IT’S BIBLICAL !!!👀🙏
(media.greatawakening.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (56)
sorted by:
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.
There are two versions of the Bible in the world today, and hundreds of translations.
You have your choice of -
A: Masoretic OT (Hebrew) and Textus Receptus NT (Koine Greek)
(King James, YLT, Geneva, and others)
or
B: The Greek manuscripts preserved by the Roman Catholic Church edited 13 or more times in some places and written in Classical Greek - (Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus, and Codex Alexandrinus).
All the "modern" Bibles are based on the latter, because they are the "oldest" manuscripts.
And the verses which have been changed absolutely have an effect on doctrine.
Do you notice any differences in Hosea 11:12?
What about Matthew 20:16? Any idea why the part about "for many be called, but few chosen" is lopped off in the NIV?
Axiom Ethiopia has their own Bible as well which is completely unedited by the Catholic Church and includes the 17 books (the Apocrypha) removed by the 2nd Council of Nicaea in 787AD. Their Bibles go all the way back supposedly before the 1st hand written Constantine Bibles. This means they are in their original form from scrolls, compared to Constantine and the 1st Council of Nicaea’s manipulation/editing of the Biblical texts. Of course the Catholic Church never would accept them as true, but historically, the Queen of Sheba played a big part in the Old Testament as we all know. And Ethiopia was never enslaved or library/literacy inquisition cleansed like most other post-established Roman Catholic Church era countries.
The Manuscripts listed in option B are, indeed, older than the Manuscripts mentioned in option A.
The texts in question that have been omitted (very few and none affecting any major doctrine) in option B are simply not found in the older manuscripts. What's your defense to the charge that those verses in question were added by the scribes in Option A? Therefore the scribes in option B are simply reflecting what the older manuscripts recorded more accurately?
Let me ask this question in a more straightforward way:
How do you know that the verses you cite weren't added to the translation you prefer?
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.
YouVersion is a free app that includes all major Bible translations, as well as the ability to compare versions side by side. It also includes audio versions for those times when you want to listen vs. read the Word.
Excellent point
Agreed. But to think that there have not been publishers/translators who are trying to (slowly) subvert the Word is naive (as I’m sure you are aware). Did a deep dive on this years ago…some shady stuff.
A couple years ago, I bought a New Testament translation called The Pure Word. The claim is “It’s the world’s first and only hermeneutic-based monadic Greek to English translation….the most literal/accurate version…an accurate single definitive meaning as understood by the Greek during the first century.”
I’ve only done some light skimming in it, so we’ll see. (And since you sound like a scholar, thot you might be interested.). I wouldn’t recommend it to anyone new to scripture tho.
Anyhoo, off to work. Have a great day.
Fully agree, my friend.
May your workday go quickly!
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.