IT’S BIBLICAL !!!👀🙏
(media.greatawakening.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (56)
sorted by:
Praying that those who haven't already will pick up their bibles. Lots of fascination to be had, tons of relevance, not to mention the peace you can feel just by reading and trying to understand the Word.
Yes. The KJ or older. To many scriptures left out of the new ones.
Way more manuscripts have been discovered since the KJV version was written. More recent translations benefit from those new Manuscripts. Therefore they're more accurate. But we're splitting hairs here. The NKJV is sufficient, too. Easier to read than the KJV. NIV is even easier to read than that without losing textual accuracy.
Bottom line, just get a Bible and read it.
NIV waters down doctrine.
Cite the doctrine it waters down.
Read Acts 8:37 in your NIV Bible.
Anything footnoted will eventually be removed.
There are more examples like this, but they have absolutely no affect on any doctrine. The better translations will leave the footnote included.
Just because more manuscripts have been found (minus some important scripture, including Jesus own words) does not mean they are more accurate.
I’ll stick to the older versions. You do you.
It is probably wise to have access to at least two or three of the major translations KJV (King James Version), NIV (New International Version), NAS (New American Standard), NKJV (New King James Version), ESV (English Standard Version), NLT (New Living Translation), CSB (Christian Standard Bible), for comparison’s sake.
If a verse or passage in one translation is a little confusing, it can be helpful to compare it side-by-side with another version.
It is difficult to say which translation is the "best." "Best" would be determined by a combination of the translation method personally considered best and your interpretation of the textual data underlying your translation. For example, the KJV and NAS attempted to take the underlying Hebrew and Greek words and translate them into the closest corresponding English words as possible (word for word), while the NIV and NLT attempted to take the original thought that was being presented in Greek and Hebrew and then express that thought in English (thought for thought).
Many of the other translations attempt to "meet in the middle" between those two methods. Paraphrases such as The Message or The Living Bible can be used to gain a different perspective on the meaning of a verse, but they should not be used as a primary Bible translation.
I'm not saying the manuscripts themselves are accurate - there are [minor] discrepancies between manuscripts to be sure. But having more manuscripts at hand during translation makes the translation more accurate. But "accuracy" is a slippery word. You have thought for thought translations and word for word translations. Each translation has it's own strengths and weaknesses.
As far as READABILITY is concerned, NIV leads the pack, but not by much.
English Standard Version (ESV) is a good translation too.
Left out and altered meaning with bad translation of words...
NASB is my go to
True enough, though I feel they serve some purpose, for getting a point across in a simpler manner
Do you know why they're left out?
Amen!