Which Bible Should We Trust?

[Urib2007]

The controversial Bible translation paradigm has been going around for a while now. There are the Catholics who impute that those who use the KJV are Protestants. Then you've got people who prefer the newer translations because they find it easier to decipher and comprehend. There are numerous arguments concerning the array of Bibles out in the market, but which one is truly God's Word? In my opinion, I feel the King James Version is genuinely God's final Word. The Word of God has gone through 7 periods of purification on the earth.
Psalm 12:6 states "The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified SEVEN times."
This book has gone through [b]7 languages: Hebrew, Aramic, Greek, old Syriac, Old Latin, German and English. And it's gone through 7 English translations, before we got to the King James Version. [/b]

The King James Bible has been around for 400 years and has produced more revivals, more blood bought souls than any other Bibles of the world put together. We haven't had a real revival in the USA since 1904 because that was the year America put out the American Standard Version. As soon as England created the revised version in 1888, England lost its place as a world power and today America is losing its place as a world power because they have turned their backs on the Word of God.

And now we've got manuscripts today that are used that were translated by Westcott and Hort who denied all the fundamentals of the faith. How many of you realize that all modern Bibles are based on criticism theories of Westcott and Hort of whom both were apostates and spiritualist occultists?

Right now there are over 400 Bible translations out there and that's only in English. Even Time Magazine which is run by a bunch of seculars are asking, "Do we really need 400 different translations of the Bible?"

Ecclesiastes 8:4 states "Where the word of a king is, there is power: and who may say unto him, What doest thou?"
No other Bible was authorized by a king and oddly enough God waited until there was a king on the throne of England who had a Jewish name "James" to bring forth this book because the oracles are of the Jews.

Modern Bibles tend to be more in the direction of New Age doctrine. For example, Sodomites are missing from the newer translations. That's because one of the translators on the NIV committee was Virginia Mollenkott who's a lesbian.

[color="#000080"][b]Bible Verse Comparisons:[/b]

[b]King James Version[/b]: Luke 2:33 "And Joseph and his mother marveled at those things which were spoken of him."

[b]NIV[/b]: Luke 2:33 "The child's father and mother marveled at what was said about him." [/color]

Notice how in the NIV verse, it says that Joseph is Jesus' father. God Almighty is the father of Jesus.

[color="#000080"][b]King James Version[/b]: Acts 4:27 "For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou has anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together."

[b]NIV[/b]: Acts 4:27 "Indeed. Herod and Pontius Pilate met together with the Gentiles and the people of Israel in the city to conspire against your [b]HOLY SERVANT[/b] Jesus whom you anointed.[/color]

Right here you see Jesus is called a holy servant. That's not really bad, but don't you understand that we're all servants of God. Jesus is someone very unique. He's the only BEGOTTEN SON of God. Speaking of begotten, which term is totally ruled out of the NIV Bible? You guessed it, THE ONLY BEGOTTEN.

This verse below is totally missing from all of the modern Bibles or else it is reduced to merely a footnote. It's the best verse in the Bible to use against the Jehovah's Witness.

[color="#000080"][b]King James Version[/b]: 1 John 5:7 "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." [/color]

The Blood of Jesus is even taken out in the newer translations.

[color="#000080"][b]King James Version[/b]: Col. 1:14 "In whom we have redemption through his BLOOD, even the forgiveness of sins."

[b]NIV[/b]: Col. 1:14 "in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sin." [/color]

The Anti Christ isn't someone against Christ like most believe. It's a substitute Christ. In 1 John 2:22-23 it states
[b]"Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. Whosoever denieth the son, the same hath no the father: but he that aknowledgeth the son hath the Father also." [/b]

Now what that above verse in mind, let's read 1 Timothy 3:16.

[color="#000080"][b]King James Version[/b]: 1 Timothy 3:16 "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: [b]GOD WAS MANIFEST IN THE FLESH[/b], justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the whole world, received up into glory."

[b]NIV[/b]: 1 Timothy 3:16 "[b]HE[/b] appeared in a body, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached..."[/color]

He? He could be anyone. Anyone who denies that Jesus came in the flesh is the spirit of the anti christ. The newer translations are doing this, so they are from the spirits of the anti christ. Remember what Jeremiah states about stealing God's words. Even [b]1 John 4:2-3[/b] does not acknowledge that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh in the NIV's.
Every New Ager acknowledges Jesus, but they don't acknowledge that He's God in the flesh. They've struck right at the heart of the verse that we are supposed to use to discern spirits.

Jesus said this in [b]Matthew 5:18, "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."[/b]

A jot is the smallest letter in the Hebrew and Greek alphabet. An iota in Greek and a jot in Hebrew. A tittle means the crossing of the letter "t." So, He's saying that even the smallest parts of the Bible are going to be preserved in purity.

[size=2][b] How do we know the KJV is the Word of God?[/b][/size]

1. By how much the devil hates it. He's been attacking this book since the get go.
2. The KJV is the most despised book by the liberal theologians.
3. It was opposed by the New Age patriarch Helena Blavatsky. She was the founder of the Theosophical Society.
4. Demons tremble when you utter words out of the KJV.

Satan even casts doubts on the newer translations with verse [b]Mark 16:9-19[/b]. Here's some of the verses from Mark 16.

[b]"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak in tongues;
They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover." So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of the God.[/b]

[center][img]http://www.bibleandscience.com/bible/images/kjvrpt.jpg[/img][/center]

Edited February 19, 2007 by Urib2007

[Guest Rick777]

Wrong.....Try this instead.

[img]http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c24/rick777/Bible.jpg[/img]

[Maggyie]

[quote]4. Demons tremble when you utter words out of the KJV.[/quote]

Do you know this from personal experience?

[cmotherofpirl]

The text used by Catholics comes from St Jerome who started translating AD390 .


THe KJV IS a protestant bible.
You realize of course the 1611 KJV came out in three different versions.
The 1625 KJV had the Apocrypha in it.
THe original KJV says"King James himself said "And I freely confess that she (Mary) is in glory both above angels and men, her own Son (that is both God and man) only excepted. But I dare not mock her...In Heaven she is in eternal glory and joy...and there I leave her with her blessed Son, our Saviour and hers, in eternal felicity." [A Premonition to All Most Mighty Monarchs, Kings, Free Princes, and States of Christendom Works, ed. James Montague, Bp. of Winchester (1616), pp. 301-308.]"
The original KJV diectly quotes from the Apocrypha and the The Prayer of Manasses.

1. Which revision of the KJV is inspired and/or preserved, since it was revised ten times, the last being in 1850?

2. What Bible did God have for the English-speaking world prior to 1611? Was it also a perfect translation? If God was under obligation to make the King James Version perfect, then why would He leave English-speaking people for 1600 years without a translation they could rely on?

3. Where in the Bible does God guarantee that any translator of the Bible, anyone who copies the Bible, anyone who preached the Bible, or anyone who teaches the Bible, will be infallibly correct? [There is no such Scripture. The doctrine of infallibility of the translation in the King James is not a Bible doctrine; it is a manmade scheme by some partly ignorant and some partly influenced by bad motives.]

4. The KJV translators translated the Apocrypha and included these books in the original 1611 edition. If the KJV translation was inspired, does this mean that the Apocrypha is inspired by God also? And if so, why was the Apocrypha removed from later editions?

5. If God gave the English-speaking world an inspired translation, did He also give an inspired translation in the other languages (French, Spanish, Italian, Russian, etc.)? If so, where is it? If not, why not? [If God has obligated Himself, as some fanatics say, to make one translation in English, that is, the King James Version, perfectly translated without error, then would not God be obligated to furnish such a translation in every other language also? What are those translations?]

6. Why did the KJV translators use marginal notes showing alternate translation possibilities and showing variant manuscript readings?

7. If the KJV translators were inspired of God in their work, why did they not know this and why did they not mention this in their introduction, “The Translators to the Reader”? Instead, why did they humbly acknowledge their own shortcomings and imperfections as Bible translators? If the KJV was perfect, why did the translators expect that others would one day make their 1611 Bible into an even better one?

8. When there is a difference between the Textus Receptus (the “Received Text”) and the KJV translation, why do you favor the KJV and reject the Textus Receptus?

9. When there is a difference between the Majority Text and the KJV translation, why do you favor the KJV and reject the Majority Text?

10. Did our Pilgrim fathers have the wrong Bible with them when they brought the Geneva Bible with them to North America?

11. If the KJV differs or varies from the original Greek text, should we correct the English by making it agree with the Greek or should we correct the Greek by making it agree with the English?

12. When was the KJV “given by inspiration by God”? In 1611 or in one of the years when major/minor revisions took place?—in 1613, 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1769, or 1850?

13. Was the original Greek lost after 1611? If not, where are we to find it? It cannot be the Textus Receptus, because there are many places where the KJV differs from the Textus Receptus. It cannot be the Majority Text because there are many places where the KJV differs from the Majority Text.

14. Where does the Bible teach that God will perfectly preserve His Word in the form of one and only one seventeenth-century English translation?

15. Should we condemn Tyndale’s translation (1525), Coverdale’s translation (1535), the Great Bible (1539), or the Geneva Bible (1560—the Bible of the Pilgrims), because these English Bibles varied slightly from the KJV? And if so, why did the “inspired” translators use these translations in their own readings?

16. If the KJV can “correct” the inspired originals, does this mean that the Hebrew and Greek originally “breathed out by God” was in need of correction and improvement? How can the inspired, infallible originals need correcting or improving?

17. Why did the Lord Jesus and the Apostles make use of and quote from the Septuagint translation (ancient Greek translation of the OT), even though the Septuagint differed from the original Hebrew in places and was certainly not a perfect translation?

18. Since no two manuscripts of the Greek New Testament have been found to be exactly alike, which manuscript is it that has been perfectly preserved and perfectly reflects the original?

19. F.H.A. Scrivener published a Greek New Testament that was made to reflect what the KJV says. The 1976 Trinitarian Bible Society Greek New Testament followed the text of Scrivener and claimed to be the Greek text behind the KJV. Why is it that the KJV differs from these two Greek editions in certain places? [For example, in Acts 19:20, where the Greek editions have “Lord” but the KJV has “God.”]

20. King James Only advocates frequently refer to the “Textus Receptus” (TR, Text Received) and the work of the Roman Catholic monk Erasmus (ca. 1466-1536) as the only correct Greek text of the New Testament. Were the compilers of the Textus Receptus (Erasmus, Stephanus, etc.) inspired by God in their work and miraculously kept from error? But Erasmus revised the Greek text four times (and the KJV translators did not use his last edition). Which is the correct, inspired text?

21. For 150 years Wycliffe’s translation was the only complete English translation in use. He completed his translation about 1382. It was not translated from the original languages but from the Latin Vulgate. Wycliffe’s translation varied from the KJV in many places. Should Wycliffe’s Bible be condemned or did it serve a good purpose? Was it helpful or hurtful?

22. Luther translated the Greek New Testament into the German language. Was his translation a perfect translation? Was it blessed of God and useful to the German people? Was it of the devil or of God?

23. Was Tyndale’s Bible a good translation? Was Tyndale guided by God any less than the KJV translators? It has been estimated that one-third of the King James Version is worded as Tyndale had it, and that even in the remaining two-thirds, the general literary structure set by Tyndale has been retained. Some scholars have said that ninety per cent of Tyndale is reproduced in the King James Version of the New Testament. Thus, the KJV translators were greatly indebted to Tyndale and yet they recognized that even his work was in need of revision and correcting. Did they not also recognize that their work might also be improved upon?

24. The Geneva Bible was the translation used by Shakespeare, John Bunyan, the Puritans in England, and Oliver Cromwell, as well as the Pilgrim fathers. It was the Bible that was brought to America on the Mayflower. Even the address from “The Translators to the Reader,” which is prefaced to the Authorized Version of 1611, took its quotations of the Scripture from the Geneva Bible. Was this Bible a corrupted Bible? Was it used of God? Was it hurtful or helpful to the cause of Christ? Did it make people wise unto salvation? Was it used effectively in building up God’s people in the most holy faith?

25. If God guided the KJV translators to translate a perfect Bible, did He also guide them to translate an imperfect and uninspired Apocrypha? Were the Old and New Testaments translated in the Spirit and the Apocrypha translated in the flesh?

26. Why were italics employed by the KJV translators in 1 John 2:23? [The italics were not employed, as usual, to mark a supplement, but to show that the words were regarded as suspicious. Stephanus excluded the clause but had a reference to it in the margin; Beza admits it without hesitation]. Do the italics indicate that the KJV translators were uncertain as to whether or not this clause was part of the original text?

27. Why were there 35 textual notes given in the margin of the King James Bible? [Examples: Matthew 26:26—“Many Greek copies have…” Luke 10:22—“Many ancient copies add these words…” Luke 17:36—“This verse is wanting in most of the Greek copies” Acts 25:6—“Or as some copies read, no more than eight or ten days.”

28. Was the KJV correct in following the Latin Vulgate in Revelation 22:19 (“book of life”), even though most Greek manuscripts have “tree of life”? Should the Latin be preferred over the Greek?

29. The Greek text underlying the King James Version agrees in 81 places with Beza’s Greek edition against Stephen’s Greek edition, and it agrees in about 21 places with Stephen’s Greek edition against Beza’s Greek edition, and in 29 places they agree with neither. In light of this, which Greek edition can we say has been divinely and perfectly preserved?

30. Blayney’s edition of the KJV (1769) became the standard form of the version and is unto this day, but his edition differs from the 1611 edition in about 75,000 minor details. Which edition of the KJV (Blayney’s or the original) is the perfect, flawless Bible? If the original 1611 Bible that the KJV translators produced was perfect, does this mean that our present KJV edition (based on Blayney’s edition) is flawed in about 75,000 details?
from:http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Psychology/kjvonly.htm

More objections:http://www.bible.ca/b-kjv-only.htm

[Resurrexi]

The true Bible is the Sacred Clementine Vulgate:

[quote name='The Sacred and Oecumenical Council of Trent: Session 4']DECREE CONCERNING THE EDITION, AND THE USE, OF THE SACRED BOOKS

Moreover, the same sacred and holy Synod,--considering that no small utility may accrue to the Church of God, if it be made known which out of all the Latin editions, now in circulation, of the sacred books, is to be held as authentic,--ordains and declares, that the said old and vulgate edition, which, by the lengthened usage of so many years, has been approved of in the Church, be, in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions, held as authentic; and that no one is to dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever.

Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,--in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, --wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,--whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,--hath held and doth hold; [Page 20] or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published. Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries, and be punished with the penalties by law established.

And wishing, as is just, to impose a restraint, in this matter, also on printers, who now without restraint,--thinking, that is, that whatsoever they please is allowed them,--print, without the license of ecclesiastical superiors, the said books of sacred Scripture, and the notes and comments upon them of all persons indifferently, with the press ofttimes unnamed, often even fictitious, and what is more grievous still, without the author's name; and also keep for indiscriminate sale books of this kind printed elsewhere; (this Synod) ordains and decrees, that, henceforth, the sacred Scripture, and especially the said old and vulgate edition, be printed in the most correct manner possible; and that it shall not be lawful for any one to print, or cause to be printed, any books whatever, on sacred matters, without the name of the author; nor to sell them in future, or even to keep them, unless they shall have been first examined, and approved of, by the Ordinary; under pain of the anathema and fine imposed in a canon of the last Council of Lateran: and, if they be Regulars, besides this examination and approval, they shall be bound to obtain a license also from their own superiors, who shall have examined the books according to the form of their own statutes. As to those who lend, or circulate them in manuscript, without their having been first examined, and approved of, they shall be subjected to the same penalties as printers: and they who shall have them in their possession or shall read them, shall, unless they discover the authors, be themselves regarded as the authors. And the said approbation of books of this kind shall be given in writing; and for this end it shall appear authentically at the beginning of the book, whether the book be written, or printed; and all this, that is, both the approbation and the examination, shall be done gratis, that so what ought to be approved, may be approved, and what ought to be condemned, may be condemned.

Besides the above, wishing to repress that temerity, by which the words and sentences of sacred Scripture are turned and twisted to all sorts of profane uses, to wit, to things scurrilous, fabulous, vain, to flatteries, detractions, superstitions, impious and diabolical incantations, sorceries, and defamatory libels; (the Synod) commands and enjoins, for the doing away with this kind of irreverence and contempt, and that no one may hence forth dare in any way to apply the words of sacred Scripture to these and such like purposes; that all men of this description, profaners and violators of the word of God, be by the bishops restrained by the penalties of law, and others of their own appointment.
[url="http://catecheticsonline.com/Council_trent.php"]http://catecheticsonline.com/Council_trent.php[/url][/quote]

Edited February 19, 2007 by StThomasMore

[Fixxxer]

[mod]remark made in poor taste[/mod]

[Phoenix Reborn]

[quote name='Urib2007' post='1200132' date='Feb 18 2007, 09:32 PM']The controversial Bible translation paradigm has been going around for a while now. There are the Catholics who impute that those who use the KJV are Protestants. Then you've got people who prefer the newer translations because they find it easier to decipher and comprehend. There are numerous arguments concerning the array of Bibles out in the market, but which one is truly God's Word? In my opinion, I feel the King James Version is genuinely God's final Word. The Word of God has gone through 7 periods of purification on the earth.
Psalm 12:6 states "The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified SEVEN times."
This book has gone through [b]7 languages: Hebrew, Aramic, Greek, old Syriac, Old Latin, German and English. And it's gone through 7 English translations, before we got to the King James Version. [/b]

The King James Bible has been around for 400 years and has produced more revivals, more blood bought souls than any other Bibles of the world put together. We haven't had a real revival in the USA since 1904 because that was the year America put out the American Standard Version. As soon as England created the revised version in 1888, England lost its place as a world power and today America is losing its place as a world power because they have turned their backs on the Word of God.

And now we've got manuscripts today that are used that were translated by Westcott and Hort who denied all the fundamentals of the faith. How many of you realize that all modern Bibles are based on criticism theories of Westcott and Hort of whom both were apostates and spiritualist occultists?

Right now there are over 400 Bible translations out there and that's only in English. Even Time Magazine which is run by a bunch of seculars are asking, "Do we really need 400 different translations of the Bible?"

Ecclesiastes 8:4 states "Where the word of a king is, there is power: and who may say unto him, What doest thou?"
No other Bible was authorized by a king and oddly enough God waited until there was a king on the throne of England who had a Jewish name "James" to bring forth this book because the oracles are of the Jews.

Modern Bibles tend to be more in the direction of New Age doctrine. For example, Sodomites are missing from the newer translations. That's because one of the translators on the NIV committee was Virginia Mollenkott who's a lesbian.

[color="#000080"][b]Bible Verse Comparisons:[/b]

[b]King James Version[/b]: Luke 2:33 "And Joseph and his mother marveled at those things which were spoken of him."

[b]NIV[/b]: Luke 2:33 "The child's father and mother marveled at what was said about him." [/color]

Notice how in the NIV verse, it says that Joseph is Jesus' father. God Almighty is the father of Jesus.

[color="#000080"][b]King James Version[/b]: Acts 4:27 "For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou has anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together."

[b]NIV[/b]: Acts 4:27 "Indeed. Herod and Pontius Pilate met together with the Gentiles and the people of Israel in the city to conspire against your [b]HOLY SERVANT[/b] Jesus whom you anointed.[/color]

Right here you see Jesus is called a holy servant. That's not really bad, but don't you understand that we're all servants of God. Jesus is someone very unique. He's the only BEGOTTEN SON of God. Speaking of begotten, which term is totally ruled out of the NIV Bible? You guessed it, THE ONLY BEGOTTEN.

This verse below is totally missing from all of the modern Bibles or else it is reduced to merely a footnote. It's the best verse in the Bible to use against the Jehovah's Witness.

[color="#000080"][b]King James Version[/b]: 1 John 5:7 "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." [/color]

The Blood of Jesus is even taken out in the newer translations.

[color="#000080"][b]King James Version[/b]: Col. 1:14 "In whom we have redemption through his BLOOD, even the forgiveness of sins."

[b]NIV[/b]: Col. 1:14 "in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sin." [/color]

The Anti Christ isn't someone against Christ like most believe. It's a substitute Christ. In 1 John 2:22-23 it states
[b]"Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. Whosoever denieth the son, the same hath no the father: but he that aknowledgeth the son hath the Father also." [/b]

Now what that above verse in mind, let's read 1 Timothy 3:16.

[color="#000080"][b]King James Version[/b]: 1 Timothy 3:16 "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: [b]GOD WAS MANIFEST IN THE FLESH[/b], justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the whole world, received up into glory."

[b]NIV[/b]: 1 Timothy 3:16 "[b]HE[/b] appeared in a body, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached..."[/color]

He? He could be anyone. Anyone who denies that Jesus came in the flesh is the spirit of the anti christ. The newer translations are doing this, so they are from the spirits of the anti christ. Remember what Jeremiah states about stealing God's words. Even [b]1 John 4:2-3[/b] does not acknowledge that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh in the NIV's.
Every New Ager acknowledges Jesus, but they don't acknowledge that He's God in the flesh. They've struck right at the heart of the verse that we are supposed to use to discern spirits.

Jesus said this in [b]Matthew 5:18, "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."[/b]

A jot is the smallest letter in the Hebrew and Greek alphabet. An iota in Greek and a jot in Hebrew. A tittle means the crossing of the letter "t." So, He's saying that even the smallest parts of the Bible are going to be preserved in purity.

[size=2][b] How do we know the KJV is the Word of God?[/b][/size]

1. By how much the devil hates it. He's been attacking this book since the get go.
2. The KJV is the most despised book by the liberal theologians.
3. It was opposed by the New Age patriarch Helena Blavatsky. She was the founder of the Theosophical Society.
4. Demons tremble when you utter words out of the KJV.

Satan even casts doubts on the newer translations with verse [b]Mark 16:9-19[/b]. Here's some of the verses from Mark 16.

[b]"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak in tongues;
They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover." So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of the God.[/b]

[center][img]http://www.bibleandscience.com/bible/images/kjvrpt.jpg[/img][/center][/quote]

Anyone can call himself\herself a Christian...anyone can call himself\herself a believer in Jesus...but not every 'Christian' reads, supports, and shoves a Protestant Bible into other Christians' faces, calling it the true Bible. Been there, heard that. Many sects believe their Bible is the true one. But the one and only true Bible was put together in the late 300s and the early 400s (Anno Domini) by the Catholic Church's bishops. If you wish to fight the truth, go ahead. I'm not going to bother stopping you, because you already have started. It's too bad you're not a Roman Catholic, using your time to convert Protestants and Athiests to the church, other then trying to pull fellow Christians and Catholics into your own beliefs...I hope someday, you find the path Fulltruth took, and you follow him to the Roman Catholic church.

Edited February 19, 2007 by Phoenix Reborn

[dandy777]

I think the NIV is one of the best version of the Bible. I find protestant Bibles are more full of details and extra notes thancatholic ones. obviously one has to be very very attentive to keep to catholic tradition and spirituality.

[123]

May God Guide us on this path. I personally use a St. Joseph Bible when I do more of a devotional reading. However, when I am out at work or school, during breaks I read a Thomson-Chain Reference NIV Bible, Even though the deuterocanonical books are not added it still does the job.

May God show us all the right path to his grace. Amen.

Edited February 19, 2007 by GloriaIesusChristi

[Theoketos]

Really I prefer the Greek, then the Syrian, then the Vulgate from Pope Paul VI, Then the Jerusalem, then the RSV, then the DR, then NAB, if I had to do so I would read the KJV, but only if nothing else was avaiable.


I would also read the KJV or any of the above with the word New infornt of it.

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='Theoketos' post='1200374' date='Feb 19 2007, 05:19 PM']Really I prefer the Greek, then the Syrian, then the Vulgate from Pope Paul VI, Then the Jerusalem, then the RSV, then the DR, then NAB, if I had to do so I would read the KJV, but only if nothing else was avaiable.
I would also read the KJV or any of the above with the word New infornt of it.[/quote]

Quite the scholar! I don't think I have mine rated. I do like to read the BHS (Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia), but my Hebrew is rather rusty. I don't know Greek. I like the NASB for when I'm studying with the Hebrew, since it's fairly literal and helps me out with my Hebrew vocab. I really like the RSV as well, and the Jerusalem is really good, too. I don't know which of those two I like better. I don't own the Jerusalem Bible, but it's what we read in Mass.

[N/A Gone]

See..this is why I just read theology and not the bible..j/p

Multiple versions is the best bet

Joey-O...you have a great argument against KJV..lets hear it.

[cmotherofpirl]

Most scholars consider the best translated bible to be the RSV. Catholics use the RSV-CE [catholics edition].
I use the this one, the NEB [Britain's Catholic Bible], and the DRB [classic Catholic Bible].

THe International Versions out there may be easy reading, but are not authentic catholic scholarship, and so contain errors in translation and/or footnotes.

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='Theoketos' post='1200374' date='Feb 19 2007, 12:19 PM']Really I prefer the Greek, then the Syrian...[/quote]You can read Syriac?

[theculturewarrior]

The Nova Vulgata. End of story.