Which translation do you think is the best English translation?

[farouk]

@Cassandra Print size does get to be an issue as we get older.......

 

[Cassandra]

@Cassandra Print size does get to be an issue as we get older.......

I realize that.

 

[farouk]

I realize that.

:) I'm kind of afflicted by that fact in the case of my eyes....

 

[Illuminator]

Perhaps the best translation is the one you read.

 

[Truman]

When I'm reading the bible and all of a sudden it seems like someone is standing behind me with a flashlight, shining it on what I'm reading...that's my favorite translation!

 

[farouk]

When I'm reading the bible and all of a sudden it seems like someone is standing behind me with a flashlight, shining it on what I'm reading...that's my favorite translation!

I do love the KJV......... :)

 

[Truman]

KJV's fine, though I have a bit of trouble following and understanding it, me having ADD, a mild brain injury, and all. I just wonder if it's unnecessarily difficult to access for young believers. Which shouldn't be a problem, as there are many translations. It's just when new believers are told that the KJV is the only real bible.
There are some who say that if you don't speak English and want to get saved, you must learn English, read the KJV, and then get saved. Then they must deal with, "what KJV?" 1611...what 1611? English isn't even the original language.
This is what my old pastor would call Christian superstition.

 

[farouk]

KJV's fine, though I have a bit of trouble following and understanding it, me having ADD, a mild brain injury, and all. I just wonder if it's unnecessarily difficult to access for young believers. Which shouldn't be a problem, as there are many translations. It's just when new believers are told that the KJV is the only real bible.
There are some who say that if you don't speak English and want to get saved, you must learn English, read the KJV, and then get saved. Then they must deal with, "what KJV?" 1611...what 1611? English isn't even the original language.
This is what my old pastor would call Christian superstition.

@Truman Seems anyway that when ppl try to memorize and quote the KJV, it comes to mind rather more easily than some versions.... :)

 

[Truman]

I think it's a selfish preference myself. For personal use, sure. Otherwise, I see no grounds for it. But that's just how I see it.

 

[farouk]

I think it's a selfish preference myself. For personal use, sure. Otherwise, I see no grounds for it. But that's just how I see it.

I find it authoritative; and the KJV is actually a rather accurate version also...

 

[Truman]

All the bibles I read are authoritative because they are God's word.
Hey, if you prefer the KJV, knock yourself out. Read what you want.
I know I do!

 

[Michiah-Imla]

There are some who say that if you don't speak English and want to get saved, you must learn English, read the KJV, and then get saved.

I don’t promote this.

Whatever begins your walk with the Lord is good (whatever version). But I think the KJV is where maturity and completeness in the faith is finally realized.

That was my experience.

My first Bible was the New International Version (NIV). I read that at a slow pace that year (it took my nearly a year to read it - I wasn’t totally committed yet).

But even then it bothered me that there were so many different Bibles to choose from. One night after reading the NIV I prayed to the Lord to help me find peace in this matter. I said, Lord if this [NIV] is not your word, get it out my hands.

Not long after a lost vendor showed up at my job looking for directions. He saw my Bible on the desk. He asked what version it was. From there he proceeded to tell me about how modern Bibles were corrupted. I immediately felt that my prayer was answered. That very night I started reading the KJV and immediately started seeing the changes in how the word flowed through my heart. There was a conviction coming off the pages of the KJV that I never got from the NIV.

Now the KJV is the Bible for me and there’s no going back!

 

[Truman]

I don’t promote this.

Whatever begins your walk with the Lord is good (whatever version). But I think the KJV is where maturity and completeness in the faith is finally realized.

That was my experience.

My first Bible was the New International Version (NIV). I read that at a slow pace that year (it took my nearly a year to read it - I wasn’t totally committed yet).

But even then it bothered me that there were so many different Bibles to choose from. One night after reading the NIV I prayed to the Lord to help me find peace in this matter. I said, Lord if this [NIV] is not your word, get it out my hands.

Not long after a lost vendor showed up at my job looking for directions. He saw my Bible on the desk. He asked what version it was. From there he proceeded to tell me about how modern Bibles were corrupted. I immediately felt that my prayer was answered. That very night I started reading the KJV and immediately started seeing the changes in how the word flowed through my heart. There was a conviction coming off the pages of the KJV that I never got from the NIV.

Now the KJV is the Bible for me and there’s no going back!

I read many translations. I like to compare them. I've been reading it for so long that much of it is in me. I'll often use biblehub to jog my memory. I only read an NIV physical bible because it has big letters...and it was my mothers. None of them are perfect. Generally, the Holy Spirit brings to mind what I need for a given situation. KJV is good.

 

[Jim B]

@Cassandra Well....you can get a large print King James, also..... :)

She wrote that she already has a large print KJV.

 

[Davy]

I read many translations. I like to compare them. I've been reading it for so long that much of it is in me. I'll often use biblehub to jog my memory. I only read an NIV physical bible because it has big letters...and it was my mothers. None of them are perfect. Generally, the Holy Spirit brings to mind what I need for a given situation. KJV is good.

Yeah, nothing wrong with comparing. After praying about it, we should do that when we're not sure about a reading, and also look into the original Bible language meaning with a Hebrew or Greek lexicon. Even a set of Interlinear Bible manuscripts in the original Bible languages can seal in a point in Scripture.

In the KJV of Isaiah 14:12 with the word "Lucifer", I wondered about that once I looked up that verse in the Hebrew and found out the actual Hebrew word for "O Lucifer" was actually heylel which means 'morning star'...

Isa 14:12
12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
KJV

But in my 1st edition 1611 KJV Bible, the KJV translators put in the side margin of that verse, "O Day Starre", which is an accurate translation of the Hebrew word heylel. After I thought about why the translators would put "Lucifer" in and gave that alternate reading in the side margin, it made sense...

There is only ONE TRUE Morning Star, and that is our Lord Jesus Christ per Revelation 22.

However, Satan (or Lucifer) WANTS to be The Morning Star. He covets God's Throne. That is actually how... he originally rebelled and sinned against God in the beginning, with coveting God's Throne in wanting to be God.

Thus the KJV translators made sure that people understood it is Lucifer that God is talking about there in Isaiah 14:12, and not The True Morning Star Jesus Christ.

 

[Jim B]

You're not making any sense, because the Greek text that Wescott and Hort presented for the 1881 committee to use was based on corrupt manuscripts whose dates have never... been verified, i.e., the Codex Vaticanus that was 'found' in the Vatican library in 1475, and the Codex Alexandrinus claimed to have come from the Alexandria, Egypt school and claimed to be the oldest. It's those Greek texts which Wescott and Hort derived their NEW Greek text 'they' created, and presented to the 1881 committee of scholars to use for their revision.

(For those interested on the real story and historical data, see the scholarly documentary Bridge to Babylon)

You KJV people will go to any length and use any rationale to "prove" that the KJV is the only valid translation. It just shows your ignorance, nothing more. Modern translations are created using a number of different sources, including the earliest and best Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek tablets and scrolls. They then use their knowledge of the early cultures and (most important) an understanding of modern culture and thought processes to give us excellent translations.

If you want to base your faith on an outdated Englyshe translation created solely to bolster the rule of a secular king, you have my deepest sympathy.

 

[Jim B]

These earlier sources are flawed. This is documented very well. Earlier does not equal “better”.

The science of translation is hindered by the flawed source texts. No matter how good intentioned a translated may be, his efforts will only convert those flaws.

You believe the narrative, I don’t. I’ve read modern versions and they are weaker compared to the KJV. The missing scriptures are a big drawback as well.

You wrote, "These earlier sources are flawed. This is documented very well. Earlier does not equal “better”. " To me that is meaningless.

a) Which ones are these early sources? As opposed to those early sources? The earlier the source the more likely it is to be close to the original. Of course, they were created by scribes, so errors undoubtedly crept in, but there is little doubt that the earlier sources are the most accurate.

b) When you write, "The science of translation is hindered by the flawed source texts. No matter how good intentioned a translated may be, his efforts will only convert those flaws." Of course, this also applies to the King James Version. They also had "flawed source texts". They also lacked the many non-Biblical texts of the period which shed light on the meaning of the ancient language and explain the early culture.

You believe the KJV narrative; I don’t. I’ve read modern versions and they are better and more accurate than the KJV. Modern versions are developed to give us the clearest and best understanding of God's word. The King James version was created for one purpose only: to make Christianity into a religion that glorified a secular king.

 

[Davy]

You KJV people will go to any length and use any rationale to "prove" that the KJV is the only valid translation. It just shows your ignorance, nothing more. Modern translations are created using a number of different sources, including the earliest and best Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek tablets and scrolls. They then use their knowledge of the early cultures and (most important) an understanding of modern culture and thought processes to give us excellent translations.

If you want to base your faith on an outdated Englyshe translation created solely to bolster the rule of a secular king, you have my deepest sympathy.

No, modern New Testament versions are STILL based on Wescott and Hort's new Greek text derived from Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. The Codex Sinaiticus is claimed to be the oldest, dating back to the mid-4th century A.D. The Vaticanus was discovered in the Vatican in 1475. These are deemed as having originated in Alexandria, Egypt, and show an 'allegorical' interpretation common to the school at Alexandria with those such as Origen of Alexandria.

 

[Michiah-Imla]

The earlier the source the more likely it is to be close to the original.

That’s a Wescott & Hort talking point: which is their assumption only. No evidence.

errors undoubtedly crept in

Not when faithful God-fearing scribes handled the copying process. This is where the Spirit guides us into truth; both scribes and readers.

Modern versions are developed to give us the clearest and best understanding

The English language hasn’t changed much in recent years, yet translations keep being made. And by changing words and leaving out scriptures from other manuscripts, how does that “give us the clearest and best understanding” of the text?

Spiritually compromised scholars from the 1800’s until now didn’t have spiritual discernment so they erred in following the wisdom of men when selecting what readings to translate and how to translate them. Thus they selected the worst manuscript witnesses and oftentimes did not even translate what they had very well.

Pedants without prudence.

 

[marks]

That’s a Wescott & Hort talking point: which is their assumption only. No evidence.

The internal evidence of these "early copies" are that they show much disagreement with just those few manuscripts. So if you say they are better because they are older, I'll immediately ask, Which one? Because they are so different.

Meanwhile, the Majority Manuscript has, what, 99.5% agreement?

Much love!