Are there really differences between Bible versions?

July 3, 2006 at 7:43 pm (Religion)

The International Bible Society has a handy chart that shows how different Bible versions try to convey God’s word. They list many popular versions and where they fall on their method – ‘Formal Equivalency’ (word for word), ‘Dynamic Equivalency’ (thought for thought), or ‘Paraphrase’.

<NOTE: IBS has changed their pages and removed the comparison chart and page from their site. If I can locate another, I will put it here.>

YAY- The wayback machine at web.archive.org  had it.

Bible Translation Chart


In my last post, I established that God intended us to have His WORDS, not his thoughts or pretty pictures (like the ‘Resolve’ Bible). Here, I’m going to review some differences between Bible Versions. I have chosen the New American Standard (NASB), King James (KJV), New King James (NKJV), Revised Standard (RSV), and because of its popularity, the New International (NIV). If your favorite isn’t here, feel free to compare on your own.

Genesis 1:2 (note the capitalization of the S on the ‘Spirit of God’ )

  • NASB The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.
  • KJV And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
  • NKJV The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
  • RSV And the earth was waste and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep: and the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
  • NIV Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

Psalm 12:6-7 (What is God keeping in verse 7? )

  • NASB The words of the LORD are pure words; As silver tried in a furnace on the earth, refined seven times. (7) You, O LORD, will keep them; You will preserve him from this generation forever.
  • KJV The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. (7) Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation forever.
  • NKJV The words of the LORD are pure words, Like silver tried in a furnace of earth, Purified seven times. (7) You shall keep them, O LORD, You shall preserve them from this generation forever.
  • RSV The words of the LORD are pure words; as silver tried in a furnace on the earth, purified seven times. (7) Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
  • NIV And the words of the LORD are flawless, like silver refined in a furnace of clay, purified seven times. (7) O LORD, you will keep us safe and protect us from such people forever.

Isaiah 14:12 (Who fell from heaven?, Who is the morning star? See Rev 22:16 )

  • NASB How you have fallen from heaven, O star of the morning, son of the dawn! You have been cut down to the earth, You who have weakened the nations!
  • KJV How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
  • NKJV How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How you are cut down to the ground, You who weakened the nations!
  • RSV How art thou fallen from heaven, O day star, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst lay low the nations!
  • NIV How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!

Matthew 18:11 (Why did Jesus come? )

  • NASB For the Son of Man has come to save that which was lost
  • KJV For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.
  • NKJV For the Son of Man has come to save that which was lost.
  • RSV <Omitted>
  • NIV <Omitted>

Mark 3:29 (What’s the difference between ‘eternal sin’, ‘eternal condemnation’, and ‘eternal damnation’? )

  • NASB but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin
  • KJV But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation:
  • NKJV but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is subject to eternal condemnation
  • RSV but whosoever shall blaspheme against the Holy Spirit hath never forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin:
  • NIV But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin.

Luke 4:8 (Some versions don’t include ‘Get thee behind me, Satan’ )

  • NASB Jesus answered him, It is written, YOU SHALL WORSHIP THE LORD YOUR GOD AND SERVE HIM ONLY.
  • KJV And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.
  • NKJV And Jesus answered and said to him, “Get behind Me, Satan! For it is written, ‘You shall worship the LORD your God, and Him only you shall serve.'”
  • RSV And Jesus answered and said unto him, It is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.
  • NIV Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God and serve him only.'”

John 4:24 (Is there a difference between ‘spirit’ and ‘a spirit’ )

  • NASB God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.
  • KJV God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
  • NKJV God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.
  • RSV God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship in spirit and truth.
  • NIV God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth.

Acts 2:47 (‘Saved’ or ‘being saved’? )

  • NASB praising God and having favor with all the people And the Lord was adding to their number day by day those who were being saved.
  • KJV Praising God, and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.
  • NKJV praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved.
  • RSV praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to them day by day those that were being saved.
  • NIV praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.

Acts 8:37 (Is this important? )

  • NASB And Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”
  • KJV And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
  • NKJV Then Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.”
    And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”
  • RSV <Omitted>
  • NIV <Omitted>

Acts 17:29 (‘Divine Nature’, ‘Godhead’, or ‘divine being’ )

  • NASB Being then the children of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and thought of man.
  • KJV Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device.
  • NKJV Therefore, since we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, something shaped by art and man’s devising.
  • RSV Being then the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and device of man.
  • NIV Therefore since we are God’s offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by man’s design and skill.

2nd Corinthians 2:17 (corrupting or peddling? )

  • NASB For we are not like many, peddling the word of God, but as from sincerity, but as from God, we speak in Christ in the sight of God.
  • KJV For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.
  • NKJV For we are not, as so many, peddling the word of God; but as of sincerity, but as from God, we speak in the sight of God in Christ.
  • RSV For we are not as the many, corrupting the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God, speak we in Christ.
  • NIV Unlike so many, we do not peddle the word of God for profit. On the contrary, in Christ we speak before God with sincerity, like men sent from God.

Colossians 1:14 (How do we have redemption? )

  • NASB in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
  • KJV In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
  • NKJV in whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins.
  • RSV in whom we have our redemption, the forgiveness of our sins:
  • NIV in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.

1st Thessalonians 5:22 (Significant difference here too)

  • NASB abstain from every form of evil.
  • KJV Abstain from all appearance of evil.
  • NKJV Abstain from every form of evil.
  • RSV abstain from every form of evil.
  • NIV Avoid every kind of evil.

1st Timothy 6:10 (Say it with me, ‘The love of money is….’ )

  • NASB For the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil, and some by longing for it have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.
  • KJV For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.
  • NKJV For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil, for which some have strayed from the faith in their greediness, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.
  • RSV For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil: which some reaching after have been led astray from the faith, and have pierced themselves through with many sorrows.
  • NIV For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.

2nd Timothy 2:15 (I guess I don’t need to study any more… )

  • NASB Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth.
  • KJV Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
  • NKJV Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
  • RSV Give diligence to present thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, handling aright the word of truth.
  • NIV Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.

Revelation 1:5 (Are you ‘freed’, ‘released’, ‘loosed’, or ‘washed’? )

  • NASB and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth To Him who loves us and released us from our sins by His blood
  • KJV And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,
  • NKJV and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler over the kings of the earth. To Him who loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood,
  • RSV and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loveth us, and loosed us from our sins by his blood;
  • NIV and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood,

From these few examples, you should now understand that there are significant differences between Bible versions, and those differences are not insignificant. These differences make a difference doctrinally – are we saved, or being saved? Did God promise to preserve His word through generations or not?

Next time, Why are there such differences in ‘literal’ translations?

Advertisements

25 Comments

  1. sojournor said,

    These differences are mild compared to other passages of Scripture. There are literally abominations translated in other Bibles outside of the KJV. The KJV is the most literal and the most reliable because it does not come from the corrupted texts.

  2. chocolatechic said,

    I have been giving this a lot of thought, and unless we are privy to the orginal text we all will find differences.

    I really like NASV, because it is THE closest to the orginal Greek and Hebrew.

    Another question that begs to be asked is “Why are there so many versions/translations?” It is because the KJV is just way to hard to understand for most new Christians or those young in the faith.

    They start reading it, and are like “huh??? what does all this mean?” so when they are presented with the Living Translation~~which is much more understandable~~, or some other version/translation then they are more willing to read the Bible. And if we as Christians can get babies in the faith to read the Bible, then whooooo hooooo!!!! I am all for that!!!

    God tells us that His Word will not return void, and regardless of which version/translation anyone chooses ***and I am not speaking of paraphrases in this entire comment………I totally disagree with paraphrases***His Word will be read, and will not return void.

    Anyone that demands a specific translation/version must be read is legalistic. Period. King James commissioned 20 scholars of the day to look at Erasmus’s leading Greek text of the New Testament, and that text wasn’t the orginal. They put it into the English language of that time period. We don’t speak like that now, and I can not imagine Christ saying that only KJV is correct, or NASV is correct, or any other version/translation. He just wants us to read His word.

  3. diana said,

    what about the English Standard Version? It seems pretty literal and it uses our english. Its not as easy to read as say the NIV or the NLT but it seems accurate with minimal paraphrase from what I’ve seen and heard. and if english is your first language then its smooth reading.
    its so much better to have a weak translation than to have none at all. and especially for people who have trouble reading english its definitely better for them to read an ‘easier’/paraphrased bible rather than give up reading at all because the KJV leaves u like “huh??? what does all this mean?” as chocolatechic said.

  4. Sylvanus said,

    Bravo !!

    I translate the New Testament, and as I do so, I often find versions (wichever they are) with foundamental mistranslations, I even dedicated a blog to it !
    ( http://biblemistranslations.blogspot.com/2006/09/welcome.html )

    In the past I have found myself in the very same situation, not knowing which version to use, always finding some difference somewhere; this is what prompted me to get to know Greek – the recognised original language recording the Word of God: I thought, surely there should be no difference there!

    now here’s for the technical bit:

    Mark 3:29 What’s the difference between ‘eternal sin’, ‘eternal condemnation’, and ‘eternal damnation’?
    The word is κρίσις (Krisis) which means ‘judgment’ as usually rendered elswhere in these versions.

    John 4:24 (Is there a difference between ’spirit’ and ‘a spirit’)
    Greek does not have an indefinite article, and it is up to the translator to insert it or not. Here, as in John 1:1, the first word of that clause is a predicate (sort of adjective) indicating the essence of the subject: God is of the essence of spirit (not a spirit, in John – God was the Word – the word is of the essence of God, as in God is love)

    Acts 2:47 (’Saved’ or ‘being saved’?)
    Here the verbe ‘to save’ is passive (to be saved, not to save), present and participle (being)

    Acts 17:29> (’Divine Nature’, ‘Godhead’, or ‘divine being’)
    Here the word is ‘divine’ (θεῖος) singular neuter. One could say ‘The Divine One’. ( ͂ος perhaps denoting its individuality). If it had been Divine nature, the word ‘nature’ (φύσις) would have been there as in 2 Peter 1:4

    I think I made my point. As for the missing clause, you can blame the original manuscripts for having it missing (and also the translators for not choosing them or indicating them in their margins).

    There is not better versions than another, although paraphrases are to be used sparingly (like chocolate). Even the KJV is in some verses interpretative.

    If you want to have the choice between Bible version, here you can find more than 100 of them: http://www.biblebureau.com/read%20the%20bible%20online.htm

    ‘Looking forward to your next post (I’ve put you on my blog’s watch list)

    Sylvanus

  5. capitalggeek said,

    Sylvanus said:

    this is what prompted me to get to know Greek – the
    recognised original language recording the Word of
    God: I thought, surely there should be no difference there!

    And did you find a difference in the greek? How do you reconcile differences in the greek texts?

  6. KJV said,

    The Bible is under attack from all sides. Satan knows it tells the truth about him, the victory that Jesus had at the cross, and what will happen in the future. As such, Satan has and still is making every attempt to destroy the Word of God. What better way to do this, than to change the meaning of the Bible over time with different bible versions; each version as it comes along claiming it is the truth and the most accurate of all the versions up until that point.
    The line must be drawn where we say, “If the King James Bible was good enough for 400 years, then it is still good enough for me.” For by it men and women have been saved and the knowledge of God imparted unto them. When new bible versions come along, they always take something away that is never replaced, only to be lost forever. If you believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, then stand up for it. Take a stand and speak out against these new bible versions. An objection often raised against the “King James Only Crowd” is that people learn something from the other (modern) versions, too, and that some even get saved: but I dare say that this occurs in spite of these errant versions, not because of them!
    The Authorized Version of 1611, or, in other words, the King James Bible, stands alone in its uniqueness, integrity, and fidelity to the truthfulness of God’s Word. Among reasons why this writer holds this conviction is because of the great harm done not only to the Word of God, but the detriment wrought in the local church in its public worship, and, of course, because of the confusion created in countless group and individual Bible studies. After all, it could be said: How do you think your professor would think or feel if all of his students used different textbooks in his class?! In our case, God is our Great Professor! He alone is the one true God, who has walked among us upon this earth and left us the living and enduring legacy of His Word and His Spirit. Until He comes, Amen.

    • Jeb said,

      KJV, do you realie that people were saved through the reading of the Bible before the 1611 King James Version?
      Do you know that the Roman Catholic Church fought any translation of the Bible into any language other than Latin, centuries after LAtainw as a spoken language, and that they used the exact same arguments todays KJV-only used? Do you realize there were those in the early church who used those very same arguments to try to stop the Bible from being translated from Greek into other languages? Do you realize there were Jews that fought the translation of the Old Testament from Hebrew to greek using, again, the very same arguments that it was historically proven and reliable and had stood the test of time and that new translations would corrupt it? This is an old argument that has been used and lot repeatedly. The fact is language changes and we need Bibles translated into modern lanaguage so that the scriptures are understood clearly. The language of 1611 is not the language we speak today. Standing up for the 1611 translation of the Bible is NOT the same as standing for the Bible.

  7. diana said,

    Dear KJV we are on a mission to spread the gospel and bring the unsaved to Jesus; not to promote the KJV and belittle other versions which have done what Jesus wanted from us.

    Capital G, this post and the comments are really interesting keep it going.

    • Russ said,

      One thing is for sure, no one has to belittle other versions, they do it to themselves.

  8. Sylvanus said,

    CapitalGgeek asked:

    did you find a difference in the Greek? How do you reconcile differences in the Greek texts?

    Yes my friend, unfortunately there are………..And I reconcile with those differences quite easily, because usually, these differences are not so contradictory, and are reasonably unimportant (i.e., verb tense, etc.)

    I know that sometimes, more often than I would wish, some manuscripts omit – or add – some text portions. That’s a little bit more difficult for me to reconcile with, but I have to make a judgement on my own, through prayer and meditation of course, to choose whether I should incorporate them in my worship/beliefs.

    The same goes with the Old Testament. The first 5 books were edited as a compilation out of (at least) 3 main docs: the P(riesly), the J(ahwists) and the E(loists) manuscripts. Also when you compare Samuel/Kings/Chronicles you will find that the later books insert explanatory notes not written in the earlier books……and yet, we accept them all as Holy Scriptures !!

    The main thing I guess is that we must find a way to be aware of those differences (of which really only few are truly fundamental), and identify which is most reflecting of the spirit described by Diana in the latest comment here just above.

    As for the subject of your post, I believe that the Word of God is a treasure to be search for, and that a literal version is still favourable to a liberal one. (Jesus did not speak in parables without a good reason), and so I too would agree with chocolatechic, almost, as I really like the 1901 ASV.

    PS to KJV: I wish not here to debate the validity of the Good Book, but pardon my presumption in my asking to substantiate your multiple judgmental analysis with concrete precision rather that to blabber the emotion of thy heart. The richness of Its language would I hope have had influenced the eloquence of thy speech as much as to highten the perception of my spirit. Gimme som real juice mate !

    Truly yours –> Good blogging : )
    Sylvanus

  9. capitalggeek said,

    To diana –
    Yes, we are to spread the gospel, and bring people to a saving faith in Christ. So in some respects the arguments for one version or another are ‘internal’ for Christians to discuss amongst themselves.

    AND… Your choice of bible version can have a significant impact on how you approach reaching the lost. For example, a commonly used passage for salvation is Romans 10:13. In the King James bible, it says “For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” The same verse in the Message bible says “”Everyone who calls, ‘Help, God!’ gets help.” – There is no comparison between the two. One is a text that can be used to lead someone to the Lord, the other is a comic book phrase.

    Also, keep in mind that the Bible does nothing without a Christian carrying the message contained in it to the lost. As long as the message is ‘Christ died on the cross for your sins’ then it is good. Not all bibles contain that. The word ‘Bible’ on the leatherette cover means almost nothing now.

    To Sylvanus –
    My newest blog has my opinion on the greek manuscripts, so comments about them would probably be more appropriate there. As KJV said, some of the Mss appear to have satan’s fingerprints on them – and they tend to be given the most weight these days.

    As to the differences, I don’t believe that God would have let his word fade away, so there must be some clear way of reconciling them. God is not the author of confusion.

    As to your response to KJV, please remember you are in MY house here. It would appear that you are belittling him using egregiously poor English. I re-read it several times to try to figure out what you were doing without success. I decided to leave it in place, but I may not always do so.

    To KJV –
    Satan is subtle (Genesis 3:1) and his attacks are usually a twisting of God’s words. It is not disputable that the AV1611 has withstood the test of time, and produced good fruit. That is not the only standard, however. I know of quite a few churches that are KJV, but their pastors twist what God says into other things. And then there are a few in the crowd such as Riplinger & Ruckman that seem to do more harm than good – Riplinger for her attacks on men and dishonest quotations, Ruckman for his ‘advanced revelation’ doctrine. I’d be happy to discuss this with you offline if you like, or on your blog if you have one.

  10. Sylvanus said,

    CapitalGgeek;

    Thank you very much for informing me of your posting policy. I truly apologise if anyone has been unconfortable with my comment to KJV. It was intended, not to belittle, but to ask KJV some precision on some of his comments. I realise I should I been more precise myself, Sorry…and thanks.

    I agree with your comment on the Mss, but unfortunately I am not so sure that it is quite so easy to identify all ‘errings’, because if God is not a God of confusion, Man is surely good at it, and Satan a master of it. Thanks God that Truth is not altogether a matter of words, but of Spirit.

    I do not know 1 single Bible version that is 100% (or even 95% or so) accurate, and if we go back 400 years, we would surely hear the same argument from the ‘Latin only crowd’, and a few hundred years before, of the ‘Greek only crowd’, as the versions which they contested were at the time new also and considered errant. The Spirit though is the same.

    Finally, I think it would be nice to find a modern English Bible version highlighting within the reading all alternatives, and prefaced with an explanation of their personal choice for each alonside their reason for it. could be confusing for some, but enlightening for others.

    thank you

  11. capitalggeek said,

    Sylvanus –
    I guess the question then is did God preserved his word perfectly and without error or not. If he did, then all you have to do is figure out where. If he didn’t, then it is not possible to find God’s word for us, so you might as well use a paraphrase.

    According to even the liberal scholars that I have read, at most the different manuscripts disagree in 10% of the verses. If you discard Vaticanus and Synacticus then the disagreements are somewhere around 3-5%.

    The first disagreements as to the bible versions that I am aware of were the cause of persecutions by the Catholic church, which was a new ‘Gnostic’ heresy ( where only a few specially trained people can understand God’s word. )

    I appologize for not having a formal posting policy. That will be corrected shortly.

  12. Sylvanus said,

    CapitaGgeek-
    (Thank you for your Commentating Policy)

    Unfortunately, I have no clear answer to you question. I can only observe that there are differences on the manuscripts. I wish (in all honesty) that I had the opportunity to rise to the highest heaven and ask our heavenly father. I would perhaps hope (without presuming the answer) that He would indicate to me that although Man has distorted His word, a clean record has been preserved by His side – from which record, not a single dot would have been altered.

    1 Corinthians 13:12(13).

    We now only know partly, we walk by faith, though not as blind men, led by the Spirit to hear the voice of our Shepherd through the mind of His own. Because of that, I do not think to believe I need a perfect preservation of His word, for He knew already that the distortion would occur (hence the gift of the Spirit), but I labour with the little I have, and believe that this little deserves the right to be transmitted literally, not paraphrasically.

    Saying that, I really find contentment in finding bloggers such as yourself who attempt to clarify the confusion on the manuscripts, as I myself with English versions of them.

    Thank you
    Sylvanus

  13. Kristy said,

    I honestly don’t know what to think about the different opinions re: KJV and other translations of the bible.

    One thing I have to wonder about is this, though. Given that neither I, nor anyone else I know, speaks Greek or Hebrew, then no matter how careful someone is, there’s no way to translate God’s word EXACTLY, word-for-word, etc… Because every language is different, and the English language particularly so!

    I used to like the NIV bible-until I found that whoever put it together just decided that some verses didn’t need to be included. I’ve never cared for the KJV, other than for memorization, because it’s very confusing and difficult to understand. I never really cared for the Living Bible, either. So I mainly read the Amplified Bible, which-if I understand correctly-is supposed to be about as accurate as possible. But I also don’t hesitate to check out a few other versions to see if they all say pretty much the same thing if I have trouble understanding something.

    But, no matter what “I” feel about any particular version, as long as they explain the way to salvation-belief that Christ came to the world as an infant, died on the cross for our sins, rose from the dead and now sits at the right hand of our Father, isn’t THAT the important issue?

    I honestly don’t know what to think as far as which is the right bible to read, so I will likely just continue having several versions on hand.

  14. Sheri said,

    Thank you for the text comparisons and you certainly answered your topic question. Any version that leaves out the BLOOD of Jesus Christ is best used for kindling. Look at the emphasis God puts on blood in the OT as well. It baffles me as to why any ‘group of scholars’ would choose to leave it out. Simply put: it is important to God, it is important to me & for me.

    Another thought. As a Christian, we are known by our fruit, our works (no, this is not about salvation by works). When we look at bible versions, should we also look at the fruit? This thought occurs to me because I’ve had a few preachers bring this question up in sermons: Has there been a revival with any other bible version other than the KJV? Their answer is always, “No.”.

  15. gingerporter said,

    That is a good point Sheri….I had to do a little research . I hadn’t thought of it that way….and they are right….no other version has spawned the revivals that the KJV has….I went as far back as the Great Awakening (Johnathon Edwards) to the Welsh Revivals and those of Spurgeon and Moody…..I would have to really go more in depth to 100% document this….but it would appear true…..

    God says that His word has the power to convict…HIS word…how can it be truly His when the other translations leave so many important things out…..

  16. Children Education said,

    Really nice site you have here. I’ve been reading for a while but this post made me want to say 2 thumbs up. Keep up the great work

  17. LouKnu said,

    As someone who started off with the NIV, and is looking for a new bible – this site and your visual chart is wonderful and very helpful! A person can get lost with so many options on the market. Getting as close as I can to God’s word is what I desire. Thank you!

  18. Augustine Hutchinson said,

    You have done it once again. Superb writing!

  19. Kevin Colegate said,

    I just wanted to say thanks for the insights on this website. I have been reading a KJV attached to a Book of Mormon given to me by some missionaries and was curious as to its origins. I guess I am going to stick with this version for now. Anyways, thanks!

    • Jeb said,

      Kevin, I just found this website and saw your post from 11 months ago. It’s a shame no one answered your question, but I’ll give it a shot and hope maybe you read it someday.

      The King James Bible given to you by the Mormon missionaries is not the actualy KJV. It’sthe official Mormon version which was “corrected” by Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith, ofcourse, knew no Greek or Hebrew, but he needed to modify the only English Bible in wide use during his lifetime to cover up the obvious contradictions between his teachings and scripture. Just about any Bible would be better than that one.

      I would personally recommend the NASB for precise study or the NIV or ESV for a pretty accurate easier read.

  20. click here said,

    Heya, I just hopped over to your web site via StumbleUpon. Not somthing I might usually browse, but I enjoyed your thoughts none the less. Thank you for creating some thing worthy of reading.

  21. Mary Jane said,

    It all comes down to a matter of Faith. And believe me this is very important…Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God. Romans 10:17.

    Also, if you do a comparison on Gal 2:20 using other versions and the KJV ….I live by the faith “OF” the Son of God, other versions say
    “faith in” ..does not Satan and all the demons in hell believe “in” the Son of God??? But they do not have the Faith “OF” the Son of God. (I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.)

    Ephesians 2: 8…the apostle Paul states that faith is a gift of God, and it is by grace through faith that ye are saved.

    Did you know that each time there is a new translation of the bible the text has to be changed by at least 10% in order to obtain a copyright?
    Think of this…if each version is being alter by at least 10%, we are getting further and further away for the purety of God’s inspired Word.

    Johm 1:1 One of the titles of Christ is “The Word”. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, an the Word was God. Other versions actually remove the first “the” and insert an “a” in it’s place. This is vast difference between “The Word” and “a” Word. This is probably one of the most important questions that you should ever ask yourself…if any translation will do…then are we not undermining the authority of God and His Word?! Selah… Think on these things.
    If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. James 1:5
    One last point worth mentioning…the “newer” versions are actually taking away from and/or removing entirely the Diety of the Lord Jesus Christ, and His blood. He is slowly, and subtly, becoming more of a “created being” and not a Holy entity. (Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin. Hebrews 9:22)

    Revelaton 22: 18 – 21 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book; And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so come, Lord Jesus. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.

    Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needed not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. II Timothy 2: 15.

    • Jeb said,

      The only people for whom this is a matter of faith are those on the KJV-only side. For those who believe modern translations are needed and often superior to the KJV, it’s not faith but simple fact. so let’s address your points one at a time:

      1. Demons don’t have faith. Faith is “the evidence of things not seen (Hebrews 11:1). Demons see spiritual reality but they chose to not obey God. It had nothing to do with faith “in” or “on” anything.

      2. If the text in a translation is 10% different from one that came before, why does that mean the latter translation is further from actual word of God? If the new translation was a reinterpretation of the previous version, that could be true, but if it’s based on the original languages, there’s njo reason whatsoever to assume the newer translation is further from the original intent. Actually, is the 400 years since the KJV was written, the number and antiquity of ancient biblical texts available for us to use has increased greatly, and our understanding of the original Greek and Hebrews languages has also increased quite substantially. Both of these factors mean that it’s possible to produce a translation today that is quite a bit closer to the original intent than the KJV, which often wasn’t even translated from the original languages but from the Catholic Latin Vulgate.
      Furthermore, a 10% change in the text really isn’t all that much when you consider how many different ways there are to say things. For example, I can say “You’re wrong”, “no way”, or “that’s not true.” Each time I’ve changed my words 100% without changing the meaning.

      3. Please tell me which translation used an “a” instead of a “the” in John 1:1. I have a Bible software program with 25 English translations, which includes both popular ones and more obscure ones, and not one of them uses “a”. The only translation I know of that does anything like than is the New Wordl translation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses which is the product of a cult group that intentionally changed the text to support its strange doctrine. It’s rejected by every biblical scholar out there, so to use it as an example of the evils of mdoern translation is not fair.
      However, there is no such thing as a perfect translation. I’m sure we can find a verse here or there in every translation that seems a bit strange, and the King James Version is by no means an exception to this.

      4. Your last point – “the “newer” versions are actually taking away from and/or removing entirely the Diety of the Lord Jesus Christ, and His blood”. On what are you basing this? This is completely false. The only things removed from newer translation are words and phrases that were wrongly inserted centuries after the original writings. With modern schlarship we can identify many of these and either remove them or at least bracket them with a note in the margins indicating that word or passage doesn’t occur in many of the ancient manuscripts. In doing so, these new translations are more accurate, not less accurate than the KJV. And they in no way infringe on the deity of Christ nor the importance of the shedding of His blood for our sin. These were central tenents of the Christian faith over 1000 years before the KJV was produced and they continue to be across modern churches who use newer translations.

      Where we can agree is that every believer should “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needed not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth”. So study, learn the facts, and get a Bible that as accurately as possible represents the original text in the language we speak today. You’ll understand it far better and thus fulfill that important passage. Don’t go on faith that a 400 year-old translation into a form of English that we no longer speak is really the best we can do when it comes to translating scripture.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: