what version of the bible do you use

i would love to know what version of the bible everyone uses. i usually use new american standard. this is my study bible. for reading i like the new international version. i personally stay away from the king james version for that one does have many flaws. and many things that are left out. what are your thoughts or finding?

*let me explain:#1 i have found out that the king james has been  revised three times in the first year of printing  it is not from 1600. it has many translation errors.

one example is that judas`s name was replaceing  jesus`s. thru out the last few years  editting and words have been replaced

#2 it is not from the original   you can find out more here.. rare bibles

#3 an unclothed man. king james 1-The Bishop of Winchester said this of King James “Here the king appears even more prominently than God Himself, whose advent has brought a multitude of blessings to the people of England.”

#4 the men who translate-Many of the translators of the KJV were still very much involved with the Church of England, and some with extreme Calvinism. Lancelot Andrewes, who oversaw the entire translation, was high in the Church of England, and lavished praised and affection on John Calvin.

#5 many many errors-alot of errors  of  the translation that it had to be revised several times in the first year.  i am aware that no language can be translated word for word into another language. I know that Hebrew and Greek idioms often do not come through clearly into literal English. To fully have an understanding and a correct translation you need to use a version translated by someone who is either Jewish or has studied, in depth, the culture, of which the Scriptures were written and all the authors lived. Here are some of the errors still in the KJV today:

Genesis 1:2 should read “And the earth became without form . . . .” The word translated “was” is hayah, and denotes a condition different than a former condition, as in Genesis 19:26.

Genesis 10:9 should read ” . . . Nimrod the mighty hunter in place of [in opposition to] the LORD.” The word “before” is incorrect and gives the connotation that Nimrod was a good guy, which is false.

Leviticus 16:8, 10, 26 in the KJV is “scapegoat” which today has the connotation of someone who is unjustly blamed for other’s sins. The Hebrew is Azazel, which means “one removed or separated.” The Azazel goat represents Satan, who is no scapegoat. He is guilty of his part in our sins.

Deuteronomy 24:1, “then let him” should be “and he.” As the Savior explained in Matthew 19, Moses did not command divorcement. This statute is regulating the permission of divorce because of the hardness of their hearts.

2 Kings 2:23, should be “young men”, not “little children.”

Isaiah 65:17 should be “I am creating [am about to create] new heavens and new earth . . . .”

Ezekiel 20:25 should read “Wherefore I permitted them, or gave them over to, [false] statutes that are not good, and judgments whereby they should not live.” God’s laws are good, perfect and right. This verse shows that since Israel rejected God’s laws, He allowed them to hurt themselves by following false man made customs and laws.

Daniel 8:14 is correct in the margin, which substitutes “evening morning” for “days.” Too bad William Miller didn’t realize this.

Malachi 4:6 should read ” . . . lest I come and smite the earth with utter destruction.” “Curse” doesn’t give the proper sense here. Same word used in Zechariah 14:11.

Matthew 5:48 should be “Become ye therefore perfect” rather than “be ye therefore perfect.” “Perfect” here means “spiritually mature.” Sanctification is a process of overcoming with the aid of the Holy Spirit.

Matthew 24:22 needs an additional word to clarify the meaning. It should say “there should no flesh be saved alive.”

Matthew 27:49 omits text which was in the original. Moffatt correctly adds it, while the RSV puts it in a footnote: “And another took a spear and pierced His side, and out came water and blood.” The Savior’s death came when a soldier pierced His side, Revelation 1:7.

Matthew 28:1, “In the end of the sabbath as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week . . .” should be translated literally, “Now late on Sabbath, as it was getting dusk toward the first day of the week . . . .” The Sabbath does not end at dawn but at dusk.

Luke 2:14 should say, “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among men of God’s good pleasure or choosing.” That is, there will be peace on earth among men who have God’s good will in their hearts.

Luke 14:26 has the unfortunate translation of the Greek word miseo, Strong’s #3404, as “hate”, when it should be rendered “love less by comparison.” We are not to hate our parents and family!

John 1:31, 33 should say “baptize” or “baptizing IN water” not with water. Pouring or sprinkling with water is not the scriptural method of baptism, but only thorough immersion in water.

John 1:17 is another instance of a poor preposition. “By” should be “through”: “For the law was given by [through] Moses . . . .” Moses did not proclaim his law, but God’s Law.

John 13:2 should be “And during supper” (RSV) rather than “And supper being ended” (KJV).

Acts 12:4 has the inaccurate word “Easter” which should be rendered “Passover.” The Greek word is pascha which is translated correctly as Passover in Matthew 26:2, etc.

1 Corinthians 1:18 should be: “For the preaching of the cross is to them that are perishing foolishness; but unto us which are being saved it is the power of God”, rather than “perish” and “are saved.” Likewise, 2 Thessalonians 2:10 should be “are perishing” rather than “perish.”

1 Corinthians 15:29 should be: “Else what shall they do which are baptized for the hope of the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the hope of the dead?”

2 Corinthians 6:2 should be “a day of salvation”, instead of “the day of salvation.” This is a quote from Isaiah 49:8, which is correct. The day of salvation is not the same for each individual. The firstfruits have their day of salvation during this life. The rest in the second resurrection.

1 Timothy 4:8 should say, “For bodily exercise profiteth for a little time: but godliness in profitable unto all things . . . .”

1 Timothy 6:10 should be, “For the love of money is a [not the] root of all evil . . . .”

Hebrews 4:8 should be “Joshua” rather than “Jesus”, although these two words are Hebrew and Greek equivalents.

Hebrews 4:9 should read, “There remaineth therefore a keeping of a sabbath to the people of God.”

Hebrews 9:28 is out of proper order in the King James. It should be: “So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them without sin that look for him shall he appear the second time unto salvation.”

1 John 5:7-8 contains additional text which was added to the original. “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.” The italicized text was added to the original manuscripts. Most modern translations agree that this was an uninspired addition to the Latin Vulgate to support the unscriptural trinity doctrine.

Revelation 14:4 should be “a firstfruits”, because the 144,000 are not all the firstfruits.

Revelation 20:4-5 in the KJV is a little confusing until you realize that the sentence “This is the first resurrection.” in verse five refers back to “they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years” in verse four.

Revelation 20:10, “And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are [correction: should be ‘were cast’ because the beast and false prophet were mortal human beings who were burned up in the lake of fire 1,000 years previous to this time, Revelation 19:20], and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.” The point is that Satan will be cast into the same lake of fire into which the beast and false prophet were cast a thousand years previously.

Revelation 22:2 should be “health” rather than “healing.”

read more here on the errors.. translation errors

The most important editions were those of the 1762 Cambridge revision by Thomas Paris, who made a diligent attempt to correct the text of the KJV, standardise spelling and use of italics, and increase marginal annotations. However, this revision was itself revised before the decade closed: in 1769 Benjamin Blayney of Hertford College, Oxford corrected Dr. Paris’ revision by adding further marginal notes, and making more corrections. Yet even this was not perfect, as some mistakes remained. However, during this period there had grown up a view that the KJV was itself inspired and untouchable, and had been specially venerated from the moment of its appearance in 1611, a view very similar to that of “KJV-only-ism” today (mostly in the United States). Somehow this aura was transferred to the Blayney revision, which remains to this day the standard edition of the KJV from the various Bible publishers. The original 1611 edition has never been reprinted; possibly the original folio manuscripts perished in the Great Fire of 1666, although final proof for this suggestion is lacking. However, facsimile reprints are lately becoming available.

John Wesley made his own translation of the Greek, publ. 1755, together with a commentary, and corrections to the KJV – up to 12,000 in all. His most important innovation was the introduction of paragraphing, while his detailed changes were at times quite apt – several of these the English Revisers of the 1880s adopted, and they even influenced the RSV of 1952. Wesley emphasises in his preface that his translation is “for plain, unlettered men, who understand only their mother tongue, and yet reverence and love the Word of God, and have a desire to save their souls.” See here for a modern publication of the Wesley revision.  With the growing realisation from the mid-seventeenth century onwards that the Greek text underlying the KJV was late and in places inaccurate, by the mid-nineteenth century the mood grew accordingly for a revision of the KJV. However, so firm was the hold of the KJV by this time that the Revisers of the 1880s dared not deviate from the Jacobean language of the beloved KJV. Hence for various reasons their efforts were in the end a monumental failure. Only in the last few decades has there been a definitive move for a version which is both accurate, based on the best available textual evidence, and which speaks in the modern idiom. To date there has been no consensus on an agreed version which can rightly assume the place of the KJV; meanwhile the latter retains its popularity, even with some sections of the younger generation.

History of the King James Version II Publication and Acceptance

We Have Evidence that the KJV is the Word of God

No, we don’t. We have evidence that men in the 1600s were commissioned, by the King of England, to translate the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures into English and that is all. We do have evidence that the KJV has MANY errors, right from it’s printing to today on your shelf.

The Scriptures don’t prove out any scripts or books being THE Word of God unless they were written at the time of the actual Scriptures, not 1600 years later. That is absurd. Saying the KJV is THE Word because it stood the test of time is silly. One could easily say the same thing about the Latin Vulgate because it too has “stood the test of time” and still being used today. Of course no KJV person would have give the LV this same credit.

I can’t imagine the men, who translated, being so prideful as to say what they translated, though to best of their ability, is faultless and no one could do a better job.

Paganism
I found this VERY interesting… “Does your King James Version Bible use words or wording that originated in pagan religions, especially in pagan sun worship such as: Amen, Bible, Christ, Church, Cross, Easter, Ghost, Glory, God, Holy, Jesus, Lord, and Testament?” See
the origins of common “christian” words. Search it out for yourself.

Antisemitism
Not only has the KJV taken all of the Jewishness out, but they have changed and removed the names of Yaweh God and Yeshua, which might not be their names in KJV but certainly is in heaven. They also changed formal titles, the attitude towards Yahweh’s Torah, his instruction, and His People, the Israelites. Because of this many people are misled as how to honour and love Yehovah by obeying ALL His Words. Yeshua lived as his Father commanded His People to do, obeying the Torah, observing feast days, and setting the example of how we are to do so. Yeshua said he did only what his Father taught him, and we know Yahweh wouldn’t have taught Yeshua to disobey his set instructions.

I will just touch on one point here. The KJV would have you believe that the early Believers stopped celebrating Shabbat and observing the Torah. Paul and all the other disciples honoured Yahweh’s commands until the day they died. Paul defended this many times and even under went purification to prove he had not apostatized from following Torah.

Paul said that there will always be a Shabbat-rest for God’s People, Jews and Gentiles alike, in Hebrews 4:9, but the KJV takes out the word “Shabbat” and just writes “rest” completely abolishing it’s meaning and the indication that all who are bought buy the Blood of the Messiah are to celebrate Yahweh’s Holy Day, the Shabbat.

Misrepresentation
There are many, and some I have already mentioned, but I will make this brief so you can further search this out on your own. I leave you with this misrepresentation of the “Law” or in correct terms the Torah.

King James Version says: But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.

Jewish Translation says: The Jewish Bible: But if you are led by the Spirit, then you are not in subjection to the system that results from perverting the Torah into legalism.

The KJV gives the misrepresentation that if you are truly led by the Spirit then you are no longer under the “Law” or are supposed to, where as the correct translation says if you’re led by the Spirit you won’t be subject to perverting it into legalism. There is a great difference, especially with what James 1:25 tells us.

so these are just a few finding i have come acrossed. the word of the lord is so prescious, we should hold fast to staying true to its originality.


Advertisements

8 thoughts on “what version of the bible do you use

  1. Margaret says:

    Liz,

    I have a bunch of Bibles — NASB, King James (which I grew up with), NIV, The Holy Bible In The Language of Today (William Beck), RSV, Good News Bible, God’s Word, The New Testament in Modern English (J.B. Phillips)….. Lately I’ve been using the NASB as a study Bible.

    I don’t understand what you mean by saying the King James Version has flaws….. It uses the old Victorian English that Shakespeare used, because that is when it was written…. So, back in those days they said things differently than we do today…. One example is that somewhere in the Psalms the KJ says, “our Lord is an awful God”….. A friend told me that was a horrible way to talk about God…. But, back in Shakespeare’s day, the word “awful” was the same as when we say “awesome” today…. So that verse was really saying God is awesome — and that He is.

    What might look like a flaw to us today is just old-fashioned, Victorian English….. Oh, oh…. That’s saying something about my age. :)… I love my King James Bible…. I earned it when I was young by baby-sitting and doing odd jobs…. So, even though we don’t speak Victorian English today, it is nostalgic and very rich in meaning.

    Happy studying!

    Margaret

  2. Tishrei says:

    I have so many versions but my bible of choice that I use as my study bible is the ESV. I also use the NASB quite a bit. As well, I use the NET bible but mostly for the incredible translator notes as I get to understand why translators made the choices they did.

    My first bible when I came to faith was the NIV and I still have it and read it on occassions. I also have the KVJ but I don’t really like it but mostly because the English reminds me of my college days and my struggle when I took Shakespeare as one of my English courses (so don’t get upset with me Margaret 🙂 ) The ONLY thing about KJV that annoys me is the KJV only people — they probably are one of the more meaner group I run across. They take the position that if you don’t read the KJV, you’re not a real Christian.

    The church I attend uses the NASB so when I go to church, I take my NASB bible.

    I have read many different versions from cover to cover — actually I rotate different versions when I do my cover to cover reading. But when I do my studies, I stick mostly with the ESV and the NASB. Those are my favorite word for word translations though I check the NET bible for the translator notes. I am reading through NET cover to cover (it is a word for word translation) this read through. It is my first read through with this translation.

  3. Liz says:

    thanks for the feed back. i think i dug a hole regarding the king james version… i will share my findings with you. sorry about that…. i agree tishrei.. that is what i mean and some other things so stayed tuned.

  4. Margaret says:

    Liz,

    I agree with Tishrei…. The “die hard” KJV ONLY users are just that — “die hards”….. It is wrong to say that only the KJV is a correct translation….. I grew up with it — because I’m not young…. I was young back in the days when the KJ was all there was… 🙂 I am able to appreciate it because it was used all during my Sunday School and Confirmation days….. In college I had to take Shakespeare and learned to appreciate him because I had a teacher to explain Victorian English…..

    But, today I mostly use the NASB….. Because I had to memorize many verses in the KJ when I was young, when I’m trying to think of a verse, I often remember it in the KJ….. But, I get mixed up because I’ve been mainly using the NASB for a number of years….. So, when I try to search for a verse now, I partly remember it as KJ and partly as NASB…. So, when using Strong’s Concordance to do a word study, I’m sometimes on the wrong track and it takes me awhile to figure out where a verse is….. My KJ is just nostalgic — a good nostalgic tool that is usable with Strong’s Concordance.

    I don’t have a hard copy of an ESV, but do read online copies….. Maybe some day….. I also have NET, but forgot to mention it.

    There is a difference between a real translation and an interpretation….. The interpretations are trying to put things into their own thoughts and are not paying attention to the original language….. A translation uses the original Hebrew and Greek to try and put into today’s language.

    Okay, Tishrei? 🙂 I am ever so glad I’m definitely NOT a die hard KJ user….. Appreciation is on a different level than die hard.

    Margaret

  5. Liz says:

    oh margaret thanks for your feed back i know with this post i kind of dug a hole so to speak…

    i love the communication and all of your feed back. let us trust with what ever translation we choose to read that god will show himself true and that the spirit of god will lead us into all truth.

  6. Tishrei says:

    Margaret, I was just being silly — I never ever took you as one of those mean people that questioned my salvation because of the bible I read 🙂

    It’s kind of interesting how we have different experiences with the old english. Obviously I did not grow up reading KJV, I grew up with another book 😦 I was just trying to fill in requirements and electives when I took shakespear — I almost dropped the class, LOL. Hey, I should have googled you so you could help me with that class (except there was no internet when I was in college).

    No matter which one we read (I’m referring to word for word translations), they all are not perfect. As a speaker of two languages, there are some things that just cannot be perfectly translated. Binding and loosing is a really good case in point — it’s an old Hebrew idiom much like in English, raining cats and dogs cannot be translated word for word to another language and come out the same meaning. It’s an idiom.

  7. Margaret says:

    Liz and Tishrei,

    Tishrei, I took you in the right way…. Maybe when words are in print they seem different than when one hears them spoken and sees a person’s body language and tone of voice…. So, I hope I don’t cause a person to misunderstand in any way.

    Tishrei, God knows us perfectly well, right down to how many hairs we have on our head…. There is most likely a very good reason why He allowed you to know that “other book” before you knew the Bible. 🙂 God has a good purpose of salvation for many, whether they cared for Shakespeare or not. 🙂 It is definitely true that there is no “perfect” translation — and the closest translation today will not be the closest translation a number of years from now, because language is constantly changing over time….. That’s why the OT Hebrew is different from the modern language.

    Liz, I am very interested in all the information you included in this post and would like to know the source so I can study it from there…. That being said, I can comment on two of the points off hand…. In Acts 12:4 it is right…. Calling the Passover the heathen word “Easter” is a gross and probably intentional mistranslation…. I had that noted in my old KJ and in Strong’s Concordance….. That bugged me years ago, too.

    But, on the other hand, Revelation 1:7 does not state that the piercing of Jesus’ side killed Him…. In John 19:30 Jesus died and in John 19:34 a soldier pierced His side…. The water and blood that poured forth are what happens when a person is already dead…. If the spear had killed Jesus, only blood would have come forth.

    That’s all I have time to comment on for now…. Just gotta go. 🙂 But, I do want to take time to explore each of these points because this sort of study is good and noteworthy.

    Love, Margaret

  8. Liz says:

    hi margaret i actually a few years ago did a study but you can go here.. http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/kjverror.html

    and here..http://www.greatsite.com/ancient-rare-bibles-books/platinum.html

    i really did not mean to stir the pot,ha,ha. but i love this communicating back and forth. i just know how important it is to a translation in the hebrew and greek contence. and when i found out a few years back how the king james version has some errors i have just been carefull with choosing the most accurate translation. i mean even the new international version i think in acts is missing the last passage./ sentence.

    anyway god knows and that is all that really matters. i am thankful for the many translation that are in our reach like the message or living translations.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s