ChristiaNet MallWorld's Largest Christian MallChristian BlogsFree Bible QuizzesFree Ecards and Free Greeting CardsLoans, Debt, Business and Insurance Articles

The Bible In English The Best

As the bible was not written originally in English why, o why, o why, are some convinced that it is the best translation? If the original Greek and original Hebrew are not available, which many claim, from what was it tranlated and how are you so sure of the accuracy of THAT.

Join Our Christian Singles and Visit Our Apostles Creed
 ---f.f. on 6/24/06
     Helpful Blog Vote (9)

Reply to this BlogPost a New Blog



When Erasmus was compiling the Greek text which became the Textus Receptus from which the KJV was translated, he found it incomplete. So, what he found missing he translated into Greek from the Latin Vulgate of Jerome. It was a somewhat dishonest thing to do, but maybe he had no other choice.
---John1944 on 11/2/07


While there are variants among the Greek and Hebrew MSS, nevertheless they have shown long stability, especially when compared with other ancient versions such as the Vulage, Vetus Italica, Slavonic, Armenian, Syriac, and others.

None of the variants change the meaning of any doctrine adequately established elsewhere in the Bible.
---Jack on 11/2/07


tofur - what is the criteria used in determing if a manuscript is corrupt?
Seems to me there must exist some kind of standard for comparison.
Granted that not all manscripts are the same in every detail but I believe it would take a Greek-Hebrew scholar to make any kind of determination as to whether it represents what the originals were.
---lee on 9/3/06


Precisely, That scripture does exist in many manuscripts and has been quoted all the way back the the first century. The thing that they dont tell you in the foot notes is the corrupt manuscripts they used to translated their versions didnt contain the whole chapter, let alone the verse.
---tofurabby on 8/19/06


Tofurabby ... One of my NIVs has i John 7 & 8 in full. The other, a study bible, adds the words as a footnote, saying that they are not found in any Greek manuscripts before the 16th Century!
---alan8869_of_UK on 8/18/06




Alan, I will give you one example off the top of my head (I can give many but dont like it when people flood the blogs with posts and dont want to be one of them). 1 John 5:7 The whole verse bearing testimony to the Triune God is discarded. There are at least 20 Greek manuscripts which have this verse in. It is also seen in the writings of the church fathers. It directly affects the Bible doctrine of the Trinity.
---tofurabby on 8/18/06


Tofurabby ... Yes there are more varying views nowadays, but I don't think they are caused by people using modern Bibles. There are other influences from outside, and modern logical thinking.
But perhaps you can say what false doctrine we have now which you feel is caused by using modern Bibles rather than the KJV?
---alan8869_of_UK on 8/18/06


2. Bottom line, I have no doubts that the variety of modern versions has played a substantial role in your "better understanding". Which explains the huge advancement of false teachings and wild doctrines. Since everyone can "think for themselves" that is all I see anymore, People thinking for themselves and not adhering to Biblical truths. I want to learn from what God said, not what men want us to think he said.
---tofurabby on 8/18/06


The KJV was translated for common man. It pulled us away from subjection to priests and their private interpretations. If the intention was to continue to force people to learn from the clergy there would have been no need for a translation to begin with, because at the time all the churches had access to scripture. King James actually forced a KJV to be set out in every church for common men to read, if they couldnt read, the clergy were forced to read it for them. Without it, you have no version.
---tofurabby on 8/18/06


tofurabby- No, I do not believe modern version have not lead to new discoveries but better understanding because the language is now more understandable. For too many years the word of God was hidden in archaic Shakespearean English that few could read let alone understand.
And the Bible was more the prerogative of the clergy. The clergy has far less power over people today; people think for themselves more today than during the time when the KJV was dominant.
---lee on 8/18/06




Alan, you would be suprised at the number of people that are confused about the essentials. But that doesnt matter, Satan knows the essentials are true but it doesnt mean he is going to heaven. I will not excuse anyone for false doctrine whether it is essential or not. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine. The right answer to all doctrine can be found in the Bible. Sorry, I will not twist the writings because I dont like "old traditional views".
---tofurabby on 8/18/06


As knowledge increases? The Bible has been around for 100s of years and has been diligently studied the whole time. Are you telling me that we are still finding new insights that were not discovered before? ...or could it be that the modern versions have changed things which leads you to believe there are new discoveries to be found? As for a concrete example... I said look at CN... the whole thing is a big argument.
---tofurabby on 8/18/06


Mat 13:33 He spoke another parable to them, "The kingdom of heaven is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three pecks of flour until it was all leavened."
That leaven certainly has taken hold. False doctrines and the mouths of the Pharisees continue to spew leaven. The adultress is hard at work.
---Ryan on 8/17/06


Tofurabby ... As Lee says, there is little division on core Christian beliefs.
And as for the "fringe" that he cites, I don't think that the differences in opinion between various people here are in any way caused by which Bible they read.
---alan8869_of_UK on 8/17/06


tofurabby - As knowledge increases you can expect to find old traditional views or interpretations challenged. For instance, some still believe in tithing, 6-day creation scenario, discrimination against divorced for church offices, sunday being the Christian sabbath, worldwide flood, necessity of baptism, etc. But I do not see any significance difference in basic Christian doctrines - the trinity, divinity of Christ, etc. Perhaps you can provide one concrete example.
---lee on 8/17/06


um... lee? KJV onlyists agree on most of the doctrine between them. Outside of that it seems to me that doctrinal views have gone wild. Look at these blogs, there is seldom agreement. If the modern versions present the doctrine in such a better form then why does everyone seem to be interpreting it differently? I think they create confusion. Obviously it is my own observation, I would love to see a real study about this. I would bet the only consistancy would be found with those who stick to the KJV.
---tofurabby on 8/17/06


Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Dating


I really see no justification in condemning someone that prefers one version or another as any test of doctrinal views would probably show little if any difference. But when it comes to understanding of doctrine, it is apparent that those that read modern versions really have the edge, partly bec of the updated and easy to understand English and style.
---lee on 8/16/06


Nope, I dont take it quite that far... remember I atleast see some value in the modern versions because you can still find salvation with them.
---tofurabby on 8/16/06


Yes Toturabby ... your analogy is not the best is it? It would imply that as the 2nd version of CocaCola, without coke as an ingredient, was better and purer (since coke's not a good thing to drink) is better than the original, containing that drug, so the KJV would be better than the original texts. Now I have heard some KJVOs say that, ("KJV corrects the errors in the texts from which it was translated")but I don't think yuo would go along with that.
---alan8869_of_UK on 8/16/06


Alan, No... if my analogy was the original coke recipe from that far back, then I guess it would have related to the original penned manuscripts???
cocacola with coke = originals
cocacola without coke = KJV
cocacola new formula = modern versions
cocacola classic = KJV
hmmm... I guess Coke was a bad analogy after all. :)
---tofurabby on 8/16/06


Read These Insightful Articles About Health Treatments


If Herb or someone else had said the following things about modern versions PCs would melt because of anger towards that person.
"With 37.1% of the verses in the KJV NT translated wrong. What type of ignorant fool would still want to use it for serious Bible study."
notlaw99 on 8/14/06
"Romans 14:2 For one believeth that he may read modern versions of Scripture: another, who is weak, readeth only the King James."
lee on 8/14/06
These words are not unaccountable.
---Elder on 8/15/06


Tofurabby ... I thought you wer referring to the original Coke formula, which contained ... coke
---alan8869_of_UK on 8/15/06


The reason I used that one was because they changed their recipe in the 80's to compete with pepsi and the public went nuts... coke lost massive amounts of business and within months released cocacola classic. New and improved is not always better. Another analogy is all the car manufacturers bringing back their 60-70's cars (dodge charger and challenger for example)... they are neat, but no replacement for the real thing.
---tofurabby on 8/14/06


Tofurabby ... # 3 I'm not sure your analogy with Coke is appropriate. I would hope most Christians would eschew the original version of Coke, bearing in mind the contents.
---alan8869_of_UK on 8/14/06


Send a Free New Year Ecard


Tofurabby ... # 2 As you know, I do not scorn the KJV, and find it beautiful and "meaningful" in its style. I also use modern versions alongside.
So I'm impartial as to the "quality" of the versions, but just object when supporters of either version descend to the depths of condemnation and damnation that I've previously commented upon.
---alan8869_of_UK on 8/14/06


Tofurabby ... # 2 As you know, I do not scorn the KJV, and find it beautiful and "meaningful" in its style. I also use modern versions alongside.
So I'm impartial as to the "quality" of the versions, but just object when supporters of either version descend to the depths of condemnation and damnation that I've previously commented upon.
---alan8869_of_UK on 8/14/06


Tofurabby ... Yes I have seen now that Notlaw has dissed the KJV, and just one has previously. But neither of them has called the KJV satanic.
I have only come across one other person here who has used the word "diss" and that was Eloy. Lucky he got me used to it, otherwise I would have to ask you what it meant.
---alan8869_of_UK on 8/14/06


of course you all know I believe the KJV to be the best English translation and it has been for years.
"Those that scorn the automobile beleiving that the buggy was God's way of travel."??? I'm not sure that analogy works, lets try this one: Those that scorn movie remakes believing the originals to be better or those that scorn new coke believing the original formula to be better.
---tofurabby on 8/14/06


Read These Insightful Articles About Affiliate Program


Alan, you still claim that no one here on CN disses the KJV? "What type of ignorant fool would still want to use it for serious Bible study." by notlaw99 ..."With 37.1% of the verses in the KJV NT translated wrong." HAHAHA, wish I knew where he came up with that one. Curious notlaw99, regarding the modern versions, what percentage of the NT wasnt even translated at all?
---tofurabby on 8/14/06


lee ... Just because I disagree with Herb, it does not mean I want to eat him!

Yes, I understand that none of us want to get a bad case of indigestion.
---lee on 8/14/06


notlaw99 - ** What type of ignorant fool would still want to use it for serious Bible study. **

Those that scorn the automobile beleiving that the buggy was God's way of travel.
---lee on 8/14/06


Herb ... that must really mean I do not want to eat you!!
Sorry, my computer is doing funny things ... I did not mean to post twice.
---alan8869_of_UK on 8/14/06


Read These Insightful Articles About Abortion Facts


lee ... Just because I disagree with Herb, it does not mean I want to eat him!
---alan8869_of_UK on 8/14/06


lee ... Just because I disagree with Herb, it does not mean I want to eat him!
---alan8869_of_UK on 8/14/06


There are so may better modern English translations then the textually corrupt KJV New Testament. That come for much older source texts. Use a version based on NA27 or UBS4.

With 37.1% of the verses in the KJV NT translated wrong. What type of ignorant fool would still want to use it for serious Bible study.
---notlaw99 on 8/14/06


Romans 14:2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.

A modern equivalent would be -

Romans 14:2 For one believeth that he may read modern versions of Scripture: another, who is weak, readeth only the King James.
---lee on 8/14/06


Read These Insightful Articles About Acne Treatment


Jesus even quoted from the KJV
Now that must be one of the most absurd statement made here on CN
---alan8869_of_UK on 8/14/06


** the KJB is the correct one for ENGLISH SPEAKING PEOPLE. there's the difference**

Please give proof of this assertion.

Mere claims are not proof.
---Jack on 8/13/06


the KJB is the correct one for ENGLISH SPEAKING PEOPLE. there's the difference
---r.w. on 8/13/06


As a matter of fact, both forms of modern Greek language (both Katharevousa and Demotiki) are VERY close to Koine (NT) Greek.
---Jack on 6/26/06


Read These Insightful Articles About Bad Credit Loans


Herb "The KJV bible was translated from the koine Greek which is not spoken today." The English into which the KJV was written is not spoken today either therefore people wish to read the bible in the modern English that IS now spoken. Would you please explain how Jesus quoted from the KJV (a book which wasn't written until hundreds of years after He left the earth. Are you one of these people who says "If KJV was good enough for Paul it is good enough for me."?!!!!!
---f.f. on 6/26/06


Mike8384 'Ff, yhou start frpm a misconception:' Actually Mike the misconception was not mine. I asked the question because recently it has been stated here, by others, that we do not have any original Greek or Hebrew. I was really asking those who defend one version whilst condemning others HOW they can prove that their favourite is fine if there is NO ORIGINAL to compare with. It makes no sense to me. I agree with what you say about the Dead Sea Scrolls.
---f.f. on 6/26/06


RevHerb, Could you please elaborate on Jesus quoting from the KJV. Thanks
---randy on 6/26/06


RevHerb, whomever... look for a new blog in which I'll challenge any KJVO to define the meaning of 'inerrant' and point us to exactly which book they believe to be God's perfect Word and why! f.f.--I imagine you'll also be intersted in that! KJVOs are so concerned about pointing out so-called errors in other Bibles, I doubt any of them can POSITIVELY state what writings truly are 'inerrant'; without any doubts!
---danie9374 on 6/25/06


Read These Insightful Articles About Bankruptcy


The KJV bible was translated from the koine Greek which is not spoken today. koine an amaligam of Greek dialects that replaced the classical Greek and flourished under the Roman Empire (The Ramdom House College Dictionary) Jesus even quoted from the KJV
---Rev_Herb on 6/25/06


Ff, yhou start frpm a misconception: we have accurate texts of the OT and NT, both in the Hebrew and Greek.
The Dead Sea Scrolls confirm the accuracy of the OT as handed down.
The KJv was based on the Erasmus text, circa 1520, based on th Greek mss taken West before the fall of Constantinople, 29/05/1453.
---mike8384 on 6/25/06


I'm sorry, I made a mistake in my original question. I meant to say 'from what was the KJV translated and how are you so sure of the accuracy of THAT?' If there is no original Hebrew and Greek available how can claims be made about ANY particular version being the most accurate and 'the one that God preserved'?
---f.f. on 6/24/06


Copyright© 1996-2015 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.