What Bible's version should I used?

[agapehost]

Hi,

I am from non speaking English country, I curious to know which English Bible version which I should use to learn or quote? (widely used in English speaking country), AV, KJV, RSV or others?, what version which you used?

Thanks

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

I have many different Bibles but my favorite to use for general reading and study alike is John MacArthur's NKJV Bible with commentary.

Hi,

I am from non speaking English country, I curious to know which English Bible version which I should use to learn or quote? (widely used in English speaking country), AV, KJV, RSV or others?, what version which you used?

Thanks

[e=mv^2]

You need to find a version in your native language that has been translated from the textus receptus.
What is your native language?

[MC1171611]

If you speak English, then you should probably use the King James, otherwise called the Authorized Version. This translation is the only accurate one, and it is in very beautiful English. You might want to have a Webster's dictionary when you read it, or just use the cross-references, as the KJV will interperet itself. Good luck and God bless!

[arunma]

I would say you should use the English Standard Version. It isn't very popular yet, but it's an excellent literal translation.

[agapehost]

You need to find a version in your native language that has been translated from the textus receptus.
What is your native language?
Indonesian (see flag over there?), we had only two version (official and daily language). I ask which English language version which widely used, I only had 4 English bible, DBY, AV, RSV and BBE, comparing google or CF use for search/bible on the near top navigation map, I thinks its safe to use Authorised Version (KJV?) when I quote bible verse here.

John 3
DBY: 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believes on him may not perish, but have life eternal.
AV: 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
RSV: 16 For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
BBE: 16 For God had such love for the world that he gave his only Son, so that whoever has faith in him may not come to destruction but have eternal life.
From GOOGLE/CF Result: 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

[arunma]

If I'm not mistaken, the RSV is generally considered to be the "scholar's Bible," because most historians, religious scholars, and theologians quote from it. That might be a good choice too.

[MC1171611]

Why don't we forget all of the religious apostates, and see what Bible God used for almost 400 years? What Bible was used during both Great Awakenings? How many of the greatest preachers of all time used the KJV? The KJV is still the Final Authority wether anyone wants to admit it or not, and all of the others have massive problems. This is the same issue as in the Garden of Eden, where Satan asked: "Yea, hath God said?"

[EdmundBlackadderTheThird]

The NASB is probably the best common English translation for daily reading. The Young's Literal is awesome for study purposes. I have about 8 treeware (book form) Bibles and a ton available on my PDA, laptop, and then there is the 'net. A Nave's Topical is also an awesome thing to have although it is a study aid rather than a Bible. The KJV is a great translation for the poetic books and there are some good study versions out there but for overal literal accuracy in daily English the NASB is up there with the best of them. I haven't done much with the RSV but some of my firends in the ministry speak highly of it. When I preach it is out of the NASB since it is the easiest to understand. I do reference other translations depending on the topic but the NASB is the best one so far that I have found.

[EdmundBlackadderTheThird]

This will be the next treeware Bible I purchase: http://www.zondervanbibles.com/0310910927.htm I have heard nothing but great things about it and am looking forward to having a new Bible in the old Bible case for a change.

[arunma]

This is the same issue as in the Garden of Eden, where Satan asked: "Yea, hath God said?"

Did Satan speak(eth) in early seventeenth century English?

[MC1171611]

Did Satan speak(eth) in early seventeenth century English?

No, but God does, through the only perfect Book on the planet(KJV).

[arunma]

No, but God does, through the only perfect Book on the planet(KJV).

But hold on a second. Why would God choose English instead of Hebrew or Greek? For that matter, where was God's perfect word before 1611? This is quite confusing.

[MC1171611]

But hold on a second. Why would God choose English instead of Hebrew or Greek? For that matter, where was God's perfect word before 1611? This is quite confusing.

Because He knew that the language of the world would be English, not the Hebrew, Greek, and don't forget the Chaldee. God used all of the translations that survived the persecution of the Catholic system to create His perfect Word in 1611. There are mistakes in all of the manuscripts, but none in the King James Bible.

[arunma]

Because He knew that the language of the world would be English, not the Hebrew, Greek, and don't forget the Chaldee. God used all of the translations that survived the persecution of the Catholic system to create His perfect Word in 1611. There are mistakes in all of the manuscripts, but none in the King James Bible.

But you still haven't answered my question. How did people read the perfect word of God before 1611? Are you saying that God didn't have a perfect Bible before 1611? Or was there another perfect translation before then?

Also, why is the KJV God's perfect word? Did an angel give the Scriptures directly to King James? A lot of people "prove" KJV-onlyism by pointing to Bible verses which say that God will always preserve his word. But remember, even if the Bible said that God inspired only one translation, that doesn't prove or even suggest that the KJV is that version. I'm not sure why one would believe in this peculiar doctrine. Perhaps you can explain further.

[MC1171611]

But you still haven't answered my question. How did people read the perfect word of God before 1611? Are you saying that God didn't have a perfect Bible before 1611? Or was there another perfect translation before then?

Also, why is the KJV God's perfect word? Did an angel give the Scriptures directly to King James? A lot of people "prove" KJV-onlyism by pointing to Bible verses which say that God will always preserve his word. But remember, even if the Bible said that God inspired only one translation, that doesn't prove or even suggest that the KJV is that version. I'm not sure why one would believe in this peculiar doctrine. Perhaps you can explain further.

I believe that God honored the texts down through the centuries as His perfect Word; however, when God used King James to comission the translation of the Authorized Version, He colated all of the different texts and translations into the Book that He would honor as His perfect Word for Eternity.

The "practical" reason that the KJV is the only true Bible is that all of the others come from corrupted texts, and even the TR has irreconcileable differences. God is done with Hebrew and Greek, now He uses English to speak to us.

Bibles today are tested agaisnt themselves and proven false. The King James is the only translation that has absoloutely no errors in it. All of the others attack the basic doctrines of the faith, such as the virgin birth, the Diety of Christ, and basic issues of morality. This is why I believe that the KJV is the only Bible that English speakers should use.

[arunma]

I believe that God honored the texts down through the centuries as His perfect Word; however, when God used King James to comission the translation of the Authorized Version, He colated all of the different texts and translations into the Book that He would honor as His perfect Word for Eternity.

Hold on, that doesn't make sense. Are you saying that there used to be other perfect Bibles, but that God made them imperfect? If there existed a perfect Bible before 1611, then that perfect Bible should also exist today.

The "practical" reason that the KJV is the only true Bible is that all of the others come from corrupted texts, and even the TR has irreconcileable differences. God is done with Hebrew and Greek, now He uses English to speak to us.

OK, I see two problems here. First of all, I assume that by TR, you mean the Textus Receptus. The KJV was translated from the TR. So are you saying that we got a perfect Bible from an imperfect set of manuscripts in the original languages? Again, that makes no sense.

Also, why would God use only English to speak to us? Much of the world doesn't speak English. Are you saying that someone who lives in, say, China, must learn English just to read God's perfect word? That sounds just a tad bit ethnocentric, don't you think?

Bibles today are tested agaisnt themselves and proven false.

They are? I've never seen such a test.

The King James is the only translation that has absoloutely no errors in it.

But people have found plenty of supposed "errors" in the KJV. Any good apologist could easily answer for these errors. But then again, that same apologist could also adequately defend modern translations. What I'm trying to say is that the KJV is no less vulerable to attack by skeptics.

All of the others attack the basic doctrines of the faith, such as the virgin birth, the Diety of Christ, and basic issues of morality. This is why I believe that the KJV is the only Bible that English speakers should use.

Woah now, do you realize what you're saying? You're saying that we should judge Bibles by how well they teach certain doctrines. But where do we learn such doctrines as the virgin birth, incarnation, and basic morality? We learn them from the Bible. So if the Bible turns out to say something different than this, our doctrines should change. Of course, my last sentence was purely hypothetical, because the Bible is one of the most reliable historical documents, and chances are that we'll never make any discoveries that will vastly change our understanding of the Bible.

However, if you choose to judge the Bible translation by the doctrine that it teaches, then you must have an extrabiblical source for this doctrine. If you were Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox, you'd have a good excuse. You could compare the Bible to the teachings of your church. But being a Baptist, you believe in sola scriptura, and so you need to judge your doctrine by the Bible, not the other way around. Just because another Bible translation doesn't agree with the KJV doesn't make it wrong. You haven't yet convinced me that the KJV is the ultimate authority on doctrine. Like most evangelicals, I think that only the original autographs of the Bible are inerrent.

[e=mv^2]

The "practical" reason that the KJV is the only true Bible is that all of the others come from corrupted texts, and even the TR has irreconcileable differences. God is done with Hebrew and Greek, now He uses English to speak to us.

MC - get your facts straight. The Textus Receptus is the source of the KJV. The KJV is an english version of the TR.

Because He knew that the language of the world would be English
The language of the world - if there was such a thing - and there isn't - would be spanish. There are more spanish speaking people in the world than any other. Being from Texas - you should know that.

More importantly - there is no language of the world. They tried that. Remember the tower of Babel? It ended poorly.


All of the others attack the basic doctrines of the faith, such as the virgin birth, the Diety of Christ, and basic issues of morality. This is why I believe that the KJV is the only Bible that English speakers should use.
So what version should someone that speaks the worlds most popular language use? How about indonesian?

You haven't yet convinced me that the KJV is the ultimate authority on doctrine.
The argument does not need to be that the KJV is the ultimate authority. The argument needs to be that it is the best authority in the english language.
Why is it the best authority in the english language? Because it was translated from the textus receptus.

[e=mv^2]

I curious to know which English Bible version which I should use to learn or quote?
Sorry - I misread your post the first time.

If you want to quote the bible in english it would be good to use the King James Version. If that is difficult for you to understand due to its use of language - use the new King James version.

[MC1171611]

MC - get your facts straight. The Textus Receptus is the source of the KJV. The KJV is an english version of the TR.


I have my facts straight. The Textus Receptus is the texts that the KJV was translated from. But the TR is very fractured, and extremely contradictory (there are over 5,500 different pieces of manuscript, each of which differ a lot).

The language of the world - if there was such a thing - and there isn't - would be spanish. There are more spanish speaking people in the world than any other. Being from Texas - you should know that.

More importantly - there is no language of the world. They tried that. Remember the tower of Babel? It ended poorly.


Actually I'm from Ohio, and the flag is Chilean (the long skinny country on the west coast of S. America). But, we're not talking about population: this is about technology, military might, and the fact that everyone in the world either wants to go to America, or wants American aid. Almost everyone here in Chile wants to learn English, and so does almost everyone else in the world. God chose the United States to be the light for these past centuries: over 90% of missionaries and support come from the US.


So what version should someone that speaks the worlds most popular language use? How about indonesian?


Spanish? Most likely the Reina-Valera 1865 version. Indonesian? Preferably something that was translated into that language from the KJV. But, if someone knows English to the point where they can understand the KJV, theyt have the privelege and, I believe, responsibility, to get a KJV and read it.

The argument does not need to be that the KJV is the ultimate authority. The argument needs to be that it is the best authority in the english language.
Why is it the best authority in the english language? Because it was translated from the textus receptus.




Which TR, again. Pick your favorite copy, and run with it. I have a Final Authority, but you can do whatever you want.

[arunma]

Actually I'm from Ohio, and the flag is Chilean (the long skinny country on the west coast of S. America). But, we're not talking about population: this is about technology, military might, and the fact that everyone in the world either wants to go to America, or wants American aid. Almost everyone here in Chile wants to learn English, and so does almost everyone else in the world. God chose the United States to be the light for these past centuries: over 90% of missionaries and support come from the US.

That sounds rather ethnocentric, don't you think? Besides that, the providence of God has never depended on technology or military might. The message of the Gospel is that its foolishness is the power of God. Would the God who hanged his Son on a tree favor a people because they are technologically superior? God has always granted his favor to those of humble estate, just as Mary said in the magnificat. If God favored the rich and powerful, then Jesus would have been born to the wife of Caesar or Pilate, rather than to a poor girl from the middle of nowhere.

[MC1171611]

That sounds rather ethnocentric, don't you think? Besides that, the providence of God has never depended on technology or military might. The message of the Gospel is that its foolishness is the power of God. Would the God who hanged his Son on a tree favor a people because they are technologically superior? God has always granted his favor to those of humble estate, just as Mary said in the magnificat. If God favored the rich and powerful, then Jesus would have been born to the wife of Caesar or Pilate, rather than to a poor girl from the middle of nowhere.

You ought to find the prophecy of the United States/Americas in the Bible. Oh, it's there; you just don't know where to look. God used the fulfilling of prophecy to bring about His will; He used the rebellion of the colonists to create a nation that would carry His Gospel to "...the uttermost part of the world." God uses things that you and I cannot understand: He used Great Britain for several centuries before she forsook God. He used Joseph of Arimethea: he was extremely rich. Job was loaded, Abram had lots of stuff: just because someone is rich means nothing to God: He tries the hearts.

Ethocentric (?) is not what I am. I am stating a fact: almost everyone in the world wants to come to America. Most people, especially students, want to learn English. In Esquel Argentina, a tiny tourist town in Patagonia, there are five schools that teach in English! In Valdivia, Argentina, where I am staying, there are at least two different schools where English is mandatory. Facts are facts: just because they seem self-centered doesn't negate the fact that they are facts.

[twistedsketch]

Bibles today are tested agaisnt themselves and proven false. The King James is the only translation that has absoloutely no errors in it. All of the others attack the basic doctrines of the faith, such as the virgin birth, the Diety of Christ, and basic issues of morality. This is why I believe that the KJV is the only Bible that English speakers should use.
That's funny because I was raised on the NIV and believe in the Deity of Christ, the virgin birth, and the traditional Biblical values concerning right and wrong.

BTW, the KJV was not always without error. There were a few copies printed that left a certain word out, so the seventh commandment said "thou shalt commit adultery." Most of these were appropriately burned.

[MC1171611]

That's funny because I was raised on the NIV and believe in the Deity of Christ, the virgin birth, and the traditional Biblical values concerning right and wrong.

BTW, the KJV was not always without error. There were a few copies printed that left a certain word out, so the seventh commandment said "thou shalt commit adultery." Most of these were appropriately burned.

Who is Jesus' father in Luke 2:33?

Certain copies might have errors, but those are strictly printer's errors: the translation has been proven true over and over.

[twistedsketch]

Trick question. Here's your answer:

"Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph" - Luke 3:23

Luke 2:33 does not deny that God was the actual father of Jesus. Because Joseph would have been a father to our Lord in many ways (teaching him the ways of a carpenter, for instance) it would only make sense to state it that way. Luke maintains very strongly that Jesus was of divine origin.

[arunma]

You ought to find the prophecy of the United States/Americas in the Bible. Oh, it's there; you just don't know where to look.

All right, I'll bite. Where does the Bible prophesy about America? You know, the British said the same thing. They used it to justify the slave trade.

God uses things that you and I cannot understand: He used Great Britain for several centuries before she forsook God. He used Joseph of Arimethea: he was extremely rich. Job was loaded, Abram had lots of stuff: just because someone is rich means nothing to God: He tries the hearts.

Abraham might have been rich, but he also had sex with his concubine. Do you believe he was right to do that? The fact of the matter is that God's servants aren't always perfect. The Bible doesn't say that God approved of Abraham's wealth (or Job's, for that matter). Saint Paul says that the love of money is the root of all evil. In other words, it's a sin to wish to be rich. I grant you that God does sometimes use rich people for good. Philemon would be one example. But that doesn't make it right to desire wealth. And rich people are required to be good stewards of their wealth.

Ethocentric (?) is not what I am. I am stating a fact: almost everyone in the world wants to come to America. Most people, especially students, want to learn English.

You're stating that God favors America, and that isn't a known fact. Besides that, at one point in time people used to learn Latin and flock to the Roman empire. The Romans were wicked. That many people come to America means that many people desire wealth, not that America is blessed.

Facts are facts: just because they seem self-centered doesn't negate the fact that they are facts.

But you need to realize that people have used these "facts" in the past to do the work of Molech in the name of Christ. In Europe and later America, these so-called "facts" have been used to justify the belief in the superiority of the Caucasian race over Jews, blacks, Indians, and many others. You have to admit that this argument sounds dangerously similar.

[arunma]

Who is Jesus' father in Luke 2:33?

Certain copies might have errors, but those are strictly printer's errors: the translation has been proven true over and over.

You know, Young's Literal Translation also says, "And Joseph and his mother..." I don't see what makes the KJV so special.

[MC1171611]

All right, I'll bite. Where does the Bible prophesy about America? You know, the British said the same thing. They used it to justify the slave trade.

Genesis 9:27 God shall enlarge Japheth {Europeans}, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem {acceptance by the Indians at Plymouth Rock}; and Canaan shall be his servant.

This is where the US/Americas are prophecied. Jepheth (Europeans) was enlarged, and filled up the New World. At Plymouth, the Shemite "savages" accepted the Pilgrims with open arms, fulfilling the second part. Later, the descendants of Canaan would be the servants of Japheth, thus fulfilling the whole thing.

Now, you are thinking that I am racist, and hate Blacks. This is the furthest thing from the truth. The prophecy was fulfilled; that doesn't mean one way or another wether it was right or not: it just happened that way.

You're stating that God favors America, and that isn't a known fact. Besides that, at one point in time people used to learn Latin and flock to the Roman empire. The Romans were wicked. That many people come to America means that many people desire wealth, not that America is blessed.

What would it take for you to believe that God has favored the United States? Two wars miraculously won against the strongest military power in the world? Unprecedented rise to world power during the early 1900s? The fact that our Biblical Republic is the longest surviving form of government in the world? (By Biblical I mean that the Republican form of government is found in Scripture)

But you need to realize that people have used these "facts" in the past to do the work of Molech in the name of Christ. In Europe and later America, these so-called "facts" have been used to justify the belief in the superiority of the Caucasian race over Jews, blacks, Indians, and many others. You have to admit that this argument sounds dangerously similar.

I really don't have to admit anything. God raised the U.S. up miraculously to be a beacon in this depraved world (something which she has already lost), and just because some people twisted Scripture doesn't negate the facts.

[MC1171611]

You know, Young's Literal Translation also says, "And Joseph and his mother..." I don't see what makes the KJV so special.

http://www.avpublications.com/avnew/downloads/PDF/NABV/preview.PDF

This will give you some info...(C) AVPublications.

[arunma]

Genesis 9:27 God shall enlarge Japheth {Europeans}, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem {acceptance by the Indians at Plymouth Rock}; and Canaan shall be his servant.



This is where the US/Americas are prophecied. Jepheth (Europeans) was enlarged, and filled up the New World. At Plymouth, the Shemite "savages" accepted the Pilgrims with open arms, fulfilling the second part. Later, the descendants of Canaan would be the servants of Japheth, thus fulfilling the whole thing.



There are some problems with your theory. First of all, there's no evidence that the Native Americans are descended from Shem. That sounds suspiciously like a Mormon belief (Mormons believe that the Native Americans are Israelites). In fact, I've heard some people claim that the Japethites migrated eastward. Ultimately, you don't really know who went where.



Furthermore, the Native Americans hardly accepted the Europeans. The Europeans conquered them.



Finally, the Canaanites never served as African slaves. They were mostly destroyed by the Israelites. You're thinking about Hamites, who are sometimes thought to be Africans.



Now, you are thinking that I am racist, and hate Blacks. This is the furthest thing from the truth. The prophecy was fulfilled; that doesn't mean one way or another wether it was right or not: it just happened that way.



I can't help but be perfectly honest. I do suspect that you may hold some racist beliefs. But that is beyond the scope of this discussion. We know that Noah was a righteous man, and that God doesn't listen to sinners. So what you're suggesting is that God willed for Africans to become slaves to white people, perhaps even that he ordained African slavery. We know that elsewhere in the Bible, God does curse certain people. For example, he cursed the Canaanites. However, he did not curse them without good cause. God gave them over to their sins, and the idolatry of the Canaanites caused them to curse themselves. Do you believe that Africans were enslaved because they committed sins against God?



What would it take for you to believe that God has favored the United States? Two wars miraculously won against the strongest military power in the world? Unprecedented rise to world power during the early 1900s?

Well, it would take more than money and power to convince me, because I know that God exhalts those of humble estate (St. Luke 1:52). First of all, I find nothing miraculous about America's victory in two world wars. In the First World War, America had minimal involvement. Besides that, there are plenty of other nations that satisfy these requirements. China has also won wars, and they are rising to power at this very moment, even as they persecute the fledgling church inside their borders.

The fact that our Biblical Republic is the longest surviving form of government in the world? (By Biblical I mean that the Republican form of government is found in Scripture)

France had their revolution at the same time that we were drafting our constitution. They still exist.

By the way, precisely where does the Bible advocate Republican government. The only government that I'm aware of which has Biblical support is theocracy under the Law of Moses.

I really don't have to admit anything. God raised the U.S. up miraculously to be a beacon in this depraved world (something which she has already lost), and just because some people twisted Scripture doesn't negate the facts.

It looks more to me like Satan raised up America to enslave Africans. Our "great" nation committed this sin for almost half of our lifetime. Is that what God had in mind?

[MC1171611]

There are some problems with your theory. First of all, there's no evidence that the Native Americans are descended from Shem. That sounds suspiciously like a Mormon belief (Mormons believe that the Native Americans are Israelites). In fact, I've heard some people claim that the Japethites migrated eastward. Ultimately, you don't really know who went where.

It has been proven through DNA testing that the Native Americans are descendants of Siberian peoples; the Mormon nonsense claims that the NAs are descended from Israel. It is unquestionable that Japheth and his descendants went north-west toward Europe, Shem moved east, and Ham and his descendants moved into Africa; the Middle Eastern peoples (except the Jews) are also Hamites: Abraham had Ishmael by Hagar, an Egyptian.

Furthermore, the Native Americans hardly accepted the Europeans. The Europeans conquered them.

The Indians were conquered by other groups, but not by the Pilgrims: read some history.

Finally, the Canaanites never served as African slaves. They were mostly destroyed by the Israelites. You're thinking about Hamites, who are sometimes thought to be Africans.

Noah couldn't curse Ham because he had already blessed him, so he cursed his descendant Canaan. I don't know how it works, but true prophecy has an eerie way of coming true with startling accuracy.

I can't help but be perfectly honest. I do suspect that you may hold some racist beliefs. But that is beyond the scope of this discussion. We know that Noah was a righteous man, and that God doesn't listen to sinners. So what you're suggesting is that God willed for Africans to become slaves to white people, perhaps even that he ordained African slavery. We know that elsewhere in the Bible, God does curse certain people. For example, he cursed the Canaanites. However, he did not curse them without good cause. God gave them over to their sins, and the idolatry of the Canaanites caused them to curse themselves. Do you believe that Africans were enslaved because they committed sins against God?

I didn't say that God willed it: he allowed it. I'm not advocating any type of slavery, but the descendants of Ham were cursed by Ham's sin, which is thought to be a homosexual act perpeterated upon his father.

Well, it would take more than money and power to convince me, because I know that God exhalts those of humble estate (St. Luke 1:52). First of all, I find nothing miraculous about America's victory in two world wars. In the First World War, America had minimal involvement. Besides that, there are plenty of other nations that satisfy these requirements. China has also won wars, and they are rising to power at this very moment, even as they persecute the fledgling church inside their borders.

Try the Revolutionary war and the War of 1812. Do you seriously think that the tiny colonies would've been able to stand on their own, or even with the French, without God's aid?

France had their revolution at the same time that we were drafting our constitution. They still exist.

Their form of government has changed something like six times since the French Revolution.

By the way, precisely where does the Bible advocate Republican government. The only government that I'm aware of which has Biblical support is theocracy under the Law of Moses.

That was how God set up the New Testament church: the Pastor takes care of the spiritual things, and the men of the church take care of the temporal things.

It looks more to me like Satan raised up America to enslave Africans. Our "great" nation committed this sin for almost half of our lifetime. Is that what God had in mind?

Again, not advocating slavery, but show me from the Bible where God callls slavery wrong.

[arunma]

It has been proven through DNA testing that the Native Americans are descendants of Siberian peoples; the Mormon nonsense claims that the NAs are descended from Israel.

Do you have any information on this DNA testing?

The Indians were conquered by other groups, but not by the Pilgrims: read some history.

I didn't say that the Pilgrims conquered the Native Americans. I said that the Europeans did. You claim that the Europeans descended from the Japhethites while the Native Americans are Semites, and therefore Japheth conquered Shem. That's quite different from "dwelling in Shem's tent."

Noah couldn't curse Ham because he had already blessed him, so he cursed his descendant Canaan. I don't know how it works, but true prophecy has an eerie way of coming true with startling accuracy.

But you didn't answer my point. I stated that Noah cursed the Cannanites, who were destroyed by the Israelites. My point was that Ham had nothing to do with the curse, yet you're claiming that the African enslavement fulfills a prophecy about Canaan. You need to prove that Africans are descended from Canaan.

I didn't say that God willed it: he allowed it. I'm not advocating any type of slavery, but the descendants of Ham were cursed by Ham's sin, which is thought to be a homosexual act perpeterated upon his father.

I'm sorry, but the Bible doesn't mention homosexuality. It mentions that Ham found his father naked. There are other places in the Bible (in the Torah, actually) that describe homosexual acts, so we have no evidence that there was any sexual misconduct. But this is all beside the point.

Try the Revolutionary war and the War of 1812. Do you seriously think that the tiny colonies would've been able to stand on their own, or even with the French, without God's aid?

Yes, it wasn't that miraculous. The Revolution was won with the aid of the French, who were fairly powerful at the time. As for the War of 1812, America didn't win that war. It was more or less a stalemate. You may want to recheck your historical facts on this one.

Their form of government has changed something like six times since the French Revolution.

American government has also changed. Did you know that we used to not elect our own presidents and senators?

That was how God set up the New Testament church: the Pastor takes care of the spiritual things, and the men of the church take care of the temporal things.

The governance of the New Testament church is not a prescription for state government. Besides that, even the New Testament church didn't resemble a republic. If you believe otherwise, please enlighten me.

Again, not advocating slavery, but show me from the Bible where God callls slavery wrong.

Do you really want to advocate that God condones slavery? Do you really believe that? I mean no offense, but this sort of attitude towards race-based, American slavery leads me to believe that you do indeed hold a few racist beliefs. Please disprove me. The belief that God permits slavery is rightly a highly unpopular view, just as it has always been in God's true church. But we can go through the Bible anyway.

1 Corinthians 7:21-23: "Were you a slave when called? Do not be concerned about it. But if you can gain your freedom, avail yourself of the opportunity. For he who was called in the Lord as a slave is a freedman of the Lord. Likewise he who was free when called is a slave of Christ. You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men."

Galatians 5:1, Paul compares the yoke of the Torah (a negative connotation) to slavery. "For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery."

Colossians 3:11, Paul prohibits racial discrimination. "Here there is not Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free; but Christ is all, and in all."

And of course, the epistle to Philemon was written specifically to free a slave. Furthermore, keep in mind that the freedom we gain in Christ is compared to a freedom from bondage in slavery. Clearly, this shows that God views slavery negatively.

Keep in mind that New Testament slavery was vastly more tolerable than American slavery. Slaves were given legal rights, and could even own their own slaves. If the New Testament speaks out against this Roman slavery, how much more does God hate American slavery.

Finally I ask you, do you really want to argue this point with me? I truly hope in the Lord that you don't believe God permits slavery or racism.

[MC1171611]

Do you really want to advocate that God condones slavery? Do you really believe that? I mean no offense, but this sort of attitude towards race-based, American slavery leads me to believe that you do indeed hold a few racist beliefs. Please disprove me. The belief that God permits slavery is rightly a highly unpopular view, just as it has always been in God's true church. But we can go through the Bible anyway.

1 Corinthians 7:21-23: "Were you a slave when called? Do not be concerned about it. But if you can gain your freedom, avail yourself of the opportunity. For he who was called in the Lord as a slave is a freedman of the Lord. Likewise he who was free when called is a slave of Christ. You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men."

1 Cor. 7: 21 Art thou called being a servant? care not for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather.
22 For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord's freeman: likewise also he that is called, being free, is Christ's servant.
23 Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men.

???

Galatians 5:1, Paul compares the yoke of the Torah (a negative connotation) to slavery. "For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery."

Gal. 5:1 ¶ Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.

This is talking about the Jewish law, which we are no longer required to keep.

Colossians 3:11, Paul prohibits racial discrimination. "Here there is not Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free; but Christ is all, and in all."

I'm not discriminating, and Paul is saying that in Christ we are all the same.

And of course, the epistle to Philemon was written specifically to free a slave. Furthermore, keep in mind that the freedom we gain in Christ is compared to a freedom from bondage in slavery. Clearly, this shows that God views slavery negatively.

This is completely insane! Where out of Philemon did you get the idea that Onesimus was to go free? And I quote:

Philemon 10 I beseech thee for my son Onesimus, whom I have begotten in my bonds:
11 Which in time past was to thee unprofitable, but now profitable to thee and to me:
12 Whom I have sent again: thou therefore receive him, that is, mine own bowels:
13 Whom I would have retained with me, that in thy stead he might have ministered unto me in the bonds of the gospel:
14 But without thy mind would I do nothing; that thy benefit should not be as it were of necessity, but willingly.
15 For perhaps he therefore departed for a season, that thou shouldest receive him for ever;
16 Not now as a servant, but above a servant, a brother beloved, specially to me, but how much more unto thee, both in the flesh, and in the Lord?
17 If thou count me therefore a partner, receive him as myself.

And where does this say that the servant was to go free?

Keep in mind that New Testament slavery was vastly more tolerable than American slavery. Slaves were given legal rights, and could even own their own slaves. If the New Testament speaks out against this Roman slavery, how much more does God hate American slavery.

Finally I ask you, do you really want to argue this point with me? I truly hope in the Lord that you don't believe God permits slavery or racism.

Oh, and I guess you got your ideas of African slavery from reading "Uncle Tom's Cabin." The Bible never speaks against servitude or slavery: I just showed you the errors in the things you tried to use against me.

I AM NOT RACIST, NOR DO I ADVOCATE SLAVERY, IN THE SAME WAY THAT I DON'T ADVOCATE STONING DISOBEDIENT CHILDREN. BUT, GOD SAID IT IN HIS WORD, AND THAT IS AS FAR AS I WILL GO.

[twistedsketch]

This is where the US/Americas are prophecied. Jepheth (Europeans) was enlarged, and filled up the New World. At Plymouth, the Shemite "savages" accepted the Pilgrims with open arms, fulfilling the second part. Later, the descendants of Canaan would be the servants of Japheth, thus fulfilling the whole thing.
That's Mormon theology there. Canaan was conquered by Isreal.

[PaladinGirl]

To the OP, use whatever English Bible version you will read. :thumbsup:

[seebs]

Because He knew that the language of the world would be English, not the Hebrew, Greek, and don't forget the Chaldee. God used all of the translations that survived the persecution of the Catholic system to create His perfect Word in 1611. There are mistakes in all of the manuscripts, but none in the King James Bible.

Perhaps you could clarify something for me about this. The 1611 KJV had 73 books, but I understand some fundamentalist churches (hello, folks! not here to debate, just curious about this teaching) use only 66 books. What were the other 7 doing?

Also, isn't the KJV used today actually a later revision, rather than the original 1611 manuscript? Most of us can't read that variety of English at all.

Finally, does the KJV you say is authoritative have 1 John 5:7, and Revelation 19:13? If so, how do you interpret them?

1 John 5:7
Revelation 19:13

[xristos.anesti]

Man, where do some of you people get their info from?



MC, you are very young. Many moons from now, when you have some education and expirience behind you, you might start talking about stuff that (at this stage) you have no clue about.


Also,

English world language... Hm... really?

Did you ever leave Texas? (you know... world is slightly bigger than ma's and pa's back yard).

[Andrea77]

Man, where do some of you people get their info from?



MC, you are very young. Many moons from now, when you have some education and expirience behind you, you might start talking about stuff that (at this stage) you have no clue about.


Also,

English world language... Hm... really?

Did you ever leave Texas? (you know... world is slightly bigger than ma's and pa's back yard).

Age can never determine wisdom, we can learn from even the smallest child:)

[xristos.anesti]

Age can never determine wisdom, we can learn from even the smallest child:)

True.

[e=mv^2]

Age can never determine wisdom, we can learn from even the smallest child

Yes.. but age and treachery will always overcome youthful enthusiasm.

funny old saying....

[PhilopateerMercurios]

Back to the Point, I love and use the New Living Translation. It may not be the most poetic version out there, but its ease of reading and functionality readily make up for its lack of poetic flair. It makes Scripture understandable without watering down the text. Hell is still Hell, Heaven is Heaven, Christ's Blood is still necessary, etc. Overall I like the translation. My one beef is that it uses the Masoretic Text for the OT with only comparison being made to the Septuagint.

My Church believes in the Septuagint OT. If you are interested, the Orthodox Study Bible is coming out soon. I will definitely switch to that when the complete version is done. It will have an English translation of the Septuagint, and uses the NKJV for (the already published) New Testament.

In Christ,

PM

[arunma]

Back to the Point, I love and use the New Living Translation. It may not be the most poetic version out there, but its ease of reading and functionality readily make up for its lack of poetic flair. It makes Scripture understandable without watering down the text. Hell is still Hell, Heaven is Heaven, Christ's Blood is still necessary, etc. Overall I like the translation. My one beef is that it uses the Masoretic Text for the OT with only comparison being made to the Septuagint.

My Church believes in the Septuagint OT. If you are interested, the Orthodox Study Bible is coming out soon. I will definitely switch to that when the complete version is done. It will have an English translation of the Septuagint, and uses the NKJV for (the already published) New Testament.

This is a rather curious position. The Masoretic Text is an older copy of the Old Testament than the Septuagint. While the New Testament authors used the Septuagint, I'm not sure that this implies any "divine endorsement" of that text. Why does the Coptic Church take such a position?

[No Swansong]

,

[DiscipleOfIAm]

Hi,

I am from non speaking English country, I curious to know which English Bible version which I should use to learn or quote? (widely used in English speaking country), AV, KJV, RSV or others?, what version which you used?

Thanks

The KJV is the obvious choice to quote from and to get the full meaning of the text. However, I tend to study with the NKJV and then cross referrence with KJV.

[PhilopateerMercurios]

This is a rather curious position. The Masoretic Text is an older copy of the Old Testament than the Septuagint. While the New Testament authors used the Septuagint, I'm not sure that this implies any "divine endorsement" of that text. Why does the Coptic Church take such a position?

Actually the Masoretic text was compiled in about the 9th Century AD by the Masoretes. Yes, the Dead Sea Scrolls have vindicated the Masoretic Text against those who would denounce it, but that is not the issue in the Church's use of the Septuagint. A lot of the reason is that it was decided in a Synod of the Church that the Septuagint was our OT. We follow the Traditions of the Church in this matter.

Here is an article on the Orthodox OT Canon. Please do not take offense to it. It is from the Orthodox Information Center which is run by Traditionalist EO's. They don't care for us OO's, Evangelicals, Protestants, or RC's, but they often have great articles on Orthodox Faith and Life.

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/otcanon.aspx

[PaladinGirl]

You want the 1611 KJV? Well, then go out and get you one because the KJV that you're probably reading is a revision of the 1611 KJV. Just look at John 3:16 from the 1611 KJV and see how hard it is to read:

(John 3:16 KJV-1611) For God so loued ye world, that he gaue his only begotten Sonne: that whosoeuer beleeueth in him, should not perish, but haue euerlasting life.

[PhilopateerMercurios]

You can usually tell an AV1611 from the others, because an AV1611 will have the Epistle Dedicatory and Translators' Notes.

[ProfessorMark]

If you speak English, then you should probably use the King James, otherwise called the Authorized Version. This translation is the only accurate one, and it is in very beautiful English. You might want to have a Webster's dictionary when you read it, or just use the cross-references, as the KJV will interperet itself. Good luck and God bless!

I agree that the KJV is probably the best English translation of the scriptures, however, I seem to be constantly battling with these KJV-Only kooks who preach that a person cannot be saved by using scriptures of any version other than the KJV.

If I were to label myself on the issue of Bible versions...I guess I could call myself a KJV-Preferred:amen: . Interestingly most of the KJVO nuts I've encountered don't even refer to it by the long established title King James Version. These arrogant "in-your-face" clowns call it the "KJB, King James Bible." I have heard them so as far as to say that the "KJB is the only Bible that will be found in heaven."

What a crock!!!!

Question---When the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock in 1620 what Bible were they carrying? HINT---It wasn't a KJV.

I posed this same question to one of these KJVO blow-hards and they initially replied that since the date was 1620 it had to be a KJB because everyone knows that the KJB first came to "public prominence in 1611". When I told me he was wrong and to check his history, surprisingly this arrogant clown actually did, only to tell me later that the Pilgrims were not Christians!

I repeat---what a crock!!!:amen:

[arunma]

Actually the Masoretic text was compiled in about the 9th Century AD by the Masoretes. Yes, the Dead Sea Scrolls have vindicated the Masoretic Text against those who would denounce it, but that is not the issue in the Church's use of the Septuagint. A lot of the reason is that it was decided in a Synod of the Church that the Septuagint was our OT. We follow the Traditions of the Church in this matter.

Here is an article on the Orthodox OT Canon. Please do not take offense to it. It is from the Orthodox Information Center which is run by Traditionalist EO's. They don't care for us OO's, Evangelicals, Protestants, or RC's, but they often have great articles on Orthodox Faith and Life.

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/otcanon.aspx


Thanks for the link. It was quite an interesting read. In fact, it prompted me to read Saint Justin Martyr's dialog with Trypho the Jew. Very fascinating stuff indeed.

[PhilopateerMercurios]

Arunma, not a problem. Like I said. Patrick Barnes and the Orthodox Info Center do not have a high opinion of my Church (they still erroneously call us Monophysites), but his articles and collections are, for the most part, very Orthodox in ethos.

[PhilopateerMercurios]

To answer the question for those who don't know:

The Pilgrims brought with them the Geneva Bible, which was also the Bible of Shakespeare and the Elizabethan Era. In fact, the King James Version did not supercede the Geneva Bible for many years after it was translated.

[arunma]

Arunma, not a problem. Like I said. Patrick Barnes and the Orthodox Info Center do not have a high opinion of my Church (they still erroneously call us Monophysites), but his articles and collections are, for the most part, very Orthodox in ethos.

Yes, it looks like a good place to get information on Orthodox churches.

Mind you, I'm not entirely convinced yet. As I said, the author references Saint Justin Martyr. Justin Martyr said in his dialog with Trypho the Jew that the Jews cut portions out of their Scriptures which made reference to Christ. Now, I'm not once to believe that the 'Big Bad Jews' have any anti-Christian malicious intent. But in the days when the church was just beginning to grow, it is possible that the Jews might alter their Scriptures so as to stop Christianity before it became a larger religion.

So I might be inclined to believe the author's (and Justin Martyr's) claims. However, Justin Martyr writes at the end of chapter 72, "And again, from the sayings of the same Jeremiah these have been cut out: ‘The Lord God remembered His dead people of Israel who lay in the graves; and He descended to preach to them His own salvation.’" But the translator's footnote says, "This is wanting in our Scriptures: it is cited by Iren., iii. 20, under the name of Isaiah, and in iv. 22 under that of Jeremiah."

Thus, it turns out that Justin Martyr's claim was incorrect! Now, this isn't the cornerstone of the author's argument. But it doesn't inspire my confidence in him either. So, I'd say that this issue deserves further consideration. That said, I'm still not sure whether to trust the Masoretic Text and Dead Sea Scrolls, or the LXX. Personally, I think that both are valuable.

[PhilopateerMercurios]

Oh, I agree with you. The Masoretic Text and Septuagint are both highly valuable text. I am not trying to disprove the Masoretic Text by posting the article. I guess, I was just trying to give you an answer to why my Church uses the Septuagint. It is a matter of Tradition. We follow the ancient traditions of the Orthodox Churches of the East closely. That's why we say jokingly,"Orthodoxy is the original Fundamentalism."

[arunma]

Oh, I agree with you. The Masoretic Text and Septuagint are both highly valuable text. I am not trying to disprove the Masoretic Text by posting the article. I guess, I was just trying to give you an answer to why my Church uses the Septuagint. It is a matter of Tradition. We follow the ancient traditions of the Orthodox Churches of the East closely. That's why we say jokingly,"Orthodoxy is the original Fundamentalism."

Well if it makes you feel better, I'd be Orthodox if the Baptist denomination didn't exist.

[xristos.anesti]

A really good (pro LXX) site is this one (http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Pines/7224/Rick/Septuagint/spindex.htm). I rate is highly, but I do have to admit that I am an Orthodox... no rocks please... it hurts LOL.

[mark53]

You need to find a version in your native language that has been translated from the textus receptus.
What is your native language?

The greatest problem with the "textus receptus" is that it is the majority of manuscrips. This means that the earliest copies, i.e those closer to that of the original manuscript, may not get in!!! So as copyists changed, miswrote, etc, the manuscripts the errors eventually become the majority in some circumstances! So whatever the original writers wrote is NOT the Word of God but what happened by deliberation or mistake IS the Word of God. I have great difficulties here.

[mark53]

If you speak English, then you should probably use the King James, otherwise called the Authorized Version. This translation is the only accurate one, and it is in very beautiful English. You might want to have a Webster's dictionary when you read it, or just use the cross-references, as the KJV will interperet itself. Good luck and God bless!

The only accurate one?? see above!

The only accurate one would be from the original manuscripts which we don't have, and probably never will.

the other problem with the KJV is that noone speaks that language today, and actually noone ever did. Read histories on the writing of same.

[mark53]

Why don't we forget all of the religious apostates, and see what Bible God used for almost 400 years? What Bible was used during both Great Awakenings? How many of the greatest preachers of all time used the KJV? The KJV is still the Final Authority wether anyone wants to admit it or not, and all of the others have massive problems. This is the same issue as in the Garden of Eden, where Satan asked: "Yea, hath God said?"

See above statements, plus
The KJV has changed a number of times (see others above)
It was written at a time when most people couldn't read or write, and it was for the Priests to use, mainly.
It was written for people who wanted a traditional way of speaking. And so, some words were 'invented' and it was written poetically (its greatest asset) so that it could be remembered for a long time afterwards.

How can a 'translation' of the original languages be a Final Authority. This leads to people worshipping a translation above the One and Only true god.

[mark53]

No, but God does, through the only perfect Book on the planet(KJV).

I thought the only perfect book was the original writings NOT the English translation of a particular time which ahs changed a number of times. English was not even a language when the N.T. was written. I thinksthe Runic language was used in Brittain at that time.

[mark53]

I believe that God honored the texts down through the centuries as His perfect Word; however, when God used King James to comission the translation of the Authorized Version, He colated all of the different texts and translations into the Book that He would honor as His perfect Word for Eternity.

The "practical" reason that the KJV is the only true Bible is that all of the others come from corrupted texts, and even the TR has irreconcileable differences. God is done with Hebrew and Greek, now He uses English to speak to us.

Bibles today are tested agaisnt themselves and proven false. The King James is the only translation that has absoloutely no errors in it. All of the others attack the basic doctrines of the faith, such as the virgin birth, the Diety of Christ, and basic issues of morality. This is why I believe that the KJV is the only Bible that English speakers should use.

Wow! How heretical! What about those who don't speak English.

I have never seen a passage in the Bible which even sugeests that the English version of a certain time will be the only one to u
se.
Also don't forget that this version does not use the earliest manuscripts but the majority of manuscripts

Example. Send this reply of mine to all on your email list and ask them to do the same and keep on doing this. Ask them to rewrite carefully this out themselves and email it back to me. I will then add up which versions come back and the ones that agree the most will then be the correct version. Therefore, that what I have just wrote, I did not write at all.

Also the argument that God has inspired all this remember that there are so many different manuscripts that human error must be taken into account. Also the copyists own theologies would be in mind, plus, their wanting to 'harmonise' with other passages as well.