Teen looking for the right Bible

Yes they can all be accurate. There are several ways to translate Greek words and because some versions do this does not make them not accurate.

 

My list is more limited than most but certainly not as limited as those who arbitrarily choose one version as "perfect" based on the traditions and foundless opinions of men.

TR- NKJV, KJV, MKJV
CT- NASB
Majority Text- WEB, EMTV

The differences in translations relate basically to a couple of things.

One is that there are different but legitimate words and phrasing to translate almost any statement from one language to another. In the case of Hebrew and Greek, those languages don't have purely one to one equivalencies to English. For instance, Hebrew uses understood verbs that must be supplied to make sense in English. Greek has more verb forms than we have.

Second is that the Bible came to us via human scribes. If you wonder why there are differences, read a few chapters of the Bible to a group of friends and have them write it down word for word as you read. There will more than likely be errors... human scribes are simply incapable of perfect facsimiles.

With the Bible, we are talking about thousands of different scribes from various areas that could not communicate with each other easily even if they knew about each other. They took the copies they had and copied them as many times as they could.

It is a genuine mark of providential preservation that we can compare texts and conclude that none of the original message has been lost. The reasonable debate is not over whether doctrines or essential teachings/facts have been lost but over which is the more accurate textual evaluation method.

In very simple terms, if you believe the genuinely older texts and evidences are to be preferred even if they are few in number then you should go with the critical text versions like the ESV or NASB. If you think that the text represented by the majority of the existing manuscripts is to be preferred then either a majority text Bible like the WEB or EMTV should be chosen... though you will find few others using them.

The TR is an example of the Byzantine texts. The Byzantine make up the majority of manuscripts. Versions from that text include the NKJV and KJV.

But do remember one thing in all this- out of 5000+ hand copied Greek manuscripts no two are identical. All of the texts used to translate our versions were developed by comparing mss that differ from one another and deciding which "reading" to include when variants appeared.

God did not see fit to preserve a facsimile of the originals for us. Anyone who claims word for word perfection for either a particular text and much more for a translation is engaging in presumption or believes the heretical notion of "re-inspiration". God chose men to write the Bible... the last one died about 1900 years ago and was named John.

 

Good posts Scott, you gave a great rundown. It would be nice if they would print the WEB! Hopefully it will be soon.

 

Use the KJV and avoid modern versions.

 

First save some money by getting e-sword on your computer it is free and has many translations of the Bible as well as many other Bible study helps.Then you can find out for yourself.
Just type e-sword in your search window and hit find. you will have no trouble.

I am KJV preferred but that being said other reliable translations are the ESV,NKJV,NASB,and even the NIV.I would stay away from paraphrases except for private reading if you choose .

My best to you young man may God go with you.

 

Learn Greek and Hebrew and use the KJV. I personally also like the MKJV, or at least what I have seen of it.

Oh, yeah... and Chick? "Don't believe everything you read" is good advice there. And I say that even though i use some of his tracts.

 

WEB, like NIV and others, i am not comfortable with. Here is John 3:16 in the WEB...

For God so loved the world, that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

Here it is in the KJV...

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

What is the difference one may ask? The word 'begotten' in the Greek is 'monogenes' and means 'only born'.

Only born is more accurate than one and only.

 

ugh hum... Can we say, hair spilt... And may I add not a reasonable spilt.

 

John 3:16 Ou[twj ga.r hvga,phsen o` qeo.j to.n ko,smon w[ste to.n ui`o.n to.n monogenh/ e;dwken i[na pa/j o` pisteu,wn eivj auvto.n mh. avpo,lhtai avll e;ch| zwh.n aivw,nion
Westcott & Hort NT


John 3:16 outwV gar hgaphsen o qeoV ton kosmon wste ton uion autou ton monogenh edwken ina paV o pisteuwn eiV auton mh apolhtai all ech zwhn aiwnion
Textus Receptus

 

leaving out begotten takes away from Christ's deity. God had other sons; Adam was a son, sons of God married the daughters of men, etc...

In old testament, the word begat or begotten meant fathered. Abraham begat Isaac, Isaac begat Jacob, etc...

When one includes the word begotten in John 3:16, one sees the very deity in the fact that Jesus was fathered by God Himself.

One and only son is not a correct translation because God had many sons according to the Word of God.

 

JRG,

You have got the right Info from Chick !
Take KJV and study on Greek and Hebrew.
In this era, Preservation of Words of God is very important ! We have to stand on Textus Receptus for NT and Ben Chayyim Masoretic Text for OT line. Others are [snipped]!
You can see how much people are corrupted.
Even KJV may not be perfect and may contain some human errors. But it is better than any other version available in English at the moment.
NKJV, MKJV,Websters, Darby, may be within the tolerable range of acceptance, but they are slightly short of KJV in some verses. Third Millenium Bible is found quite competitive and almost the same as KJV, in my knowledge.

[ February 18, 2006, 03:20 AM: Message edited by: C4K ]

 

You can't tell the textus receptus is better and others are corrupted. All you can do is make an arbitrary assumption to that affect. After all, it could logically be the other way around just as easily.

 

Actaully several Greek scholars have told me recently the best translation there is unique of which the ISV is one of the few which use that translation.

"For this is how God loved the world: He gave his unique Son so that everyone who believes in him might not perish but have eternal life." John 3:16 ISV. Jesus was not literally born in fact He has always existed but you are correct in the fact that Jesus is differant or unique compared to God's other creation.

 

BTW I apologize for the above post getting off topic.

 

Jesus was not literally born? Well, I guess the Greek scholars for the ISV got that one wrong. Jesus was born of the virgin Mary. According to Luke chapter 1 the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary and she conceived. Chapter 2 gives us the account of Christ being born when it was the time for Mary to be delivered.

Jesus was not always called Jesus. When He was with His Father, He was the Word. John 1:1

Jesus was not called Jesus until He was literally born in the flesh.

Sounds like some greek scholars need to get their noses back in the books.

 

Again I say splitting hairs. Not only are you assuming the improvable fact that W/H is inferior you are also using faulty logic. A five year old could comprehend John 3:16 and in order to translate into a readable text in modern English there are going situations where, just as when the KJV was translated from Greek and Hebrew, there are not exact words. You obviously did not read ScottJ’s post because it dealt with every thing you seem to have problems with. If you want to get that nit picky then we might all want to learn Greek and Hebrew not just copy and paste it.

 

the long and short of it is this...

begotten does not mean one and only,
begotten does not mean unique

begotten means only born. when you leave out that Jesus is the only born, you get people posting things like what i addressed above. Posts like 'Jesus was not literally born'.

Hogwash.

 

SFIC,

I honestly do respect what you have to say, but I feel you are in error here. Jesus was the one and only son born to God. Hence your statement being the only born. SAME THING! One and only only born. Come on now this is really really getting out in left field. Now we can easily settle this if you tell us WHICH KJ is perfect? Name the revision that is perfect.

 

Iohn III:16 (KJV1611 Edition):
For God so loued ye world, that he gaue his
only begotten Sonne: that whosoeuer beleeueth in him,
should not perish, but haue euerlasting life.

 

with all due respect, the versions in question do not say 'one and only born son', but 'one and only son'. There is a difference.

And as pointed out earlier, God had many sons according to the OT