Which Bible Version Do You Depend on?

[Goodboy]

I noticed something at Church yesterday. As it would happen our Pastor while preaching used Matthew 19:16 and Matthew 19:17 as a reference. However, those verses were different in the Bible version he was using than the version I use, but I don't know what version that was. It was most likely the English Standard Version. I always count on the King James Bible version to be the most accurate. In the version that our Pastor used the rich young man and Jesus said something different than what is in the King James Bible. So with the Bible version of the text our Pastor used, what I have stated in my writing of "The Rich Young Man" below would not make sense.

Thread 'The Rich Young Man - Something I wrote'

Nov 5, 2023

The Rich Young Man

Matthew 19:16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
Matthew 19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
Matthew 19:18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
Matthew 19:19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt...

• Goodboy
• Replies: 1
• Forum: Bible Studies

• 
• 

English Standard Bible Version (ESV)
Matthew 19:16 And behold, a man came up to him, saying, “Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life?”
Matthew 19:17 And he said to him, “Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments.”

King James BibleVersion (KJB)
Matthew 19:16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
Matthew 19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

We must be careful with believing some of the newer Bible translations which have actually been interpreted rather than translated.

Goodboy!

 

[Tall Timbers]

I use lots of versions. I have a KJV but I prefer a version that uses the language I speak. I have a NKJV as well. I only crack one or the other of those open when I want to use the cyclopedic index that is included with both of them.

If a verse from other than the KJV seems to differ in meaning a bit with the KJV, I do not presume the KJV to have translated the verse more accurately than the other Bible.

My daily read is the NASB95. My church recently switched from that Bible to the ESV. l've stuck with the NASB95. I like the NAS version but the unBiblical catholic explanation footnotes cast a shadow on the book, though it's easy to ignore the footnotes. I don't remenber the reason my church gave for switching from the NASB95 to the ESV but after having time to compare them both, I chose to continue using the NASB95 as I preferred it.

As far as depending on, I'll use whatever is nearby when I need/want one.

God used the Living Bible to convict me. I can't endorse the Living Bible today but I know from personal experience that God can use it as well as any other version.

I guess the only versions I'd be leery of are new ones that purposefully alter Scripture in an unBiblical way to conform to a world view outside of God's design.

My Spanish version is the Santa Biblia. I used to also read from the Sagrada Biblia but I seem to have lost that one along the way.

 

[Andy C]

I use lots of versions. I have a KJV but I prefer a version that uses the language I speak.

Same here. I have several different bibles, including 2 KJV. The language used in the KJV throws me off and makes it extremely hard to use as a study bible.

 

[Goodboy]

I use lots of versions. I have a KJV but I prefer a version that uses the language I speak. I have a NKJV as well. I only crack one or the other of those open when I want to use the cyclopedic index that is included with both of them.

If a verse from other than the KJV seems to differ in meaning a bit with the KJV, I do not presume the KJV to have translated the verse more accurately than the other Bible.

I hear you and do not ONLY use the King James Bible as sometimes I cannot understand it. However, in my example of Matthew 16 and 17, these are supposed to be quotes from what the rich man said and what Jesus said which are different in the two Bibles. One of the Bibles has to be incorrect since the statements do not agree.

 

[Tall Timbers]

I hear you and do not ONLY use the King James Bible as sometimes I cannot understand it. However, in my example of Matthew 16 and 17, these are supposed to be quotes from what the rich man said and what Jesus said which are different in the two Bibles. One of the Bibles has to be incorrect since the statements do not agree.

In cases like that I do not presume the KJV to be more correct. Being multi-lingual myself I understand that there is a great difference between a direct translation of the words and an attempt to catch the actual meaning of the words. Attempting to capture the actual meaning is usually going to end up more accurate. The difficulty comes in that in order to capture the meaning you not only have to understand the culture and use of the language at the time it was written, but also the place or background of the writer because back in the day when people didn't travel the way we do today, every village could have different words for the same thing as well as different means for more common words, and different use of slang. Slang has always been a meaningful part of communication. It's not an easy job and I'm not convinced that it is even entirely possible to get it perfectly right, outside of God providing the guidance.

For me, the bottom line is God can use any Bible to reach the heart of a man. I'm evidence of that.

 

[Goodboy]

King James Bible and Why I trust it

Which bible do I use? Almost all except the New World Translation which has been tailored to match what Jehovah’s Witnesses believe.
Which bible do I trust the most? The King James Bible as it is obvious that it was translated rather than interpreted.

Some bibles are translated only. Some bibles are a mixture of translation and interpretation. Some bibles (New World Translation) are only interpreted. What’s the difference?

Translated = Just converting the verse from one language to another without concern of whether it makes sense.
Interpreted = Converting the verse from ones understanding of the meaning of the verse from one language to another.

Theses are two verses that to me show evidence that the King James Version was translated rather than interpreted.

1 John 4:2 says “Jesus Christ is come in the flesh” in the King James Version, which is not grammatical correct. However, it was the only way to express the fact that Jesus came in the flesh, is currently in the flesh and will remain in the flesh in the future. Almost everyone even the unsaved believe that Jesus “has come” in the flesh. Look, our calendar is based on Jesus. The Jehovah Witnesses believe that Jesus came in the flesh, but think he is now a spirit person no longer having flesh.

Revelations 13:16 says “In their right hand” in the King James bible which would have made absolutely no sense at the time the King James Bible was translated. However, we now understand it is possible if not likely that the mark will be in the hand either by a chip or an embedded readable tattoo of some sort. Other bibles say “On their right hand”.

So am I saying you should only trust and/or use the King James Bible? No, not at all. Sometimes I cannot understand what the Old English King James Bible is saying, so I will compare the verse with what I would call an American bible. For me though, I will always go back to the King James Bible to make sure it agrees with what I have learned.

In any case, this is just my opinion and nothing I would argue about.

Goodboy!

 

[Goodboy]

In cases like that I do not presume the KJV to be more correct. Being multi-lingual myself I understand that there is a great difference between a direct translation of the words and an attempt to catch the actual meaning of the words. Attempting to capture the actual meaning is usually going to end up more accurate. The difficulty comes in that in order to capture the meaning you not only have to understand the culture and use of the language at the time it was written, but also the place or background of the writer because back in the day when people didn't travel the way we do today, every village could have different words for the same thing as well as different means for more common words, and different use of slang. Slang has always been a meaningful part of communication. It's not an easy job and I'm not convinced that it is even entirely possible to get it perfectly right, outside of God providing the guidance.

For me, the bottom line is God can use any Bible to reach the heart of a man. I'm evidence of that.

This is all I will say as to why I trust the King James Bible. I am not saying what you should do.

https://christiancommunityforum.com/threads/king-james-bible-and-why-i-trust-it.9570/

 

[Ronnie]

You're really bold to stand up for what you believe in, but am afraid that it won't be met with the same enthusiasm. Regardless, I feel the same and I applaud you.

 

[Tall Timbers]

From my life experience with various languages I'd put more faith in a Bible that goes heavy on interpretation and lighter on direct translation. The KJV isn't really a player for me since it is a different English than mine so I would have less faith in the KJV than in many other Bibles that are available in my language.

 

[Kem]

I like the NASB and the ESV but am presently reading through the NKJ. I will say that a lot of the Scripture that I memorized as a child and young teen comes to mind in the original KJV.

 

[Ronnie]

I don't have the freedom as I did on Bible Forums message board to get heavily into it here, but on BF I mixed it up with the best of them.

My personal believe is - cancel that. I know my place.

 

[Tall Timbers]

My personal believe is - cancel that. I know my place.

<Mod hat on>
Just to caution other members who may not understand that we are not a site that promotes KJV Onlyism, it is fine to discuss the various Bibles available to us but it is best not to cross the "onlyism" line on this Board. <Mod hat off>

 

[Ronnie]

What about NIVonlism or NASonlism?

 

[mattfivefour]

I hear you and do not ONLY use the King James Bible as sometimes I cannot understand it. However, in my example of Matthew 16 and 17, these are supposed to be quotes from what the rich man said and what Jesus said which are different in the two Bibles. One of the Bibles has to be incorrect since the statements do not agree.

The issue is the Greek manuscripts used. I'm not getting into that complex issue here, because it's not necessary.

First of all it's not necessary because regardless of the translation used the same lesson is taught: if you want to be right with God, live according to his commandments. This was the answer Jesus gave to a Jewish man asking how to serve God and inherit eternal life. (Remember, this is before the Cross.) So, regardless of the manuscript followed, the same teaching comes forth.

But second, the difference is not significant because of the other two synoptic Gospels. You see, the fact is that the Bible is its own best commentator and its own best interpreter. So if we study scripture in it's fullness, we should be able to figure out which is the correct account.

Since all three synoptic Gospels --Matthew, Mark, and Luke-- have the same story, we can look at them to see how they treat the event. In all manuscripts and translations Mark 10:17-18 has Jesus being addressed as "Good Teacher", with Jesus responding, "Why do you call me good?" In Luke 18:18-19 we find the same thing--Jesus addressed as "Good Teacher" and responding with, "Why do you call me good?" So, I think, based on those two Gospels, that the correct reading of Matthew 16:18-19 can be found in the KJV and all other translations that are based on the Byzantine majority text as opposed to the Alexandrian text.

 

[Tall Timbers]

What about NIVonlism or NASonlism?

Always the troublemaker, my Brother @Ronnie, beloved among us.

 

[Ronnie]

Always the troublemaker, my Brother @Ronnie, beloved among us.

That's me!

 

[Ronnie]

I know the restriction on "KJonlism", well at least I can take solice in at CCF is OSAS and pretrib, can't I have that!

 

[Andy C]

First of all it's not necessary because regardless of the translation used the same lesson is taught: if you want to be right with God, live according to his commandments. This was the answer Jesus gave to a Jewish man asking how to serve God and inherit eternal life. (Remember, this is before the Cross.) So, regardless of the manuscript followed, the same teaching comes forth.

Many times over the years, when I compared the wording for certain verses, with several different bibles, the teaching points were still the same.

I understand many enjoy the old language used in the KJV, but for me, and maybe because I have the IQ of a gnat, the wording causes me to get lost in the language, unable to retain anything.

 

[Spartan Sprinter]

I like the Berean study bible, very easy to understand

 

[Margery]

I like the KJV, the NASB, the New KJV, and also the NIV. I really enjoy the Amplified and I've enjoyed the ESV on occasion.

When I'm puzzled I go into Strongs on my eSword version to see word for word what the broad definition of a term is.

I like to look at multiple Bible versions of the same verse, and I often go to Gateway for that because it will give you all the versions of the same verse so you can see and compare.

Going with lots of different versions gives a more balanced view. When a word could be translated 3 different ways, and the translator has to use one word in English, sometimes the other versions bring out the other meanings. That's why I like the Amplified, and if I'm really puzzled, going into Strongs.