson Publishers.



Jason

 

[lpearson]

The 1611 Authorized Version also known as the KJV;-- no copywrite, no deletions, no additions, no amplifications, taken from the textus receptus-majority text. Some of the other members have stated other versions (taken from the minority texts (Siniaticus-Vaticanus) of which I would be glad to discuss.



They can't all be right, because they differ greatly. There's big money in book making and publishing houses are not blind to this fact.



Check your bible and see if it has a copywrite, ---- OK how many scriptures can you use before you need the publishers permission?



The KJV has no copywrite on God's Holy Word (scripture). The rest copywrite their scriptures, because so called paid scholars will change and delete words just to sell books,$$$$$. I'm not talking about copywrite on study notes found in some bibles ------I'm talking about SCRIPTURES.



Regards,

Lowell

 

[Texas Diesel]

The Companion Bible by Bullinger, you'll have to order it. It has 198 appendexes to explain the Hebrew/Greek.



The 1611 edition of the KJV Bible ( I have a reprint of it) has a letter from the translators to the reader warning you that they had some difficulty with some of the words. The suggestion was that you (the reader) should read a variety of translations to get the feel for the intent of the text.



A KJV and a Strongs Concordance is a hard combo to beat.



This place sells the 1611 and the Companion Bibles.



www.shepherdschapel.com



When I was in Bible College in 1980 one of my instructors was on the translator team for the then new NIV. He resigned because of bias imposed on him by the ones paying for the NIV translation. I dont know what specifically he was referring to, just repeating his comments.

 

[lpearson]

Originally posted by Tejas Deezul





The 1611 edition of the KJV Bible ( I have a reprint of it) has a letter from the translators to the reader warning you that they had some difficulty with some of the words. The suggestion was that you (the reader) should read a variety of translations to get the feel for the intent of the text.

I too have a reprint of the translators "To The Readers"; just to clarify the statement you made above------



The reference to what they were saying was that they had a MARGIN in their Bible to set forth a different translation of difficult words that may be found only once in scripture or because there were many rare names of certain birds, beasts, precious stones and the like, that no one could for certain assertain an exact meaning.



Therefore they suggested looking at a variety of translations of those words as to what they could mean (like what we do when we look up a word in the dictionary, lexicon, Strongs Concordance or ? for more clarification). For example when the scripture spoke of Behemoth (Job 40:15), they put in their margin; "or, the elephant, as some thinke" (1611 spelling). They didn't change or delete or add to the scriptures. Just for difficult words they would try to clarify those words in the MARGIN.



This is not talking about looking at a variety of different Bible VERSIONS as that would be contradictory to why and what they were doing in producing the Authorized Version (KJV).



So, yes your statement above is correct, and it is proper that you brought it up - thanks



Regards,

Lowell

 

[Texas Diesel]

"6 There be many words in the Scriptures [apax legomena. ] which be never found there but once, (having neither brother nor neighbour, as the Hebrews speak) so that we cannot be holpen by conference of places.

• 7 Again, there be many rare names of certain birds, beasts, and precious stones, etc. , concerning which the Hebrews themselves are so divided among themselves for judgement, that they may seem to have defined this or that, rather because they would say something, than because they were sure of that which they said, as S. Hierome somewhere saith of the Septuagint.

• 8 Now in such a case, doth not a margin do well to admonish the reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily?

• 9 For as it is a fault of incredulity, to doubt of those things that are evident, so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgement of the judicious) questionable, can be no less than presumption.

• 10 Therefore as S. Augustine saith, [S. Aug. 2. de doctr. Christian. cap. 14. ] that variety of translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is not so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded. "



You made a good point, the translaters placed in the margin notes and alternate translations. They also quoted S. Augustine: "that variety of translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures... "



I was simplifying and combining the two thoughts, i. e. , that you should not build a religon on the basis of one work and should seek alternate meanings. ("... Now in such a case, doth not a margin do well to admonish the reader to seek further... ") Good to know there are others out there who READ!!



http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/pref1611.htm



http://www.therain.org/appendixes/

 

[CumminsPuller]

Just a good site I ran across regarding Bible Research: http://www.bible-researcher.com/index.html



Jason

 

[CumminsPuller]

Got a quick question: I use the King James Study Bible by Thomas Nelson Publishers. Well I just ran across this website: http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/nkjvdead.htm posted by Tejus Deezel and come to find out Thomas Nelson Publishers also publishes the NKJV mentioned on the wesite. What is the probablility the KJV and the NKJV being from same publisher both containing errors? Seems pretty high to me.



Jason

 

[Texas Diesel]

Nelson is the publisher not the writers (translators), I *think* that any errors would be unique to each version since the NKJV is a rewrite of the KJV. Ipearson sounds knowledgeable, perhaps he will jump in here with an answer for you.

 

[lpearson]

Thomas Nelson is a Roman Catholic owned Book Publisher. Their job along with other publishing houses, like Zondervan (owned by Rupert Murdock=atheist) are to sell books and to make money. They and others publish a varitey of different bibles including the KJV.



They don't care about "TRUTH" or purity of the word or who the editors were who put it together, just how many books can we sell and the $$$$$$$$.



If you have a NKJV, check out the cover. Most of the ones I've seen have the same "Mobius" (symbol) as seen on the T. V. show "Charmed". This is an ancient Mobius for 666 being entertwined. (sp). Just what you want marking your bible, huh?



The NKJV was suppose to update some of the old archaic English words found in the KJV (there are several hundred, I personally like these words); using the textus receptus still as the base text. However, they lied. They advertised it this way but didn't hold to their word. They used the minority text of the Vaticanus and Siniaticus as their bases and sprinkled in the KJV to make it seem as though they were holding true to the original text. But if one is a student and searches out this version, the deception becomes apparent.



Regards,

Lowell

 

[lpearson]

I have some questions for those who stand by their Bibles; that is in part, do you believe that it has truth and errors in it?



If this is your belief, then who is to say where truth/ error is? You? Your Pastor? The Publisher? The Editors?



If you, ---what are your qualifications? If your pastor, ---what are his qualifications? Where did he get his education? I remember some leaders like Jim Baker and Jimmy Swaggart to name a few that came from the best schools, there are others too.



It has been my experience that most will choose the bible that their pastor chooses or their church chooses. It doesn't seem important enough for them to search it out, after all if they came to a different conclusion they might have to go to another church, and they don't want that because all their friends are at the one they go to and that's more important than truth and their eternal life.



When I have questioned why they have this or that type of bible; I have had people say they like it because it has less words in it or because my pastor says that it's the best translation that there is, ---or they don't know.



My belief is that; I don't believe God put truth and lies in his book and said you stupid people figure out which ones are which. Either it's true or it's not.



The scripture says that "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:" II Tim 3:16

AND

"---Which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;

Titus 1:2

AND

"The words of the LORD are pure words: as sliver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. "

Psalms 12:6-7



Well, I guess, ------- did he or didn't he? And if he did which version is pure? Maybe something to research out, huh?



Here is an interesting note; Not one Major Bible College or school in the United States teaches textus receptus KJV. In fact I don't know if there is one any more in the world.



Many people who are Christians if asked if they believe we are in the end days -----will say yes.



Scripture says that before the anti-christ will come on the scene there will be a falling away (falling away from the faith and from sound doctrine).

"Let no man deceive you by any means (preachers or otherwise): for that day shall not come (tribulation/Day of Christ), except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;"

II Thessalonians 2:3

AND

"For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine: but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; and shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. " (ie. most new versions don't have the word HELL in them, so I guess there is no punishment for not accepting God's only sacrifice for sin after all, WOW was Jesus stupid or what for dying for us?) II Timothy 4:3-4



Those that may say we are in the end days;--- doesn't the event of a new bible coming on the scene on the average of every 10 months for the last 125 years all of which are saying they are the way, they are the better translation etc. doesn't this fit the above scriptures---and-------doesn't this fit in with divide and conquer tactics of the devil? How else will the falling away come? How else will they turn their ears away from the truth unto fables and not endure sound doctrine?



If you "change" their words and change their scriptures then there will be confusion and no one will know what is right or wrong type thing. OH, also keep them so busy with merchandising, sports and business that they won't study it out for themselves.



Well, I'll get down off my "soap box" now,---at least I got it off my "chest".



Regards,

Lowell

 

[lizzyhermit]

two interesting comments I've read (re-read) lately:



... thy word is truth - jo 17:17



and



"the original writings of the NT were inerrant, not the copies".



I believe "most accurate" will always be argued, as with textus receptus vs. majority vs. minority vs. westcott & hort, etc.



but I do believe we can search for truth and we will find it.



and one other (to me) new thought: most variants of the NT manuscripts resulted in additions to not deletions from the older manuscripts.

 

[Texas Diesel]

Originally posted by lpearson





Scripture says that before the anti-christ will come on the scene there will be a falling away (falling away from the faith and from sound doctrine).

"Let no man deceive you by any means (preachers or otherwise): for that day shall not come (tribulation/Day of Christ), except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;"

II Thessalonians 2:3

Very good except I differ slightly on the "falling away". Look here:



http://12.45.90.10/kjv/study/strong.asp Type in "falling away" and you will find it is the root for apostasy, Greek # 646 is is described as "defection from truth". To 'defect' from the truth, one must be in the truth first and then turn away (defect) to another. Since the subject is the appearance of the "Anti-Christ" (really should read instead of Christ) we may interpret this to mean a "falling away" from the True Christ to the Instead-of Christ.