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

Most Accurate Bible

Which bible translation is the most accurate? State why you believe your choice is the one!

Moderation - New American Standard is very good.

Join Our Free Chat and Take The Bible History Quiz
 ---1stcliff on 10/13/14
     Helpful Blog Vote (4)

Post a New Blog



michael_e:

You asked: Do you actually think He would preserve parts and them not perfect

I try not to read God's mind to second-guess what he would do. I prefer to go by what he ACTUALLY says he will do.

Since you are so insistent about the perfect preservation about every single letter and word in scripture, I'm surprised that you're relying so much about your own gut feeling about it, rather than what God actually says.


scott:

The Word endures forever. This doesn't mean that every single word endures. We have many different manuscripts that differ in minor points, but so what? These manuscripts differ in only minor points. As a whole, the message is intact.
---StrongAxe on 10/23/14


//That's not what this passage means.//
according to what commentary?
---michael_e on 10/23/14


\\According to Rom 3:3-4, the errors dont exist.\\

That's not what this passage means.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 10/23/14


//Nothing in those verses says anything about preserving every letter and word 100% perfectly.//

Do you actually think He would preserve parts and them not perfect
---michael_e on 10/23/14


"Preservation of God's Word"

"The grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of our God endures forever." Isaiah 40:8, NIV
---scott on 10/23/14




michael_e:

You said: There is no good reason to doubt that God could preserve his inspired words perfectly and without error.

Scripture never ACTUALLY says he will do this.

He declares the end from the beginning. His ways are perfect and his thoughts pure.

Yes, but he does't always tell us what those are. In fact, there are many books specfically cited in the Bible that people in those days had access to, but we no longer do. Why not? I guess God didn't consider them important enough to preserve at all.

According to Rom 3:3-4, the errors dont exist.

Nothing in those verses says anything about preserving every letter and word 100% perfectly.
---StrongAxe on 10/23/14


There is no good reason to doubt that God could preserve his inspired words perfectly and without error.
He declares the end from the beginning. His ways are perfect and his thoughts pure.
Some argue trying to prove the impossibility of Gods preservation through supposed errors. According to Rom 3:3-4, the errors dont exist. Some even take the word of commentaries over the Bible
---michael_e on 10/22/14


\\On the other hand, while the Bible does explicitly say that God saves, nowhere does it mention that he is guaranteed to preserve all the scriptures accurate down to the very letter and word.\\

Somewhere in the OT, it says, "I am watching over My word to fulfill it."

Does this mean the written word?

The spoken word?

Or the Logos Who took flesh an is known now as Jesus?

If it is the written word, which language or version is the one God is looking over to fulfill?

If you believe it is a particular version, then why?

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 10/22/14


michael_e:

You said: Is it amazing, God is able to save, but not able to preserve His Word? Why would you put God in a box?

There's no need to put God in a box. On the other hand, while the Bible does explicitly say that God saves, nowhere does it mention that he is guaranteed to preserve all the scriptures accurate down to the very letter and word. We may believe that, and it may be true, but the Bible nowhere teaches it.
---StrongAxe on 10/22/14


A"flaming" sword might have been more like a light saber out of Star Wars Huh?!---1stcliffon 10/22/14

Maybe...but using the "force" sounds more like out of a movie and jw folklore.

We have been over this before. Man drew threw the first blow with sin. Can't God then protect his own?

The first offensive weapon of God's that I can remember is not until 6 and that was rain. Again, why? Man's sin way out of control.
---aka on 10/22/14




Strongaxe

Since you are are a frequent blogger who usually has backup to your posts, I had no way of knowing that you were not equipped. And I apologize.

The scripture says that cherubim were placed at the east side of eden (man's entrance) and placed the sword that turns every way to protect the tree of life (man built of tree of death to defeat)

To me...it is a picture of beings that the Lord has granted limited power but he embodies ultimate power as Hebrews 1 addresses.
---aka on 10/22/14


Is it amazing, God is able to save, but not able to preserve His Word? Why would you put God in a box?
---michael_e on 10/22/14


I find it very strange that God would create a weapon of war, (sword) while Eden was still freshly created for man's enjoyment.
Although Cain did not kill Abel with a sword,soon. man came to make them to kill each other!
A "flaming" sword might have been more like a light saber out of Star Wars Huh?!
---1stcliff on 10/22/14


michael e : If you take psl.6.12 and Mat.24.35 as promises that God would "preserve" His words,what steps did He take to do this seeing that there are no original manuscripts and only fragments that do not agree.
Just "what" words did He preserve? 10 commandments?
They were at least written in stone.
---1stcliff on 10/22/14


aka:

You wrote: why do you want to water down the witness of "a flaming sword" and its the significance?.

I wasn't watering it down. I was paraphrasing from my imperfect memory - this is why I used the generic "angel", and I didn't use quotation marks, nor cite chapter and verse. There are times when I have time to spend half an hour researching replies on this site, and there are times when I don't.

But the point remains - the cherubim blocked access to the ENTIRE garden, NOT just the Tree of Life.
---StrongAxe on 10/22/14


It's fairly clear that the angel with the flaming sword blocked the entrance to ALL of Eden, specifically to prevent access to the Tree of Life.

Otherwise, ... ---StrongAxe on 10/20/14

strongeAxe, i know why God did it.

to you, it is fairly clear. to me, it is very clear.

but, your argument is not with me. the scripture says cherubim (at least 2 to infinity max) were placed at the east side AND a flaming sword that turned EVERY ...north, south, east west. (can i throw in below and above?)

why do you want to water down the witness of "a flaming sword" and its the significance?.
---aka on 10/21/14


Read These Insightful Articles About Abortion Facts


So it is with the Bible. You really can't progress if you're constantly repeating (re-running) THE SAME lesson over n over...
---Leon on 10/20/14

Practice is valid if one understands the lesson. If fundamentals are wrong, then same errors cycle.
Gen 2 is not practice rehash of Gen 1, except for those who need it to be for their personal doctrines.
Problem is their doctrines then have to eliminate the prophets. We have noticed by their avoidance of, they cannot defer to prophets for required witnesses.
Isa 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
Act 15:15 And to this agree the words of the prophets, as it is written,
Acts 24:14...
---Trav on 10/21/14


Aka: So, after much practice to make the team perfect, when you guys got into "the game" & ran the same play over n over, how did that work for you? How much forward progress did you make?

"Daniel-san, you much humor!" :)
---Leon on 10/21/14


// What evidence do you have that God actually "preserved"His word?//
Psa. 12:6-7, Mat. 24:35
---michael_e on 10/20/14


aka:

It's fairly clear that the angel with the flaming sword blocked the entrance to ALL of Eden, specifically to prevent access to the Tree of Life.

Otherwise, what was to stop Adam and Eve from coming back and enjoying the other parts of the garden? But they never did.
---StrongAxe on 10/20/14


Read These Insightful Articles About Acne Treatment


You really can't progress if you're constantly repeating (re-running) THE SAME lesson over n over...
---Leon on 10/20/14

danielson...wax on, wax off!

tell my old football coach that. we ran the same play over and over and over...until we go it perfect. then, we did it again.

iow...can't roll until born, can't crawl until i roll (over and over),
can't walk until i crawl (over and over),
can't run until i walk (over and over).

so is it with those who are born again.
---aka on 10/20/14


"...Truth divergence begins in Gen 1 and 2 for some...To accommodate popular doctrines, the second chapter is said to be a re-run of first chapter. The differences are very great indeed and so this cannot be true..."---Trav on 10/20/14

Genesis 2, instead of being a re-run of 1, is a progression (a movement or development toward a destination or a more advanced state) of Holy Scripture. I think of it like this: The principles & techniques I learned in first grade were built upon & expanded in second grade, & so on, by going from the known (previously taught) to the unknown. So it is with the Bible. You really can't progress if you're constantly repeating (re-running) THE SAME lesson over n over...
---Leon on 10/20/14


michael e, What evidence do you have that God actually "preserved"His word?
---1stcliff on 10/20/14


if a doctrine can only be taught if the Bible is retranslated then turn around and walk away.
The response is, that is translated wrong, its a mistranslation, its a mistake, and then retranslate the verse to say something different. Anything can be taught from the Bible if we change enough words.
Don't trust a mans doctrine that does not respect God to preserve his words.
---michael_e on 10/20/14


Shop For Christian Home Business Opportunities


cheribum = cherubim
---aka on 10/20/14


Warwick: Replenish has come to mean refill to who? Where in the KJV, or for that matter any Bible translation, does it say "REFILL"?
---Leon on 10/16/14
Truth divergence begins in Gen 1 and 2 for some. If any believes the Bible to be true and to be the Word of God, then he must start there. To accommodate popular doctrines, the second chapter is said to be a re-run of first chapter. The differences are very great indeed and so this cannot be true.
Some divergent preachers prefer to hang out in Genesis, laying diversions, from the foundation of scripture. These are found in Rev:
Rev_2:14 But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, ...
---Trav on 10/20/14


//God used A cherub (cherubim is plural) with the flaming sword to stop access to Eden.// cluny

BCV

ummm...if the bible says cheribum, then why A cherub? and it says 'and' not 'with'.

//**God did use cherubim and a flaming sword to guard from changing his truth to ours.**...
Wrong.//

as Ronald Reagan said to Carter and Mondale, "There you go again!"

eden generally...the way of the tree of life specifically...

Gen 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us...and now, lest he 'put forth his hand, and take'[our way/truth]also of the tree of life...and live for ever [God's way/truth]:

Gen 3:24 So he drove out the man...to keep the way of the tree of life.
---aka on 10/20/14


Thanks Cluny - maybe you hadn't had your second cup of coffee when you typed that. I'm having mine right now then I'll feel human again and raring to go and face the world again. Have a nice day yourself.
---Rita_H on 10/20/14


Read These Insightful Articles About Bad Credit Loans


\\Cluny on 10/18 you said "we not through linguistic stumbling blocks". Did your word 'through' mean to say 'throw'? If not, will you explain what you mean please?
---Rita_H on 10/19/14\\

Yes, Rita, I did.

Thank you very much for pointing out my error.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 10/19/14


michael_e:

Since we have so many manuscripts that disagree in minor points, and we have no objective third-party authority (e.g. a voice from heaven) to tell us which ones are right, God is leaving it for imperfect humans to copy and vet imperfect copies of his word.

From this, we have to conclude that God is more concerned with the central essence of the message, rather than every single word, jot, and tittle - because we no longer have those to rely on. Maybe he never intended us to. Cults frequently base bizarre doctrines on the twist of a single word or phrase mentioned only once - clearly a very unwise (and unstable) way to treat any kind of documents, whether biblical or not.
---StrongAxe on 10/19/14


Is it true God inspired His holy words in the "originals," but has since, lost them, since no one has a perfect Bible today?
---michael_e on 10/19/14


**God did use cherubim and a flaming sword to guard from changing his truth to ours.
**

Wrong. God used A cherub (cherubim is plural) with the flaming sword to stop access to Eden.

And believe it or not, translating from one language to another is NOT the cut-and-dried issue that some people think it is.

The older the original text (and the Bible is pretty old), and the less closely related to the receptor language (e.g., Hebrew to English), and the more different the syntax and sentence structure (Greek is highly inflected, English is not), the more difficult translation is.

I'm not even going to get into the issue of the state of ancient MSS.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 10/19/14


Read These Insightful Articles About Bankruptcy


Cluny on 10/18 you said "we not through linguistic stumbling blocks". Did your word 'through' mean to say 'throw'? If not, will you explain what you mean please?
---Rita_H on 10/19/14


OTOH Doesn't charity also demand that we don't let the Truth be so corrupted so that the original meaning is preserved? God did use cherubim and a flaming sword to guard from changing his truth to ours.

Also, what is the limit? maybe to the younger generation it is written:

Rev_15:3..they [spit] the song of Moses...and the song of the Lamb, saying, "[Sick] and [all that and a bag of chips] are your deeds, O Lord God the Almighty! [for real though] and [straight up] are your ways, O King of the nations!

Pro 26:11 Like a [dawg] that returns to his [liquid laugh] is a [window licker] who repeats his folly.

GOD FORBID! or should i say, "hells to the no"
---aka on 10/19/14


Though we did not use the New American Standard in Bible School, I while I was in Bible School that the New American Standard is the best literal English translation of the Bible. I have liked the NIV before revision as my favorite dynamic equivalent Bible. Also, I have enjoyed the NAB and the NRSV translations of the Bible. If one wishes to expand their vocabulary, the KJV is a fine old English Bible that is called poetic in form, but no one talks this way, except in Shakespearian plays. NIV and NRSV are the way we speak. NRSV gives good literal translation footnotes.
---sin on 10/19/14


I cut my teeth on the King James Version, and that is still my favorite version.
---Gayla on 10/19/14


Read These Insightful Articles About Cash Advance


Warwick:

You wrote: Interestingly in my childhood in country Australia the RC church conducted services in Latin, even though few could understand it. People thought it gave a mysterious religious flavour and many protested strongly when services were changed to English.

This happens in a lot of places. I think it depends on WHY people go to church.

If they do it to get closer to God, they should welcome anything that narrows the gap between them. But if they want to experience the alien and mysterious, they don't want to get closer to God - they want God to remain separate and mysterious. They don't want religion - they want magic.
---StrongAxe on 10/19/14


Cluny, thanks for your comments.

Interestingly in my childhood in country Australia the RC church conducted services in Latin, even though few could understand it. People thought it gave a mysterious religious flavour and many protested strongly when services were changed to English.

You have written "Charity demands we not through linguistic stumbling blocks at their feet, but use a more modern idiom." I agree wholeheartedly.
---Warwick on 10/19/14


Most of us are privileged to own several (maybe many) different versions of the bible and can compare to our heart's content. If we still fail to understand something we should ask someone else for clarity.

Many decades ago a person might have started a sentence with "Pray tell me sir, would you kindly be able to.......? Now a person would be more likely to say "Hi mate, can you help me out here........?

Language evolves and the more we read the more we understand that but none of that means that one way is correct and another incorrect.

Any version is better read than UNread and left on the shelf.
---Rita_H on 10/19/14


\\It appears that some people just like the archaic language as it sounds more religious.\\

I understand that.

I was brought up in the KJV and understand its diction.

However, our congregation is filled with people who speak English only as a second language.

This is the case with many Orthodox and other Eastern Christian parishes in the USA.

Charity demands we not through linguistic stumbling blocks at their feet, but use a more modern idiom.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 10/18/14


Read These Insightful Articles About Credit Counseling


michael_e wrote: Seems to be very little doubt the KJV is very accurate as all others seem to be compared to it.

It's more that SO many people seem to think the KJV is the end-all and be-all translation, all others are compared to it, just to show how accurate (or inaccurate) such a claim is.
---StrongAxe on 10/18/14


There's little doubt that people think archaic English is more "holy" because of it's antiquity.
One radio preacher here even prays in archaic English, sounds more "holy"?
---1stcliff on 10/18/14


//thanks for the actually, //

sorry, cluny, i meant...

thanks for the further info, actually....
---aka on 10/18/14


//Actually, "prevent" is from the Latin "prevenire" which means "to go before.//

thanks for the actually, venire is latin for to come then we add the prefix "to come before."

from Latin praeventus from prae- + venire

vent has roots in venire
---aka on 10/18/14


Read These Insightful Articles About Debt Relief


Michael, when the KJV is compared to such as the ESV the KJV does not compare well. It appears that some people just like the archaic language as it sounds more religious. However the truth is that it cannot be understood without reference to a dictionary.

Members of my family (whose first language is not English) were stressed, lost in miscomprehension, when attending a KJV only church. That was easily changed by moving to another church.

A few of the hundreds of archaic words: Mark 5:39 in modern English "Why all this commotion...." KJV "Why make this ado."??? Luke 11:48 in the ESV the proper translation is 'consent' whereas the KJV uses the archaic meaningless "allow."
---Warwick on 10/18/14


\\makes sense. "vent" as a verb is the expression or release of a strong emotion, energy, etc. "pre" is a prefix that means before. that is, what you intend to allow.\\

Actually, "prevent" is from the Latin "prevenire" which means "to go before.

I'm not the universal linguist, but I do know that most Indo-European languages have words that have more than one meaning, even Koine Greek.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 10/18/14


Seems to be very little doubt the KJV is very accurate as all others seem to be compared to it.
---michael_e on 10/18/14


There are other words in the KJV that have changed their meanings...
Two examples are Glory to Jesus Christ! ---Cluny on 10/17/14

makes sense. "vent" as a verb is the expression or release of a strong emotion, energy, etc. "pre" is a prefix that means before. that is, what you intend to allow.

"let" is from Old English l & #772,t lettan to delay, hinder...kind of like old German lezzen to delay.

profess and confess have a similar ambiguity. "profess" from profiteri, pro (before) + fateri (confess)...iow what you believe before public confession. these beliefs were usually avowing specific beliefs privately to an official body.
---aka on 10/18/14


Read These Insightful Articles About Debt Settlement


PARALYSIS OF ANALYSIS... SMH
---Leon on 10/17/14


\\Rod, my point is the use of "replenish" in Genesis 1:28 has been used to support the nonBiblical Gap Theory which places death before sin, the opposite of what the OT and NT say.\\

There are other words in the KJV that have changed their meanings, sometimes 180 degrees, since 1611.

Two examples are "let", which originally meant "prohibited or prevented (in the modern sense)" and "prevent" which originally meant simply "to go before," usually with the implication of permitting something.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 10/17/14


Rod, my point is the use of "replenish" in Genesis 1:28 has been used to support the nonBiblical Gap Theory which places death before sin, the opposite of what the OT and NT say. And it undermines the basis of the gospel, not something to be taken lightly. If a review and reprinting of the KJV were undertaken so as to replace archaic words with their correct modern equivalents (e.g. use 'fill' at Genesis 1:28 instead of 'replenish') then there would be less room for misunderstanding. However when anyone suggests such change the KJV only crowd become upset. It appears they worship the book itself and believe that changing any word (to reflect the proper current meaning) is tantamount to sacrilege.
---Warwick on 10/17/14


Re: replenish
dictionary:
to fill or build up (something) again, supply fully : PERFECT, fill with inspiration or power : NOURISH, fill or build up again , make good : REPLACE, become full : fill up again
from re- + plein full

Strongs H4390 - male'

Mem, lamed, aleph
Pic and meaning:
mem: water: chaos, mighty, blood
Lamed: shepherds staff: teach, yoke, to bind
Aleph: Oxhead: strong, power, leader


includes complete, fulfill, finish, be full, consecrate, satisfy, accomplish, be ended, abundance, be armed
---Chria9396 on 10/17/14


Read These Insightful Articles About Distance Learning


"Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish (fill, refill) the earth.." is the exact same phrase that was used to Noah when he was told to "Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth..."

The Bible is not exact in the usage of the word, "male." One can look up the word, and it is also used to "fill" a vessel. One would have to assume that the vessel had never been filled before to hold to a view that "male" is always "to fill" and not to "refill." "Male" can mean either fill or refill.

When one fills up a tank of gas, it is common to say, "fill it," not "refill it."

I am not supporting a Gap Theory...just saying.
---Rod4Him on 10/17/14


Leon, for good reason the majority of translations have "fill" not "replenish" in Genesis 1:28, as "fill" is un ambiguous.

When reading "replenish the earth" people can be forgiven for believing it means "refill the earth" as the 're' prefix often conveys the meaning of again e.g. stock and restock, fill and refill. To make matters more confusing we have 'plenish' in English, which means 'fill.' So it is quite logical that some would erroneously believe "replenish" means refill. And that misunderstanding has given support to the Gap Theory.
---Warwick on 10/17/14


Note, Joseph H Thayer,one of the most gifted of translators, published a Greek-English Lexicon .
The published pointed out a possible bias but revealed his own bias.
pg vii pp 4
**A word of caution is necessary. Thayer was a Unitarian, and the errors of this sect occasionally come through in his explanatory notes.The reader should be alert for both subtle and blatant denials of such doctrines as the Trinity.**
---1stcliff on 10/16/14


..."today 'replenish' has come to mean 'refill.''[???] Therefore the KJV, here, gives a totally wrong meaning. [???]

...this verse in the KJV is used to support the nonBiblical Gap Theory. [???]
---Warwick on 10/15/14



Warwick: Replenish has come to mean refill to who? Where in the KJV, or for that matter any Bible translation, does it say "REFILL"?
---Leon on 10/16/14


Read These Insightful Articles About Education


Thank you for your information, micha.

I tend to be leery of single-translator versions of the Bible.

Even St. Jerome's Vulgate (Good News for Modern Romans) was tinkered with over the centuries.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 10/16/14


"The Darby Bible (DBY, formal title The Holy Scriptures: A New Translation from the Original Languages by J. N. Darby) refers to the Bible as translated from Hebrew and Greek by John Nelson Darby. Darby published a translation of the New Testament in 1867, with revised editions in 1872 and 1884." Darby Bible - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
---micha9344 on 10/16/14


//...Chria, Char appreciate the path you guys take...// trav

near the end of my 40 yr crazy, endless, merry-go-round of biblical misguidance, the Lord brought to me memories of being a korean, german, latin, and spanglish linguist. a linguistic amalgamation of marble and silk.

with the help of kjv+, char's wording pictures, chria's meditated word, and trav's targeted sheep-dogging, i never have to ride that crazy ride again and forever grateful.
---aka on 10/16/14


For the New Testament, you might like to check out the Concordant Literal New Testament. Rotherham's and Young's are also good.
---learner2 on 10/15/14


Read These Insightful Articles About Home Equity Loans


I do have a KJV, actually two, and use it, well aware that it gives wrong meaning in numerous places For those wanting a specific example see Genesis 1:28 which in the KJV reads "Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth...." 'Replenish' is a translation of the underlying Hebrew 'male' meaning to fill. When the KJV was produced some hundreds of years ago 'replenish' meant fill, so this was then a correct translation. However today 'replenish' has come to mean 'refill.' Therefore the KJV, here, gives a totally wrong meaning.

Does this really matter? Obviously and for good reasons, including that this verse in the KJV is used to support the nonBiblical Gap Theory.
---Warwick on 10/15/14


Leon, Your statement to me "your messages come from the very pits of hell & smell like smoke produced by fire burning brimstone/sulphur"" comes straight from satan's mouth, not from a Christian seeking truth!
That God is both "translator and interpreter" of the bible reveals the level of your intellect !
Which version of the bible did He both translate and interpret?
---1stcliff on 10/15/14


\\KING James had a bias to be famous and popular, so did DARBY have bias,....and DOUHY-RHEMES, etc.\\

What biases did these translations have?
(BTW, James himself did not participate in the translation.)

And I'm hot aware that Darby did a translation of the Bible. Or are you talking about the Scofield Reference Bible, perchance?

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 10/15/14


I came to Christ 30 years ago. I found the REVISED STANDARD VERSION to be the most straightforward and understandable, it does not have a BIAS, it is GENERIC/standard in expressions/explanations and mannerisms.

KING James had a bias to be famous and popular, so did DARBY have bias,....and DOUHY-RHEMES, etc.

I have also always CROSS-REFERENCED many versions to get a clearer understanding.

I had the ambition to DRAW NEAR but it's really not possible, so HE drew me to Him in truth and spirit...."draw near to Him and He will draw near to you",....YOU must make the first move in earnest.

Have a FAITH FOR FAITH (Romans 1:17 and Hebrews "draw near".

Verse is from RSV.
---faithforfaith on 10/15/14


Read These Insightful Articles About Interest Rates


Whatever Cliff! I hope one day you'll come to trust in God as translator & interpreter of the Bible (Genesis - Revelation). Then you won't idolize yourself as a god. By the way, your messages come from the very pits of hell & smell like smoke produced by fire burning brimstone/sulphur.
---Leon on 10/15/14


Leon, How you arrive at "my opinion of God" from a question about bible construction, reveals your attitude of "shoot the messenger!"
It's holding the bible up as an idol with words like "every word is God breathed" when there are no original manuscripts and of those that are extant, no two are identical.
Who determines which words are "God breathed?" You?
Is there such a person as an unbiased translator?
---1stcliff on 10/15/14


"Leon, This question is more about the "mechanics" of the bible, not doctrine...would it still be a bible if there were only 39 books? or if there were 70 plus books?...Where does God fit in to this "making of a bible?..."
---1stcliff on 10/14/14


The number of books (mechanics) isn't what makes it the Bible. Because you don't know Him, you obviously have a very twisted & low opinion of God Cliff. Nonetheless, God's will be done in all things no matter what you think.
---Leon on 10/14/14


\\The number of books (66) was determined by some one/ones ,\\

Actually, it's 77 or so books, depending on how you divide some of them.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 10/14/14


Read These Insightful Articles About Internet Marketing


Leon, This question is more about the "mechanics" of the bible, not doctrine .
The number of books (66) was determined by some one/ones , would it still be a bible if there were only 39 books? or if there were 70 plus books?
Was the number not reached by consensus? (committee)
Where does God fit in to this "making of a bible?" seeing that they had a very difficult time reaching "consensus"
Where they, after all not Catholic Bishops?
---1stcliff on 10/14/14


Cliff: I see you're yet kicking against the goads (pricks). Are there any that you'd choose to be most accurate since all Bible translations contain the teachings of Paul & Luke of whom you've determined to be inaccurate?
---Leon on 10/14/14


Nevertheless, any of man's many words will never be contained perfectly except by the The Father's Word.
---aka on 10/14/14

Use KJV only...because it has had the most research attached to it,concordances etc.
Chria, Char appreciate the path you guys take in the original languages. AKA, and you guys stir me to search them at times, when I wouldn't have normally.
The other versions are just additional research another step away from the original. Have heard the Revised version eliminates the word gentile, for what it should read, would still have to compare the whole version.
Any questions I have are searched from the KJV base, Esword or Biblegateway.
---Trav on 10/14/14


I have come to prefer the KJV from comparing different versions but know little about the multitude of versions out there. I had a Catholic bible when young, then NASB, NIV and KJV. On the internet through Bible hub or Bible gateway I have accessed several other versions in study. My preference is not from researching histories of translations etc, which I know little of. Prayer, Gods leading, other study tools from Strongs to Hebrew alphabet charts, definitions of original words or letters etc may
---Chria9396 on 10/14/14


Read These Insightful Articles About Life Insurance


The one you are reading. Do not read for information but for transformation. Go indepth search and find but do not worry about it. I like ESV.
---Scott1 on 10/14/14


there is not one for me.

ALL versions of the Bible translated from the original scriptures are written to prove itself. therefore, all versions taken from the original scriptures are errant to some degree. Even some "original" documents may be written with some bias.

Therefore, I use each against each other and i have a reference of the hebrew and greek words used. I eliminate the versions that water down witness. E.g. Compare 1 Kings 10:14 (NASB) to 1 Kings 10:14 (HCSB).

Nevertheless, any of man's many words will never be contained perfectly except by the The Father's Word.
---aka on 10/14/14


For my purposes, I find the KJV, NKJV, and Orthodox Study Bible to be the best.

The NKJV is the only modern English NT based on the TR.

The NASB is a scrupulously accurate translation of the wrong NT text, namely the Alexandrian. That's my only criticism of it.

Of course, if one believes that the Alexandrian/Critical texts are the most accurate, then the NASB is ideal.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 10/14/14


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