For popular or very good threads
One member claims...
Yep. There are several corrupt translations. That is why I stick with the KJV. I trust it more than any other version.

I am skeptical of this because I don't see biblical scholars having that many good things to say about


For discussion:
1. Is the KJV the best English version?
2. Why is it the best or not? What do scholars go by to determine what's a good translation?
3. What do believers go by to determine which is the best Bible version?
 
  • Like
Reactions: bbyrd009
The KJV does not state obvious lies (Mark 1:1-2). The KJV does not call Jesus and Lucifer by the same name. The KJV does not omit whole verses (Matt.18:11, Acts 8:37, just to name two). So I am curious what makes newer translations better if they contain lies, omissions and confusion? What “scholars” believe these newer versions are better?
 
Had to do some research before answering these questions but here goes...

1. Is the KJV the best English version?
2. Why is it the best or not? What do scholars go by to determine what's a good translation?
From the standpoint of scholarly opinion that I've read I can say that the King James Version is not the best English version simply because it does not factor in all of the manuscripts that were discovered after it. It also doesn't include all of the textual methods for interpretation that came about after the KJV was produced.

Here are some keypoints from Dr. Bart Ehrman:
Unlike pre-modern Bible translations, modern translations have the significant advantage of access to a far greater number of manuscript sources.
This comprehensive approach ensures that modern translations are based on the best available sources and methodologies, thus striving to achieve the most accurate Bible translation possible. Let’s take a look now at the best Bible translations.


Also important is that the question of which is the best English Bible is hard to answer. One shouldn't expect for the most accurate to involve a word-for-word translation (as I originally thought) since a lot the translation done that way wouldn't make sense. Sometimes one Greek word can require multiple English words to get the intended meaning and the word order has to be changed some times for it to make sense. For example, look at this English translation that follows the Greek word order - this from an Greek to English interlinear Bible:
For example, in an interlinear of Matthew 1:18, the English words under the Greek words would look something like this:
of moreover Jesus Christ the birth in this manner was after having been engaged the mother of him Mary to Joseph before to come together they she was found with a stomach having from spirit holy
(BlueLetterBible)

Of course, this word-for-word translation makes no sense.

So from what I gather, generally the modern English Bibles are regarded as the best translations relying on the latest manuscript evidence and the latest in textual methods for interpreting text. If there was a best version, it would be the one that does the best job capturing the meaning of the text, which would involve a combination of some literal translation mixed with some thought-for-thought translation. Not sure any one translation meets that standard so it's probably best to have multiple Bible versions to refer to.

Here's some good perspective...
As you can see, if the Bible was translated literally, the exact way it was written in its original language, it would be more difficult to understand. It may not be readable. Bible translators recognize this. Their goal in translating scripture is not just to create a reliable text. They also need to create a text that someone can read and understand. Therefore, you must recognize that every translation is arranged in a manner that allows it to make sense to the person reading it. This is not just true of translations into English but into any language. These types of nuances make it difficult to declare which one is most accurate.

Maybe the better question is, “How do we find the most accurate understanding of what the original texts were trying to say? Not the most literally correct, but the one that gets closes to the original meaning?

Once we seek the most accurate understanding of the original texts, once we recognize that each translation has benefits, we are freed from the impossible pressure of finding “the only true translation.” We learn to appreciate many different translations for different purposes—the best word-for-word translation when we want to dig into the literal world, the best thought-for-thought translation when we want to dig into the themes.
 
You do realize Bart Ehrman is an agnostic right? I find it hilarious that people give a nonbeliever any credence whatsoever when it comes to the Word of God. That is equivalent to me being an expert on the Quran and Islam. Bart Erhman is no expert concerning Christianity no matter how many letters come behind his signature.

You stated the KJV does not factor in the manuscripts discovered after it was written. Can you show me 1 (one) example, just one, of an additional piece of information contained in newer transactions that is not already included in the KJV? The truth of the matter is, the newer versions contain far less information than the KJV. Whole verses are removed from newer versions without any new additions. And as I have already pointed out, these newer translations contain false information and confusion. Many new translations have Elhahan killing Goliath instead of David (2Sam.21:19). Please explain how this is better. I would like to see one example of a newer translation being better than the KJV. You have not posted any evidence to support your claim. All you have offered is opinion.

Finally, while the KJV is a word for word translation, it is also a thought for thought translation. The KJV does not follow the word for word example you posted above. The translators, who were experts in Hebrew and Greek, arranged the words so as to be understood when read in English.

As a side note, have you ever wondered why these newer manuscripts had to be discovered? The reason is they were not being used and had been forgotten. Manuscripts that were in constant use wore out much sooner because they were made out of papyrus and skins. They needed to be replaced much more often than scripts not in use. Those manuscripts were not in use because they were inferior.
 
Last edited:
One member claims...
Yep. There are several corrupt translations. That is why I stick with the KJV. I trust it more than any other version.

I am skeptical of this because I don't see biblical scholars having that many good things to say about


For discussion:
1. Is the KJV the best English version?
2. Why is it the best or not? What do scholars go by to determine what's a good translation?
3. What do believers go by to determine which is the best Bible version?
i think for its day it was nothing short of amazing, and while we dont talk like that any more, its still considered a standard? Tbh i dont even mind the inclusion of hel, although im convinced it is not an accurate translation (for Gehenna anyway), bc we are warned about scribes doing ezackly that in the Bible, and it kinda forces a contemplation on the matter, as well as marking ppl out by their beliefs

So while i cant imagine deeming it the best English version today, since we speak a diff English now, i def still refer to it in a study before diving in to a lexicon. I recall an argument for why it was considered superior to Tyndale and Wycliffe that made sense at the time, but ive forgotten the arguments now.

And i guess youre already aware of my thoughts about relying on the biased (believers) to determine which version is best, being as how we are warned about scribes (believers all, surely), but in this day and age i hardly see a reason to have to choose? Whenever i study a passage, i get like ten translations on one page, and have a LEX button handy for a deeper dive, so i mean why choose?

There are a handful of vv that dont xlate very well into English, that the kjv does an admirable job of, imo. Its an interesting study, that i dont recall it clearing up any interpretations so much, but rather kind of revealing some of the difficulties of xlation. I didnt save it tho, apparently—thot i did, but this ipad is getting pretty full of stuff like that. If i run across it ill post
 
You stated the KJV does not factor in the manuscripts discovered after it was written. Can you show me 1 (one) example, just one, of an additional piece of information contained in newer transactions that is not already included in the KJV? The truth of the matter is, the newer versions contain far less information than the KJV. Whole verses are removed from newer versions without any new additions. And as I have already pointed out, these newer translations contain false information and confusion. Many new translations have Elhahan killing Goliath instead of David (2Sam.21:19). Please explain how this is better. I would like to see one example of a newer translation being better than the KJV. You have not posted any evidence to support your claim. All you have offered is opinion.
Well, this all boils down to what the manuscript evidence says and not what the KJV says. In short, the additional passages contained in the KJV (that's not in the newer Bible versions) are because scholars believed those additional passages were not part of the original writings based on the manuscript evidence.

Here's a good explanation from Dr. George H. Guthrie (Professor of New Testament):
The KJV translators were also doing their best to work with the manuscript evidence; they just had much less evidence than is available to us today since thousands of manuscripts have been discovered over the past 400 years.

For instance, the KJV has a longer version of Mark 6:11, than the NLT and NASB does. Why? Dr. Gurthrie explains from the same article:
I think the evidence for holding that Mark did not write that second part of the verse is very compelling.

When we look at the manuscript evidence on Mark 6:11, the evidence for not including the words in question is very, very strong. The best major manuscript that includes the words is called Codex Alexandrinus, labeled “A”. This 5th-century manuscript is one of our earliest manuscripts on the New Testament (although this manuscript was not available to the KJV translators).

2. The manuscripts that do not have the words at Mark 6:11 are earlier and much more geographically diverse than those that include the words.

3. The addition of the words in Mark 6:11 found in the KJV seem to be the result of a scribe adding material from the parallel passage in Matthew 10:15.

Thus the evidence seems clear that the part of Mark 6:11 in question did not belong to Mark’s original.

I think that article answers a lot of your major points. Hope that helps.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bbyrd009
Sorry, but the article was a feeble attempt to reason away scripture. Again, these recently found manuscripts were not being used by Christians. They had been discarded and forgotten about for centuries, while trustworthy manuscripts were being used by congregations. Typically, when making copies from originals, things are left out, not added. I see several opinions about the superiority of these older manuscripts but no solid evidence for their supremacy.

Newer translations actually change, or at least challenge, Christian doctrine. We believe people are saved by faith. Period. Nothing else required. However, in newer translations Acts 8:37 is omitted. Here is what the verse says: And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. This chapter relates the story of Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch. After explaining the Gospel to the eunuch, they come upon some water and the eunuch asked if he could be baptised. Verse 37 is Philip's answer...if you believe you can. The eunuch then confesses his faith in Christ. By omitting this verse you have salvation through baptism. Look for yourself: Acts 8:36-39 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing. By omitting verse 37 the eunuch's confession of faith is also omitted.

So I will once again focus on the differences and ask how is a version better if it outright lies? How is a version better if it is confusing? I have heard many people claim the newer versions are the same as the KJKV, just easier to read. Should reliability be replaced for readability? Should bitter truth be replaced for sweet lies? Exactly how are newer translation better than the KJV if they change the method of salvation?
 
Last edited:
For instance, the KJV has a longer version of Mark 6:11, than the NLT and NASB does. Why?
Here is the portion omitted from the NASB: Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city. If you were Satan, would you want people to fear a worse judgment coming on them than the people in these two cities faced? Of course not. Satan would probably remove scripture that talks about punishment; change the method of salvation; omit the reason Jesus came to the earth in the first place (Matt.18:11).
 
Last edited:
Newer translations actually change, or at least challenge, Christian doctrine.
It seems a lot of your points would only resonate with people who are already believers.

For instance, you brought up theology when weighing the accuracy of a translation. While theology can play a role some times, like when determining what Jesus would've meant for a word or passage. But when it comes to entire passages being omitted or added, then manuscript evidence would matter more. Simply put, you wanna make sure that you even have the information that Jesus said (which comes from the manuscripts) before using information as part of a theology.

We believe people are saved by faith. Period. Nothing else required. However, in newer translations Acts 8:37 is omitted. Here is what the verse says: And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. This chapter relates the story of Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch. After explaining the Gospel to the eunuch, they come upon some water and the eunuch asked if he could be baptised. Verse 37 is Philip's answer...if you believe you can. The eunuch then confesses his faith in Christ. By omitting this verse you have salvation through baptism. Look for yourself: Acts 8:36-39 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing. By omitting verse 37 the eunuch's confession of faith is also omitted.
Well here again, it seems that your only focus is theology. Know if Jesus or the apostles really said these things, you need to refer back to the manuscripts. Perhaps you assume that omissions could only mean someone is trying to water down the theology, but given that it could be zealous Christians copying most of this work, I think they'd more likely try to add things on to make a point stronger, or even to bolster some message or doctrine that they are trying to push. I don't doubt that that can also involve them omitting certain things, like if the exception clause in Matthew 19:9 regarding divorce& remarriage was omitted because someone was anti-remarriage.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bbyrd009
For instance, you brought up theology when weighing the accuracy of a translation.
Well here again, it seems that your only focus is theology.
Well…the Bible is primarily a book that deals with theology. That is its purpose. It is the sole authority for Christian theology. The Bible focuses on God’s redemption of sinful man. The main character throughout the pages of scripture is Jesus Christ.

I have presented several points why I believe the KJV is the best translation for English speaking people. There are false claims, contradictions, omissions and altered doctrine in many of the newer versions. Nothing has been offered to show the KJV is inferior to these newer translations. None of the problems I pointed out have been addressed. Ignoring them or sweeping them under the rug does not resolve the issues newer translations have.
Perhaps you assume that omissions could only mean someone is trying to water down the theology, but given that it could be zealous Christians copying most of this work, I think they'd more likely try to add things on to make a point stronger, or even to bolster some message or doctrine that they are trying to push.
You are more than welcome to “think” that. But what do you base your thought on? Do you have some insight concerning scribes adding their own work while transcribing? Or is this solely your opinion? I haven’t just offered my opinion; I have offered irrefutable evidence to support my belief the KJV is superior to newer versions. I welcome any evidence that the NIV, NASB, HCS, or any other version surpasses the King Jimmy