Kids bringing various Bible versions

[John81]

There are many versions available (ASV 1901, NASV, NKJV, ESV, NIV, LIving, which is not a translation but a paraphrase, etc.). I am curious, which non-KJV bibles would you consider worse and which would you consider better?

Having not read all of them I really couldn't comment upon any but what I have read. I don't believe the paraphrases should even be called Bibles and would rate them at the bottom.

I've never cared for the NIV as I was never really able to get anything out of it. I was using the NASB prior to God leading me to the KJB and I did manage to get some good use out of it but nothing in comparison to what God has granted me through the KJB. Some aspects of the New King James are tolerable but overall I don't care for how it flows and I absolutely don't like the changes (beyond word updating) they made. My first Bible was an RSV I received from attending Methodist Sunday School. That's the Bible I had when I was saved and God was able to use that to help me grow some during my baby Christian time.

I've read some others but don't have time to comment upon them now. The main thing I note in my life is that once God directed me to the KJB and I experienced the power of the Spirit in that book and the Holy Ghost opening my eyes to the Word in powerful ways, I would never want to use any other version. I have no doubt the KJB is the Bible God wants me to be in.

[farouk]

That is actually not for you nor I to worry about, our job is laid out very clear.

Jerry:

We should not be afraid of history, or of the facts about the development of the scholarship that went into the King James (which I use, too).

[MatthewDiscipleOfGod]

There are many versions available (ASV 1901, NASV, NKJV, ESV, NIV, LIving, which is not a translation but a paraphrase, etc.). I am curious, which non-KJV bibles would you consider worse and which would you consider better?

Those are all bad (except the NKJV) because they are based off of bad manuscripts.

[farouk]

There's also the KJ21 (Twenty-First Century King James).

[Salyan]

Although the NKJV was based off the correct manuscripts, didn't it suffer from the modern critical approach used in the translation process?

[farouk]

Although the NKJV was based off the correct manuscripts, didn't it suffer from the modern critical approach used in the translation process?

salyan:

I don't use the NKJV, but I would be interested in knowing what specifically is supposedly wrong with it, before condemning it out of hand.

[John81]

Although the NKJV was based off the correct manuscripts, didn't it suffer from the modern critical approach used in the translation process?

The NKJV began as a project to simply update some of the language of the KJB. However, when they did this they discovered that making those simple changes wasn't enough to allow them to gain a patten on the NKJV. Being more interested in the financial rewards of putting forth a Bible they could gain royalties on, they chose to make various other changes to the NKJV that are tied to other manuscripts and versions.

Those who updated the KJB could have stood with simply updating the language and put that forth to the glory of God without concern of filling their pockets with money. However, the love of money drove them to corruption.

For those interested, there have been several threads here where the corruptions have been laid out. I believe brandplucked has addressed this particular topic as well. (There are also several websites a search can lead one to which deals with this as well.)

[farouk]

The NKJV began as a project to simply update some of the language of the KJB. However, when they did this they discovered that making those simple changes wasn't enough to allow them to gain a patten on the NKJV. Being more interested in the financial rewards of putting forth a Bible they could gain royalties on, they chose to make various other changes to the NKJV that are tied to other manuscripts and versions.

Those who updated the KJB could have stood with simply updating the language and put that forth to the glory of God without concern of filling their pockets with money. However, the love of money drove them to corruption.

For those interested, there have been several threads here where the corruptions have been laid out. I believe brandplucked has addressed this particular topic as well. (There are also several websites a search can lead one to which deals with this as well.)

John81:

Changes yes. I don't know what you mean by corruptions.

The NKJV is based on the Textus Receptus. Plain fact.

[LindaR]

John81:

Changes yes. I don't know what you mean by corruptions.

The NKJV is based on the Textus Receptus. Plain fact.

farouk...

The NKJV is not based on the Textus Receptus

The New King James Bible Examined

[farouk]

farouk...

The NKJV is not based on the Textus Receptus

The New King James Bible Examined

Ms Linda:

There is not enough evidence in the article there to prove that the NKJV is not based on the TR; in fact, it is widely acknowledged to be based on the TR.

People who claim that it isn't never seem to give evidence of what text it is supposedly based on. Some of the footnotes give alternatives that are not based on the TR, but the main body of text is basically TR.

And what is the TR? it is a series of printed editions (16th & 17th century ones) based on largely agreeing manuscripts. Whereas some of the modern versions are based on other texts.

[JerryNumbers]

Ms Linda:

There is not enough evidence in the article there to prove that the NKJV is not based on the TR; in fact, it is widely acknowledged to be based on the TR.

People who claim that it isn't never seem to give evidence of what text it is supposedly based on. Some of the footnotes give alternatives that are not based on the TR, but the main body of text is basically TR.

And what is the TR? it is a series of printed editions (16th & 17th century ones) based on largely agreeing manuscripts. Whereas some of the modern versions are based on other texts.

Perhaps you do not know, & in case you do not know, I'm letting you know, this is KJ forum, & KJ only. And any Holy Scriptures posted will be from KJ Bible.

This topic right here, will explains it very well, I suggest you read it.

[Miss Linda]

Perhaps you do not know, & in case you do not know, I'm letting you know, this is KJ forum, & KJ only. And any Holy Scriptures posted will be from KJ Bible.

This topic right here, will explains it very well, I suggest you read it.

Thank you so much, Brother Jerry, for posting that link!

If I may, I would like to post a link to the wonderful Way of Life web site that has a series of articles on the issue of King James Bible only. Those participants on this forum who are not Independent Fundamental Baptists may find these articles helpful in gaining an understanding of this issue. Please click here to visit that site.

[farouk]

Like I said before, I use the King James.

I don't use the New King James.

Being factual is good.

Edited June 29, 2011 by farouk

[JerryNumbers]

Miss Linda, The links are OK, thanks for posting them.

farouk, I posted that just in case you did not know.

[farouk]

Miss Linda, The links are OK, thanks for posting them.

farouk, I posted that just in case you did not know.

Sir, thank-you and you are preaching to the converted; like I said, I use the King James and don't use the New King James. I do try to be factual, too, by God's grace.