Is KJV the only Bible version Christians should use?

Well said C4C.

A couple things.

First: About HarperCollins owning Zondervan and HarperCollin's immoral books, that's just a fact of the publishing world. The majority of Christian publishing companies are owned by secular ones, and I believe HarperCollins has most of the big Christian publishing companies.

However, HarperCollins (hereto known as HC), doesn't exert that much control over what Zondervan publishes, really. HC owns Zondervan, but Zondervan for the most part has been able to do business as usual. Hence, I do not think that this is terribly important in this discussion.

Second: Just because publishers make money off of selling Bibles does not mean they love money. Publishers and translators need to be able to survive and bring in cash for their family.

Third: Ok, yes, the 2011 NIV, IMO, has pretty big problems. And I agree with you on the dangers of constantly remodernizing texts. However, I think you're committing a straw-man fallacy here. IN other words, you're taking one of the extreme cases of the modern Bible versions and using it as an example. If you looked at the ESV, on the other hand, you'll find a version that, while being regularly changed every 5 years, is still very consistent and very good.

WM: Thank you for taking the time to repy to my post. First, I would like to point out that I have not condemned any of the major Bible translations in any of my posts, nor said anything directly against them. I have only brought out some information about some of the sources of the texts and the point about the plural and singular.
You said, "I argue for fair debate over the liberty Christians have to use any of the major English translations they prefer", and I agree with you that Christians have the liberty to use any of the major translations they prefer. I am learning Spanish and occasionally read a Spanish Bible. However, you mentioned "arguments that mislead people who are reading and are not aware of the arguments". That is precisely why I am bringing up information for the KJV, because I do not want people to hear only the arguments against it. I assumed, since everyone on the forum seemed to prefer the modern translations, that they had a basic knowledge of the arguments against the KJV, and that's why I was just presenting the other side.

I was discussing the texts that were used and their origin and compilation, not the translators and their motives or preferences, for no matter how upright the translators were, if there were errors in the texts they were translating from, the resulting translation can't help but contain errors.

I agree that all people, everywhere, are sinful. However, as with Westcott and Hort and their text, I would rather not use a text that was compiled by men who didn't really agree with or believe what they were working on. For example, if we asked communists to write the constitution for a rebublican government, we would encounter some problems. It would be the same thing to ask unbelievers to compile a Bible. They can't help but be biased. You said, "My point is just to make it clear that we really cannot try to defend whether an English translation is solidily better than others by… using quotations by sinful men to infer that an English translation must be sinful, too." I am not in the position to judge whether Westcott and Hort were Christians or not, but the beliefs they held make me highly doubt their integrity in producing an un-biased text. Again, I am not stating that the English translations from their text are "sinful", but that they may be more erroneous. As Phil. 1:18 says, "every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice". As long as these translations are upholding the gospel of Christ, I will not condemn them as "sinful". However, when we study the Bible in-depth and memorize it word-for-word, we look for a translation that is doctrinally-solid in all the fine points as well, points that are not relevant in our salvation but are still important because as Titus 2:7 says, "in doctrine showing uncorruptness" and 2 Timothy 4:3-4, "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 they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables." Sound doctrine is considered very important in the Bible, and it should be important to us today.
I am afraid that, for the reasons I have given, the translations based on the Westcott and Hort text have some doctrinal-unsoundness. I am not saying that they are not enough to lead someone to an understanding of the gospel of Jesus Christ. I only wish to keep as doctrinally-sound as possible, lest we become like the people in 2 Timothy 4, having itching ears and turning from the truth to fables. I am NOT saying that the KJV is the only version of the Bible, but that they have a few seemingly-unimportant unsound doctrines, and I don't want to ignore that, fearing that it will only get worse until at some point they will no longer preach Christ.
You said, "if anyone tries to establish dogmatically that one version is better than the other, then THAT is divisive, and Satan does indeed love that." I think Satan would be overjoyed to see the Bible slowly corrupted until it no longer preaches Christ. Discussion is necessary. Already I can name "Bibles" such as the Message, that are getting farther and farther from the truth. If we don't speak out against it from the beginning, and just accept it all in love, we may find our Bible changing in ways it never should.
As for the places that the manuscripts were found, I see that it could be a very presumptuous argument without more information than I gave. Thanks for pointing that out.
Origen, the Alexandrian church father in the early third century, said: "…the differences among the manuscripts [of the Gospels] have become great,either through the negligence of some copyists or through the perverse audacity of others; they either neglect to check over what they have transcribed, or, in the process of checking, they lengthen or shorten, as they please."
As David F. Reagan said, "The Greek text which was being formed at Alexandria during the time of Origen came to be known as the Alexandrian Text." Even Origen, who lived at the time, said that the texts were being changed. I can't bring up any more examples at the moment becase the animals are waiting, but maybe later.

Thanks for reading!

Ranch4Christ: You bring up some good points, and I'm glad you clarified yourself. (I'm also glad you could see that I was not trying to personally attack or demean you, just the premises of some of your arguments.)

I think what could make things fair (but is physically impossible) in regards to translators and manuscript copiers would be to have access to personal writings and professions of faith by those who translated the Geneva Bible and the KJV; because, it's still an unfair thing to have all the access to information we have today on nearly all of the modern translators (and those associated with the organizations who sponsored them). It's much easier to "dig up dirt" on them and use it to make others suspicious about the authenticity or purity of the translations themselves; and I'm aware that some have tried to use that same tactic in besmirching King James himself in attempts to cast doubt about some renderings in the KJV.

But to what end?

Does finding "dirt" on those who may have been closely or remotely associated with Bible translations automatically nullify the credibility of the translation itself? I've seen and heard some staunch KJV-only leaders use that tact in trying to defame the NIV, simply because, at some points in the very long process of translating it, a female scholar at some university was consulted about some things, and then far later on, it was discovered that she practices homosexuality. According to their reasoning, the NIV was corrupted because she was consulted, though she had no direct hand in translating.

The danger with this tactic, taking this above instance as an example, is that these so-called leaders are:

(1) Heralding homosexuality as some "end-all/be-all" sin, where God makes no such distinction. I read in Proverbs 6 that He "hates" lying tongues, proud looks, the shedding of innocent blood, etc., etc. Homosexuality is not listed. But homosexuality is listed as an abomination to the LORD, along with other acts, like cross-dressing, bestiality, and disobedience to parents in the civil laws of Israel.

(2) They seem to have a low view of Total Depravity (a HUGE pet peeve of mine), painting one side, which has more accessible "dirt," as diabolical and evil, while painting the KJV translators "as pure as the wind-driven snow." Yet Scripture is clear that ALL of us are diabolical and evil. It's bad theology to paint any people as pretty much sinless and so pious. We just don't know, because we weren't there.

So, let's stop questioning the integrity of one side to somehow show the better integrity of the other side when we have no means to support such a tactic; nor is it a sound way to defend any translation above another. Don't forget: Erasmus, though professing to be a Christian, was a devoted Roman Catholic, and his interactions with Martin Luther showed that he was not a true believer, yet (though not by you) his Greek New Testament is put on a pedastal by KJV-only leaders.

When it comes down to it, we really don't know who are/were genuine Christians when they translated any of these English Bible versions. Anyone can profess it, and we don't have enough records of personal living by the KJV translators to know for sure that we can use that as a sound argument to defend the KJV's integrity. Many have pointed out that King James himself was likely not a Christian, and he had all available versions of the Geneva Bible burned to keep his sanctioned one intact. Who does that to any Bible? The Pilgrims refused to use the KJV when it came out, because of their disdain for King James, sticking with the Geneva.

As for Origen, and to prove my above case further, he has been found in his writings to, at some point (no one knows if it was early on or later in his ministry) espouse heretical teachings. Does this mean we cannot trust anything he ever did or wrote? Was he a Christian?

As in all these matters, only God knows.

What matters most is whether these translations are reliable based on any and all manuscripts we can find to support them. Based on the vast research done by objective, yet sinful, but upstanding men, I think our major translations are reliable.

Now, as for preferences, I've already shared in numerous places on MemVerse how much I love the NKJV; I greatly respect the ESV; have a soft spot in my heart for the KJV (on which I was brought up); and I agree with @Cowboy4Christ regarding the perceived problems with the NIV (of which I am not a fan), while I personally deplore "The Message" and do not consider it among the major translations.

These are just my opinions; and what many are demonstrating here is that everyone should do their own personal research and homework before they fully commit to any one translation. Everyone should also keep in mind that while there are great strengths in particular versions, there are also some weakenesses; but none are so strong or so weak to render them inspired, on one end, or as dung, on the other.

Choose wisely. Defend carefully.

@Mr. DeGraaf: You said: "First: About HarperCollins owning Zondervan and HarperCollin's immoral books, that's just a fact of the publishing world. The majority of Christian publishing companies are owned by secular ones, and I believe HarperCollins has most of the big Christian publishing companies."

You're correct in saying that that is just a fact of the publishing world, but it doesn't have to be that way with the Bible. I also find it interesting that in order to put more then a certain number of verses from the NIV, NASB, NKJV, and more on my website or elsewhere, I would have to pay for the right to use "the publisher's material." In 2 Timothy 2:9 we read: "…but the word of God is not bound." This corruption reminds me of when Jesus threw the tables over in the temple when the moneychangers were ripping people off. I find this similar today when people are doing this with the Word of God. It doesn't have to be this way. There are still some Bible versions out there that are not as popular because they are not advertised, but do not have the same copyright restrictions.

You also said: "Ok, yes, the 2011 NIV, IMO, has pretty big problems. And I agree with you on the dangers of constantly remodernizing texts. However, I think you're committing a straw-man fallacy here. IN other words, you're taking one of the extreme cases of the modern Bible versions and using it as an example. If you looked at the ESV, on the other hand, you'll find a version that, while being regularly changed every 5 years, is still very consistent and very good."

I do not believe I was committing a straw-man fallacy by giving an example from one revision in particular. If you read the whole thread, I gave an example of the problem of missing verses in the '84 NIV also earlier.

You brought up a great point though regarding the ESV! The ESV actually has remained for the most part accurate, and has survived updates periodically. This can mainly be attributed to the fact that the ESV, unlike most other modern versions like the NIV, etc. is that the Publisher's of the ESV, Crossway is a "not-for-profit organization (a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers) that exists solely for the purpose of publishing the good news of the gospel and the truth of God’s Word, the Bible. A portion of the purchase price of every Bible is donated to help support Bible distribution ministry around the world." (Quote from Crossway's Website). Crossway is a straight forward not-for-profit organization, and is a good example of, how you put it, "Publishers and translators need to be able to survive and bring in cash for their family." (I also don't believe publishing pro-homosexual books like HarperCollins is a good way to "to survive" as you put it.) The ESV's copyright restrictions are not as extreme as those of most other modern versions, but are still there. Though the ESV is a step in the right direction, I personally prefer versions such as the WEB and KJV, that boast no copyright restrictions whatsoever.

@Cowboy4Christ: You can just call me Josiah :P I'm only fifteen; no need to call me Mr. DeGraaf :)

1. Sure. I agree that it would be nicer to not have to get copyright information when you quote extensively (more than 100 verses), from Bibles. However, I thought we were debating the merits of the translations here, not about whether or not how the translations are put out is good. IMO, the merits of each translation is a completely different topic than how it is presented (e.g., about copyright info and stuff.)

2. Not to attack the ESV, but I would point out that ESV and Crossway Bibles are also linked under the Harper Collins publishing house.

3. Sure. No copyright restrictions are nice.

I almost think it's more then just "nice" not to have copyright restrictions on the Bible, I find the copyright restrictions disturbing. Would God have his Word that He has magnified above His name owned by these secular publishers?

Couple things:

First, I don't think that the 'Word of God is not bound' verse applies here. In context, I think that it has a completely different meaning.

Second, I don't think that copyright issues is preferable, but I also don't see it as necessarily wrong. Also, my guess would be (though I honestly don't know), that you don't have to pay for copyright info, you just need to ask for it.

Third, God's Word isn't owned by these publishers. Their translation of His Word might be, but His Word itself is not owned by them.

WM: I agree that it may be challenging to compare translators, but that's why right now I'm considering the accuracy of the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts that each group chose to translate from, because no matter how well the translators did their job, the resulting translations can only be as good as the texts they were based on (perhaps I'll touch on the translators later).
Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus are the two texts that are the basis of the Alexandrian text, which is the basis for most modern translations. These two are found to differ in the Gospels alone in over 3000 points, not including spellings, etc. A characteristic of Vaticanus is it's large number of omissions which were also omitted in our modern translations, but it's strange that these are not considered mistakes of the scribe when the scribe also repeated many words and clauses, something the text's promoters simply overlook.
Codex C, another one of the Alexandrian text's main manuscripts, has a large amount of the original Biblical texts erased and written over it are copies of some of Ephrem's sermons (certainly the Christians of that time must not have thought much of the text to rub some of it out–who would erase the Bible?).
The Byzantine texts were widely distributed over a large geographical area, unlike the Alexandrian texts which were limited geographically. The Alexandrian texts disagree with each other, occasionally giving as many different readings as there are manuscripts, sometimes show evidence of sloppy scribe work, and also include many more "impossible" (grammatically, logically, etc,) readings than the Byzantine texts.
I am aware of the "oldest and best" argument used by pro-Alexandrians. The Vaticanus and Sinaiticus were dated around the 4th century, and the pro-Alexandrians claim that the Byzantine texts came later as erroneous copies of the Alexandrian-type texts. However, in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, writings of the church fathers up until AD 325, the ratio of Byzantine-type quotes to all others was 3:2. Note that these writings were before the earliest Alexandrian texts, which are dated at 350 AD and after.
Thanks for reading!

@Ranch4Christ:

Please don't let the fact that 3 weeks have gone by with no response to your last post give you the warm fuzzy feeling that you must have provided information against which we are left speechless, unable to muster a counterattack.

I have a prepared response that I still need to extract from the written work of someone else who did all of the legwork for me to better refute your assertions and better support the overall argument that the main translations that we have today, including the finely-written KJV, are as accurate as one can get without having the originals.

But, alas, in spite of my ongoing activity on other forums and blogs here on MemVerse, I have been too busy, thus far, to search for the book and extract its excellent nuggets of refutation concerning the Alexandrian vs. Byzantine texts. However, have no fear, that day will come soon; so, in the meantime, shudder, quake, and tremble in those boots, for the end of your 3- (soon to be 4-) week reign of having the last word draweth nigh.

I (really) prefer KJV, but I don't think it's the only version Christians should use. I do tend to think of churches changing to use other versions (esp. NLT, NASB, etc.) as slightly conforming to the world/trying to make the church look more like and therefore more attractive to the world. But I definitely don't believe it's wrong to use other versions.

This was a post from a long time ago…but what's wrong with the NASB? It seems like a very good, literal translation to me. But I agree that the NLT isn't very good.

Please, nobody who uses KJV only take offense, but back when the KJV hadn't been made yet, the Bible was in Latin, and nobody but the priests could read it. They said that Latin was what it was written in, and anything else would be sacreligious!! (Note: I am not saying this is what KJV users say at all.) Now, some versions of the Bible are really, really bad, but not all of them. Some people find it hard to understand all the thee's and thou's and other Old English terms in there, especially younger kids. I remember when, when I was little, I could hardly understand a word of it!
And this may sound a little dumb, but what about other places, like Africa? When missionaries translate the Bible into their language, it's not KJV anymore!
Okay, and this is kind of random, but has anybody here read anything from the Cotton Patch Version? There's a version that's not so great!

Ronald Reagan addressed this issue you brought up back in '77. Here it is:

What would you say if someone decided Shakespeare's plays, Charles Dicken's novels, or the music of Beethoven could be rewritten & improved?

 I'll be right back. . .

 Writing in the journal "The Alternative", Richard Hanser, author of The Law & the Prophets and Jesus: What Manner of Man Is This?, has called attention to something that is more than a little mind boggling. It is my understanding that the Bible (both the Old & New Testaments) has been the best selling book in the entire history of printing.

 Now another attempt has been made to improve it. I say another because there have been several fairly recent efforts to quote "make the Bible more readable & understandable" unquote. But as Mr. Hanser so eloquently says, "For more than 3 1/2 centuries, its language and its images, have penetrated more deeply into the general culture of the English speaking world, and been more dearly treasured, than anything else ever put on paper." He then quotes the irreverent H. L. Mencken, who spoke of it as purely a literary work and said it was, "probably the most beautiful piece of writing in any language."

 They were, of course, speaking of The Authorized Version, the one that came into being when the England of King James was scoured for translators & scholars. It was a time when the English language had reached it's peak of richness & beauty.

 Now we are to have The Good News Bible which will be in, "the natural English of everyday adult conversation." I'm sure the scholars and clergymen supervised by the American Bible Society were sincerely imbued with the thought that they were taking religion to the people with their Good News Bible, but I can't help feeling we should instead be taking the people to religion and lifting them with the beauty of language that has outlived the centuries.

 Mr. Hanser has quoted from both the St. James Version & the Good News Bible some well known passages for us to compare. A few thousand years ago Job said "How forcible are right words!" [Job 6:25] The new translators have him saying "Honest words are convincing." That's only for openers. There is the passage [Eccl. 1:18], "For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow". Is it really an improvement to say instead, "The wiser you are, the more worries you have; the more you know the more it hurts."

 In the New Testament, in Mathew, we read "The voice of the one crying in the wilderness. Prepare ye the way." [Matthew 3:3] The Good News version translates that, "Someone is shouting in the desert. Get the road ready." It sounds like a straw boss announcing lunch hour is over.

 The hauntingly beautiful 23rd Psalm is the same in both versions, for a few words, "The Lord is my shepherd" but instead of continuing "I shall not want" we are supposed to say "I have everything I need."

 The Christmas story has undergone some modernizing but one can hardly call it improved. The wondrous words "Fear not: for; behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy" has become, "Don't be afraid! I am here with good news for you."

 The sponsors of the Good News version boast that their Bible is as readable as the daily paper – and so it is. But do readers of the daily news find themselves moved to wonder, "at the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth"? Mr. Hanser suggests that sadly the "tinkering & general horsing around with the sacred texts will no doubt continue" as pious drudges try to get it right. "It will not dawn on them that it has already been gotten right."

This is Ronald Reagan. Thanks for listening.

I agree with the fact that the Good News Bible is not a very good one. It sometimes even changes the original meaning of words to make them "more understandable." But what about other translations? Like the NKJV? The NASB? The ESV? The NIV? Do you think these translations also misconstrue the meanings of words, or, since they do not use language as eloquent, they are not as good, or even, not as much the Word of God? And as to the "lifting them with the beauty of language that has outlived the centuries" quote, does it really matter that much how long it has lived if it makes some readers not understand what the text is trying to say? The Bible was only allowed to be read in Latin before English translations. Should they not have changed it to English because of the beauty of Latin that had "outlived the centuries"? I highly believe that you would disagree with that statement. So why, when a translation is getting hard to understand (though, I admit, not as hard as having to learn Latin), and even turning some people off to the Bible, should we not also create some Bibles that, while staying true to the original text, make it easier for the reader to understand?

I wholeheartedly admit that many Bibles today that are trying to fit the Bible into the common language are not doing it well at all. Many of them are simply terrible. But versions like the ones I mentioned above have stayed true to the original text and also make the words easier to understand. I want to know, do you have a problem with that?

Micah 5:2 (NKJV): “But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Though you are little among the thousands of Judah, Yet out of you shall come forth to Me The One to be Ruler in Israel, Whose goings forth are from of old, From (everlasting).”

Micah 5:2 (NIV): "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from (ancient times)."

Modern translation: Jesus is no longer everlasting.

"…make it easier for the reader to understand…"

Good point…but, this can be dangerous. Who's to say what's understandable? As the people degrade to worse and worse language, should our Bible also degrade? What's next, the NATB? (New Age Texting Bible).

Jhn 3:16 NATB: "fr god so lved the wrld tht he gav his only son tht the dude who chats whth him shll be savd and cool". Just a joke, :), but really, is that going to be next?

I agree, that would be a terrible translation. But the NIV, and other translations, are not like that at all! As I said, they keep the original meaning of the text, but they translate it into the modern English language. The KJV translated the Bible into the modern English language at its time. Was it wrong in doing so? Obviously not. I don't see how newer translations doing so would be wrong either. However, when one changes the original text so much that it says that "the dude who chats with him shll be savd and cool" instead of showing that whoever believes in him will have eternal life, there is a serious error. There are no serious errors in the newer translations.

@The First Avenger–"Ancient times" can't mean "everlasting"? Also, that is only one verse that is slightly questionable. You can't take a verse like that and exclude all the other verses in the NIV that show that Jesus IS eternal. The NIV translators were not trying to keep people from realizing Jesus' eternality, as seen from other verses in that Bible. I am certain that they have a good reason for doing what they did. Men do make mistakes, if that's what that is. Even the KJV translators. Sorry, I have to go. I'll try to make my argument clearer some other time. :)

And we could say right back to you: "How come those verses are added in the KJV and NKJV?"

Look, it's not like the translators for new translations like the NIV, ESV, and NASB are just sitting around, twiddling their thumbs, conspiring for new ways to attack the Bible. Then one of them goes, "Hey! We could delete these 17 verses!" and the others are like, "Yes! That will totally degrade the authority of the Bible and we will be furthering Satan's kingdom!"

These guys are educated scholars who know what they're doing when they decide not to include a verse. When a verse is not included, it is more than likely because the translators believe that it was added along the way and was not a part of the original autographed Scriptures.

Let's take 1 John 5:7, for example. It's a strong passage in affirmation of the Trinity. Don't you think then that it would have been a favorite text of those people who defended the Trinity against Modalists and Arians and others in the first few centuries of the church? And yet, we don't find that verse in any writings of the early church fathers. And it wasn't used in early debates about the Trinity. That alone is very strong evidence to the idea that it was added later.

Now, that doesn't make the verse heretical or wrong. But it's an addition to God's Word. That's why the newer translators made the choice to take it out. It's really a matter of what Greek texts are chosen. Most new translations are translated from older manuscripts that today's scholars deem to be more reliable. And I know it might be hard to believe, but these scholars are smarter than you and I, and most of them are committed Christians, just like you and I.

So we can't just say, "Hey, 17 verses are gone, I'm trashing this thing" when so many years of hard work and study have gone into these translations.

My answer to you is the same as Christian's. But how does what you said answer my arguments? I said that one verse could possibly be twisted to say that Jesus is not eternal in the NIV. But, since there are other places in that Bible that show that Jesus IS eternal, you can't make that argument. When you said "One verse, huh?", and then went to something totally besides the point, it didn't answer my argument. Just wanted to make that clear. :)

So, since every other Bible translation has this verse, yet the NIV doesn't, that means the verse was added on later and is not true scripture? Makes me wonder why the Bible Bee is dropping the NIV version next year.

No, Christian just said that the ESV and the NASB, which are very reliable translations, also do not have those verses. Are they all three wrong? Should the Bible Bee HQ take those out of the Bible Bee too? Do you seriously think that the NIV translators would take those verses out of the text for no reason? (Also, those verses really are in the NIV–in the footnotes.)

The ESV doesn't have those verses either - not to mention other modern translations.
By the way, 1 John 5:7 is in the NIV & ESV…

EDIT: Apparently SBG got here first.

Sorry it took me so long to get back at you. I forgot I was having a discussion here. :) When has ancient times ever been translated as eternal? Ancient times seems to imply that it has a beginning, yet Jesus has always and will always exist. Do the other verses in the NIV Bible that say that Jesus IS eternal make up for this verse that states he isn't?

Yes, there are many verses in the NIV that explicitly state that Jesus is the eternal, always-existent Son of God. Therefore, it's fruitless to point out one passage that has been translated differently, and may now possibly imply a heresy, when all throughout the rest of the translation there is strong affirmation of the truth that the church has known for thousands of years.

…so as long as the Bible only loses doctrine a little at a time and we can still find the truths being removed from some verses still surviving in others, all is well?

There is no truth being removed. Yes, there is some more ambiguity in the NIV's rendering. But there is no removal of truth. You know, I could find places in the NIV where Jesus is called the Lord Jesus or Jesus Christ, where the KJV merely renders it Jesus. Does that mean that the KJV is depriving Jesus of His Lordship or His office of Messiah? No. It just means there were textual and translational differences that cause those verses to be different. But both Bible still affirm those two doctrines about Christ.

Again, it's not like the translators of the new translations are involved in this big conspiracy to remove, albeit little-by-little, every mention of Christ's deity from the Bible, along with every mention of salvation by grace alone through faith alone. I can guarantee you that if the NIV or the NASB or the ESV or the NKJV translates something a certain way, you can trust that the decision was made by nearly 100 qualified scholars who want God's Word to be in the language of the people–accurate, and yet still understandable. To my knowledge, there were no Satanists or Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses on any of those boards. So please stop acting like there were. ;)

"you can trust that the decision was made by nearly 100 qualified scholars "

To my knowledge, there were no Satanists or Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses on any of those boards. So please stop acting like there were.

I would to comment on these two quotes of yours.

First of all, the book business is a huge money making conglomerate. Why do you think that college text books are so outrageously expensive?

They will every few years revise them with sometimes just a few word differences and then make it mandatory to use if you want to take the "updated coarse" its a scam!

Most, if not all of these so called newer versions of the Bible are scams. ( my opinion )

There soul intent, is to come up with a new way to pass on some of these bogus Bibles with bogus commentary notes ( same as college text books ) to make cash.
They know that even if they can just change a few words and make it sound coherent, people will BUY IT because they know that there are a lot of gullible Christians who will buy it.
Everybody wants the newest thing, the most recent, the newest fad.
2 Tim 2: 4

You call these people " qualified scholars " and yet you do not know them, and pretend that there has never been any devils in the bunch who would or could throw a wrench into the works and mess with the minds of Christians.

Are we in a spiritual warfare or not? If so, then don't you think the Devil would love to attack the very foundation of Christian beliefs, by watering down the Bible bit by bit, and interjecting damnable doctrine of devils disguised as commentary?

And he has, there is precedence for this!

Take the devilish Scofeild bible for example.

Scofeild was a crook and did jail time.

Dumped his wife and left her destitute.

Consorted with occultist for counsel.

Was associated with homosexuals and the illuminates.

Co-conspired with the guy who was working on the NIV and only turned the scam down because he said the KJV would better support his insidious twisting of the scripture.
Which sad to say many have fallen for, and embrace it out of ignorance.

Just because someone has a PHD or a Doctorate in front of their name doesn't make them Holy or even a Christian. Don't deceive yourself in believing all that sputters forth from the halls of the hallowed educational systems of man.

Remember, the Devil controls the world at the moment and he gives it to whomsoever he will. Those with huge amounts of cash and influence are engineering and orchestrating the rise of the Anti Christ. And along with the A.C media, striving to make Jesus and his present day followers look weak and stupid.

I have put notes at the end of some of your statements:

"First of all, the book business is a huge money making conglomerate."
My note: Absolutely. That's why I like the ESV - their not for profit.

"They will every few years revise them with sometimes just a few word differences and then make it mandatory to use if you want to take the 'updated coarse' its [sic] a scam!"
My note: It's not always a scam. They may be improving translation, or updating it to fit modern language. As a matter of fact, the KJV had several editions.

"Most, if not all of these so called newer versions of the Bible are scams. ( my opinion )"
My note: I'd have to agree. But not all of them are scams.

"There soul [sic] intent, is to come up with a new way to pass on some of these bogus Bibles with bogus commentary notes ( same as college text books ) to make cash."
My note: How would you know? Like I said, the ESV is not for profit.

"You call these people ' qualified scholars ' and yet you do not know them, and pretend that there has [sic] never been any devils in the bunch who would or could throw a wrench into the works and mess with the minds of Christians."
My note: True, we don't know them. But do you know the people who translated the KJV. By the way, Erasmus, who compiled the Textus Receptus, from which the KJV was translated, was a Roman Catholic. We do not pretend that the there have never been any devils who would throw a wrench into the works and mess with the minds of Christians. We don't pretend that. How familiar with the ESV and NASB are you? Do you know Hebrew or Greek? (Just asking.) If you compared these translations with the original languages, you'd find a lot of good, but some mistakes. But the same goes for KJV. Look through Strong's Greek dictionary! In word entries, it shows how the word was translated. In a few entries, it is obvious that the KJV translators confused a word with a similar one, and translated it incorrectly. All translations have mistakes!

"Take the devilish Scofeild [sic] bible for example."
My note: We're not arguing for the Scofield Bible. It's a good example of a scam, sure, but we're not saying it is a good Bible. (Or a Bible at all.)

By the way, congratulations on memorizing your 1,500th verse! Good job!

I'm sorry, have you read these Bibles? They are not changing doctrines of Scripture or doing it only to get profit. Unfortunately, I have found myself on the side of the argument defending the NIV, since that is what I use. :) Unlike what some people think, it is not a terrible version. Just because it uses contractions and some modern language (though not like what C4C suggested with the "Text Talk Bible" :D) does not make it any less of a Bible. And as for the study notes being scams, they are not. Scholars worked extensively to provide notes for Bible study that work well with the rest of Scripture.

"Just because someone has a PHD or a Doctorate in front of their name doesn't make them Holy or even a Christian. Don't deceive yourself in believing all that sputters forth from the halls of the hallowed educational systems of man."

I don't trust the NIV or any translation just because those who translated it were scholars, nor do I base my trust in God's Word on their scholarship. But the fact that they have studied for years on this stuff kinda helps, don't you think? Plus, I don't believe everything they say, but I base my beliefs on what I know has been generally known about basic Christian doctrines throughout the centuries, see if they check out in these new versions, then read it. There have been no doctrinal problems with new translations such as the NIV, ESV, NKJV, or NASB. If you would like to show me some that I somehow missed, go ahead.

As for "devils in the bunch," you are right, I cannot know that there were not. Nor could I know that with the KJV, as ISC pointed out. We can use your hypothetical arguments against you.

The new translations I have mentioned are not "striving to make Jesus and his present day followers look weak and stupid," but are trying to equip Christians to fight against the devil and his plots. Please stop trying to make the new translations look Satan-inspired.

Thank you for your reply : )

I admit I am sometimes a bit over zealous in my statements and can be overly dramatic as well.

To answer some of your questions:

1 No, I don't know Greek or Hebrew. But I knew when I was a young missionary to Greece, and had spent over a year there, that I should have tried harder to learn the local language, even if the common Greek spoken is not like the original Greek, but it would have helped a lot. Trust me, I have done plenty of kicking myself for that mistake. I did learn a couple songs in Greek and some basics for getting around, but a lot of people spoke English… excuses, excuses !

1. And no I haven't read or even heard of the ESV or the NASB.
   But thank you for enlightening me and I am definitely going to take a peek at them and check them out and maybe adopt one.

As far as your other info you have shared with me, I really don't see where there is a disagreement. I am aware that the KJV has its mistranslations perpetrated by the Catholic church in furthering its agenda. Which I have already been condemned for bringing it to light in another forum.

I still believe though that the Majority of book publishers who are for profit, encourage constant revisions because there is a market and stand to make enormous profits. And where there is profit to made, the unscrupulous rear their ugly heads and lie and wait to deceive.

But as you said in so many words, and I have to agree, that God always has his own men in place as well, preserving and doing their best to make the word of God easier to comprehend as well as striving in maintaining its purity.

The reason I brought up Scofeilds Bible was to make a point. That there is A spiritual battle when it comes to Working with the word of God and the enemy will as he has always done, try to through a wrench in where he can.

By the way what does (sic) mean?

I am somewhat flabbergasted over your misquote of what I wrote in the end of my original post ….. I can't stop laughing!

You can be quite comical at times, I don't say that in a mean way.

Okay just for comparison sake, your quote:

The new translations I have mentioned are not "striving to make Jesus and his present day followers look weak and stupid," but are trying to equip Christians to fight against the devil and his plots. Please stop trying to make the new translations look Satan-inspired.

Okay my original quote:

Remember, the Devil controls the world at the moment and he gives it to whomsoever he will. Those with huge amounts of cash and influence are engineering and orchestrating the rise of the Anti Christ. And along with the A.C media, striving to make Jesus and his present day followers look weak and stupid.

This really has nothing to do at all with making the new translations look Satan inspired.

To answer your question: No I haven't read all the translations and revised editions of the Bible, have you?

I personally like the KJV the best and I have a hard time with some of the others, even the NKJV… mostly when it comes to Psalms, I think it loses its beauty and sounds weaker. But that's just me, okay?

I do like some of the amplified for the old testament history as well as the NKJV ,which does help make the story line easier to follow. but I am willing to give the revisions mentioned by ISC a try.

I think I pretty much covered everything else in my response to ISC.

God bless you, over and out!

I apologize for misquoting you. :) But that really seemed to me what you were saying, especially when you said, "Are we in a spiritual warfare or not? If so, then don't you think the Devil would love to attack the very foundation of Christian beliefs, by watering down the Bible bit by bit, and interjecting damnable doctrine of devils disguised as commentary?" That seemed to indicate that you thought that the newer translations are likely at lease partially Satan-inspired. But I can see that you do think that it is very possible that the commentaries contain damnable doctrines. I would like to tell you that the NIV commentary, at least, does not. It bases everything it says on proven facts and biblical doctrines. Some is speculation, but it is always based on Scripture. Many people who read the NIV are not so unintelligent that they would believe anything the commentary says, even if it goes against the Bible. The translators of at least the four new translations we have mentioned have tried very carefully to translate the Bible into modern English without compromising the text. They would not allow something that goes directly against Scripture to go into it, nor would they allow someone heretical or highly questionable to be one of the translators. Again, I am not just worshiping the god of their education, but their Christian training sure helps my trust in them. :)

As to zeal and drama, I can go over as well. : P
I guess I kind of assumed you agreed with some of the KJV only people that used to post on here (whose statements were quickly put down). I'm sorry I assumed that.

'Sic' is Latin for 'thus', and it is used when one quotes a source, and the source had spelling / grammar errors. The quote should retain the errors, but the quoter can put [sic] after the error. I don't like to use it - it seems like it just highlights other people's mistakes, but I guess it's what people are "supposed" to do.

Nice talking to you!

I didn't see any "King James only" posts, or any "quickly put down statements" about the KJV. Who are you talking about?

Uh… don't you believe that the King James version is the only true version? Or did I somehow misinterpret that too? As for "quickly put down," I don't think that ISC meant that the arguments were immediately shot down, but that they were immediately shot at. :)

You could just put the word (sic) at the beginning of my post and at the end, because I know that my spelling and grammar can be atrocious.

If it were not for spell check I would not be able to even participate in these forums.
I have bad vision, even with glasses and I am sort dyslexic.
I still cannot even spell John right the first time I try, and its been that way ever since I was kid. Also it can take me up to four hours to write one post. I am not complaining, but just letting you know that I understand that reading some of my comments might be laborious.

All that to say, thank you for your patience.

I really am grateful for the opportunity to be able to sharpen my sword here on Memverse with my brothers and sisters in Christ, even though we don't always agree. I don't expect to win every battle …..But I'm gonna try!

Do you seriously want to associate with that site? Not only is it vehemently and totally KJV Only, but it violently attacks any and all other versions.

But wait…there's more.

It's anti-Calvinism, anti-Calvin, anti-Luther (they were both heretics, according to the website), anti-Lordship Salvation (meaning that Dr. John Macarthur, Kirk Cameron, Ray Comfort, Paul Washer, and basically all high-profile evangelicals today are heretics teaching damnable heresy), anti-any music with a drumbeat, and they also teach that 911 was an inside job by the government.

I am VERY familiar with this website, and trust me, you really don't want to refer anybody there. Really.

Some have suggested that it's all a joke by an atheist because it is so extreme that it seems unreal.

jesus-is-savior.com? It seems like they would make it jesus-is-SAVIOUR.com if they were KJV only. Savior is a non-KJV word.

Okay, so what about Gail Riplinger's books? I don't agree with a lot of what are in these books, but they are interesting. Has anyone here ever read those books against "new age versions", as the author calls them? I have also noticed that on the cover of "New Age Versions", there is a subtitle something like this: "The Final Case Against the NIV, NASB, NKJV, RSV, NLT…" so on, so forth, listing all sorts of versions. I noticed that they didn't list ESV. I wonder why this is?

Hah! That's a great point! I wonder if anyone's ever pointed that out to him. :P

Gail Riplinger is just about as much a joke as the guy who runs jesus-is-savior. She misquotes people to make them look like heretics when they're not, and she has tons of misinformation in just "New Age Bible Versions." James White, a Reformed Baptist apologist, did some real research and wrote up 28 pages (if I remember correctly) of problems and dishonesties in her book. She promptly rejected it and just about brought down curses on him for interfering with the Lord's work. He wrote a book called "The KJV Only Controversy" where he handles the issue very, very well.

I think the ESV was not listed because it hadn't come out yet when she wrote her book. I know it was written at least before 1995, and the ESV wasn't published until 2001, I believe.

No I don't deny that in the least. Those verses are missing from the NIV and many new translations. That's because the newer translations rely on older, more reliable manuscripts that were discovered and put to use hundreds of years after the KJV was first translated.

Many of the verses that are not included in the NIV were added by scholars over the early centuries of the church for clarity or for extra background information. They may be helpful, but there's no evidence that they're inspired. Thus the new version translators leave them out. However, they are often included in the footnotes.

In the introduction of the NIV Bible it says that the purpose of the Niv is to make a Bible that is unoffensive to all denominations. Could that mean that they are leaving out certain scriptures and words, such as Godhead, because they don't want to offend certain denominations?

No. Christian just explained why they left those verses out. What you said has absolutely nothing to do with it. If it did, there would be many other verses left out that could be offensive to certain denominations. What they meant was that, in the study notes, they do not force a certain opinion on the text. I have noticed this, and sometimes it is a bit annoying. :P But it NEVER goes directly against the Word of God. I am not saying this because I am relying on the translators' degrees, education and such, but because I have found what the NIV text says to fit with all the doctrines of the Christian faith that have been held to for centuries.

I think someone mentioned this earlier, but is it just a coincidence that the verses missing in the NIV are also missing in the Jehovahs's Witness Bible?

No, it's not a coincidence. If so, then it's a coincidence that they're also "missing" in the ESV, NASB, and most other new translations.

Since the 1600s, we've acquired new knowledge of which Greek texts are superior and more accurate, so the new translators incorporate that knowledge into their translations.

The Jehovah's Witness Bible is a new translation; thus it follows the older, more accurate manuscripts. However, if you want an example of corrupt and biased translators, this would be a great one. In John 1:1, while the NIV has: "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God," the NWT (Jehovah's Witness Bible) has "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was a God."

That right there is a total mistranslation of the Greek and is done intentionally to support a heretical doctrine of the JWs. The NIV, however, makes no such drastic changes, so I'd appreciate it if you'd stop accusing it of doing so.

Hello all! I realize that I am entering the discussion late, but I hope you will bear with me.

First of all, I don't think we should say the KJV is the ONLY Bible we should use. Who is to say that it is the only acceptable English translation of the Bible? Using this logic, why was the Bible even translated from Hebrew and Greek into English? Please forgive me if I am being harsh, but try to understand. I think it is fine to make revisions and to update older translations. Languages change over time, and I think that literature should change in order to stay current. As an example, I think someone said that some of the writings of Dickens are becoming obsolete, because of the words and language they use in them.

Just my two cents. To God be the glory!

Thank you for your input, Thomas. I completely agree with you. :)

Okay, so which of these versions would be consider the most inspired?

I have always used the KJV and when I hear other versions or read them, they just seem foreign to me.

I do have a NKJ and a amplified version which I like and refer to when I come to some passage where the kings english is not sufficient for clarity

I would just like to have a decent translation I can trust and feel good about it when I read it.

And, can someone recommend a good Greek lexicon or a site that has one that's good? Thanks!

No one is by any means saying that you should stop reading the KJV. If that's what works for you best, then that's what you should use. It's a very good translation. It's just that, for many of us, the English is too outdated for us to gain from and be edified as much by it.

As for the Greek lexicon, www.biblos.com probably has everything you're looking for.

Thanks for responding : )

But I would like to supplement my reading with a trusted alternative version and with so many to choose from.

A few of the versions that are discussed here, NIV etc.. why these versions?

I mean why did you guys ultimately choose your particular version?

Was it because you were brought up with it or did you choose it yourself?

And, how does it affect you when you read it ?

Can you give me a personal testimonial on why you choose it, besides it' just being easier to read?

Thank you !

@John Project, thanks for your questions. I will tell you now, a lot of my answers are primarily drawn from personal preference. I don't consider myself to be a Hebrew or Greek scholar, so I don't really know how the many translations compare with the origional manuscripts.

First of all, I use KJV. I probably use it because all the rest of my family uses it, and it is what I grew up on. Also, I have memorized extensively from the KJV, so I prefer to use it. Additionally, the Strongs Concordance was designed to be used with the KJV, so that makes studying that much simpler. I have read it quite a bit, so I know my way around in it. Also, my personal Bible is KJV, and I am used to reading from it, so I am rather reluctant to change now. I enjoy the poetic form of the KJV, and the deep emotion used in the words. (It also uses some really cool wording. For instance, what other translation do you know of that uses superfluity of naughtiness :) Cool, eh?)

As to your question about alternate translations, I know that it would be easy to stir up a hornets nest, so I will try to be simple. I have heard a lot of good about the ESV, and I personally like the NKJV. I think that reading from different translations gives a different perspective on a particular passage of scripture. One guy I was talking with told me the best advice he had been given on what version to use was from a Bible class he took in school. His teacher recommended just to read them all.

There may be some paraphrases that should not be treated as authoritative. I believe this because a paraphrase is an authors personal opinion on what the Bible says, rather than a translation on what the Bible says. Therefore, I would think that they could tend to be a bit biased.

Anyhow, that's my two cents. Solo Deo Gloria!