The Best Bible Versions (and Worst)

I am a bit confused. The bio on your website says that you attend The Rock Church with your wife and daughter. On page 2 of this thread you say:

Yet, in your quote above you state that you attend Shadow Mountain Community Church.

Can you help me understand why you contradict yourself?

1. Where is your church membership?
2. What church do you regularly attend?

 

Pastor Bob, you have to understand the situation here. The Rock is an outreach to College Students who attend SDSU (San Diego State University). Although it meets all the requirements of a New Testament church, it is dominated by 18-25 year olds, mostly singles, without families.

Shadow Mountain is an older, well established Baptist church reaching the entire community including ministries for the elderly, middle aged adults, and young marrieds with children.

I can understand being a member of Shadow Mountain but working with the outreach at The Rock. As neither church has an objection to duel membership, it seems to me he can be a member of both and find fulfilling, but different, areas of ministry in both of them.

 

As someone already stated, Shadow Mountain Community Church is my home church. I have attended there since age 7. I was baptized there when I was 20. Plus, I currently attend Louisiana Baptist University.

God bless,
Jason </font>[/QUOTE]</font>[/QUOTE]In which case i have naught against you.
May God bless you double what you prayed
that i might be blessed. Amen!

 

The best Bible version is the KJV because of the KJV superiority.

The worst Bible version is modern versions because of the 1% manuscript evidence supporting them.

 

Correct English would be:

1. The best Bible versions are the KJV because
of the KJV superiority.

2. The worst Bible versions are modern versions because of the 1% manuscript evidence supporting them.

 

Askjo:The best Bible version is the KJV because of the KJV superiority.

Superior to WHAT? in what ways?

The worst Bible version is modern versions because of the 1% manuscript evidence supporting them.

A completely unfounded statement.

 

I disagree, correct English would be, "The best Bible version is the KJV because of the KJV superiority." KJV is singular not plural.

 

...Unless he meant KJV to indicate King James Versions (referring to the revisions of the KJV)

If not, then you're 100% correct, Pastor Bob!

Of course saying the best Bible version is the KJV because of the KJV superiority is an empty, tautological statement.

"It's the best because it's the best!"

 

Back on topic-IMO, the best English BVs are, the NKJV, KJV or AV 1611, NASB, & NIV.(Not necessarily in that order.

The worst BVs, which I don't really consider valid Bibles are, the "Good as New", the People's Bible, "The Message", the 1st edition of the "Living Bible", the NWT, the Phillips version,& the TNIV.

 

Amen, Brother Ed -- Preach it!

II.Kings XI:7 (KJV1611):

And two ||parts of all you, that
goe foorth on the Sabbath, euen they
shall keepe the watch of the house of the
LORD about the king.

sidenote: || Or, companies. Heb. hands.

This is an interesting translator note,
for it shows the two sorts of notes the
translators made (Or denotes the
second best translation into English,
the first best being selected for the
main text. Heb. denotes a variant
found the the Hebrew source text
/Gr. is likewise used for the
Greek New Testament sources.)


II.Kings XI:7 (KJV1611alternate1):

And two companies of all you, that
goe foorth on the Sabbath, euen they
shall keepe the watch of the house of the
LORD about the king.

II.Kings XI:7 (KJV1611variant2):

And two hands of all you, that
goe foorth on the Sabbath, euen they
shall keepe the watch of the house of the
LORD about the king.

 

The best English BV's in my view are the ESV, NASB (updated), the HCSB, the NRSV.

The worst BVs are paraphrases (Living Bible, the Message, etc.), biased translations (NWT, etc.), and those heavily favoring dynamic equivalence (NLT, CEV, etc.).

The KJV and NIV fall somewhere in the middle.

 

You gotta be kidding! Try 98% plus supporting for the modern versions (which are based on older manuscripts). Where do you get the 1% from???

I do not consider paraphrases in answering this question (The Message, The Living Bible, etc.) as I do not call them Bibles , so I would say the best are the NASB and NET Bible, and then the NKJV if you like something more poetic. The KJV is nice if you are into speaking 17th century English in the 21st century.

I think it's good to have versions in more contemporary language as long as the meaning is kept accurate. I think the NLT is pretty good for this but I would not use it for heavy duty Bible study.

I personally do not like the NIV, though I think it's okay.

One of the worst versions, which is popular, is the Amplified Bible. One of my seminary profs (the one who teaches Hebrew, Greek, OT, and Hermeneutics) says the Amplified Bible and Vine's make great doorstops or, if you carve out a hole in them, flowerpots.

 

RSR:I sincerely regret that you consider the Phillips NT among the "worst" versions.

That's why I said, "IMO". We all have different preferences, & I tend to hold heavily-paraphrased BVs in low esteem.

 

Papyrus Fragments, Uncials, Cursives and Lectionaries agreed with the W/H text that modern versions are based -- 1% manuscript evidences.

 

Askjo said:

The best Bible version is the KJV because of the KJV superiority.

And the thing about water is, it's awful watery.

 

Lacy Evans said:

Version-onlyism is false doctrine.

Please show scriptural support for this statement.

 

Please show scriptural support for this statement.</font>[/QUOTE]Actually, it's a version-onlyist that needs to support their doctrine with scripture. They cannot. There is not a single scriptural verse that says there is to be only one sole translation for all.

 

Lacy Evans said:

Version-onlyism is false doctrine.

Please show scriptural support for this statement.

---------------------------------------------

Why is the concept of what constitutes "doctrine" seemingly so difficult for KJVOists to understand?

#1. Doctrine is established in & by Scripture. Period. Therefore...

#2. If a fact is not in the Scripture, it is not doctrine/doctrinal.

--------------------------------------------

Lacy's challenge is essentially tantamount to this scenario:

Let's say I were to make the statement: "Mormonism is false doctrine".

Let's also then say that in reply someone challenges: "Please show scriptural support for this statement."

Would everyone agree that this challenge would be gratuitous? It is the complete lack of any supporting mention of Mormonism's unique principles in the Bible that relegates it to being a false doctrine.

--------------------------------------------

Just as in my example involving Mormanism, the burden of proof lies with those who promote a "doctrine" which is nowhere to be found in the Bible. Since nowhere in the Bible is there any indication that in any given language there is/can be only one acceptable translation from the originally given languages (let alone any mention of 1611 being the date of said English translation), the burden of proof resides with those who make that exact claim.

No one needs to "provide scriptural support" to state that Version-onlyism isn't doctrinal. The very fact that it's unsupported/not specified in Scripture makes it a false doctrine.