Different versions of the bible?
People like to discredit the bible just because there are various versions of it. Well the original bible was written in the Hebrew language. Since then it was translated and we got the original king james version. since that one there are different versions like the New King james and the NIv and so on. Well why discredit the bible because of that? Those versions where to make people understand better every single bible out there no matter what version has the same meanings same msg's the words are just more simple so the english language can understand it better. It says in the bible that noone is to add nor remove anything from the bible. This has not been done. and if there was ever a version that did that a true christian would disregard it. Does anyone agree with me? And if your gonna post anything hateful please dont waste your time its ok for people to have diferent opinions but please dont be hateful
- Tim 47Lv 71 decade agoFavorite Answer
I'm with redballoon, the NWT, is the best!
I have diligently cross referenced using the KJV and the Strong's, this trans really holds it's own.
- Wisdom in FaithLv 41 decade ago
There is only one problem with that, it does not always retain the same meaning. A good example is Paul's use of the word arsenokoitai in I Corinthians 6:9, and 1 Timothy 1:9-10. The word did not exist until Paul's use of it. Paul made the word up. The word comes from two separate words, "arseno" which means "male," and "koitai" which means "beds." Literally it means male-beds or male-bedder. Up until the 19th century every Bible universally translated the word as "masturbators." Modern versions of the Bible translate the word as "homosexuals." Masturbator does not mean the same thing as homosexual. The meaning of the word was purposely changed at the beginning of the 19th century. Why? Did God change his mind about masturbation?
A more recent, but not as widespread example comes from the story of David and Jonathan. All Bible versions state that David and Jonathan kissed; "...and they kissed one another and wept with one another, until David exceeded." (KJV). All except for one. The Living Bible version translates the same passage as "and they sadly shook hands, tears running down their cheeks until David could weep no more." The translators of the Living Bible apparently could not handle the idea of two men kissing, thus they changed the verse and changed it's meaning. There is also another passage in 1 Samuel 18:20-21 where the King James translators admit that they changed it's meaning. In the KJV the words "the one of" are underlined. They are underlined because they do not appear in the original. If the KJV translators had not added the words, it would appear that David and Jonathan were married! These are both good examples where the translators injected there own biases into the text.
There are many, many more examples of changes between versions, including some interesting ones in the Garden of Eden story where some translators try to hide the fact that Yahweh lied.
- linnea13Lv 51 decade ago
I like the sound of the KJV but when I study I usually use two or three different versions. If something still doesn't make sense I pull out the Hebrew/Greek reference book that has every single word in the Bible that had been translated. In a way our Bible has been changed and is not completely accurate. The KJV was translated from the original to Latin then to English by Christians who used prayer and their knowledge of God's doctrine. The NIV was translated directly from the original by non-Christians who tried to translate as accurately as possible in a technical sense. That being said my Mom's first bible was actually a paraphrase and she is now the most Godly person I know. Humans can read the Bible, regardless of the version, and get nothing or everything. I believe it is the Holy Spirit who actually speaks to us through the Bible. Once you have become a mature Christian who is hopefully delving deeper into the word I think the version does matter to some extent. But it is the Holy Spirit that is the truly vital ingredient to learning from the word.
- Deirdre HLv 71 decade ago
Your Bible history is faulty. The Old testament may have been written in Hebrew, but not the New Testament. This was written in Greek. The Bible doesn't say not to take away or add from the Bible, but the Book of Revelation says not to add or remove from that prophecy, not the entire Bible.
Too, the King James translation wasn't the first translation. I believe that was the Latin Vulgate. As well, different early sources have been used in creating the modern Bibles. Also, there are multiple versions of the Bible, including the Catholic, which is actually earlier than the King James. These "versions" are called "canons". These have different books included in what is called the Bible. You might be interested in knowing that the Catholics didn't "add" books, but that the Protestants chose a smaller canon afterward, thus removing books.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- CatmanLv 41 decade ago
I agree with the principle of your statement. Some of the details are incorrect, but the principle of the bible not changing is true. For example the King James Version is not the original. It is not even the first translation into english. The old testament was written in Hebrew, but the New Testament was written in Greek.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
there r lots of mistakes in the bible, between niv and kjv. There's a story about the Jews going against this nation, and they had to wait on the lord to march. When they heard this tree make a noise, they would march. This trees name I can't remember. But the two books say two different kind of trees. when one has real meaning the kjv, the other no sense. This distinct tree would make a marching sound as the wind blew threw it. Its the only tree that does it. I think(i mean I think????)the tree in the kjv was called the Malabo tree, and the one in the niv is call a willow tree. My Pasteur is always showing different meanings between the two bibles. He has to have 2 bibles, and finds the truth(don't know if its his truth though). so don't say the bible is not crooked, its the #1 one seller in the world, and Its always a English book, switched this way to that way. To make a profit. I can't even get the almighty God to pick out a bible for me. God says all u need is me for I am wisdom, and I am undersanding. Seek his face.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
The NIV version has left out over 300 passages, also has changed sexual immorality to homosexual... hmm don't think I would trust that version.
1 Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders ... ~~~ NIV
1 Corinthians 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind... ~~~ KJV
The Message has really discredited the original version... again would not trust this version.
1 Corinthians 6:9-11 Don't you realize that this is not the way to live? Unjust people who don't care about God will not be joining in his kingdom. Those who use and abuse each other, use and abuse sex, use and abuse the earth and everything in it, don't qualify as citizens in God's kingdom. A number of you know from experience what I'm talking about, for not so long ago you were on that list. Since then, you've been cleaned up and given a fresh start by Jesus, our Master, our Messiah, and by our God present in us, the Spirit.~~~ The Message
Just by this verse alone I would not trust the NIV nor The Message
- waynebuddLv 61 decade ago
Actually, the original Dead Sea Scrolls, from which the Roman Catholic Church choose selected scrolls for their Bible translated into Latin, is mostly in Aramaic... the language Jesus probably spoke. King James ordered it translated from Latin (from Aramaic) into English, what? 600 years ago??... vague, at best. None of the New Testament was written, apparently, at least 30 years after Jesus' death. As there was no 'public' education in Jesus' day, the history had to be word-of-mouth. So! What is 'accurate' is a matter of belief, not text.....
- n9wffLv 61 decade ago
If your statement were true about making it easier to read, then why is there still more than hundred?
One, the NIV has a Scripture where it says Jesus didn't come to the righteous, but to sinners. The NIV omits two important words - TO REPENTANCE. Now why did they omit those words.
The KJV has God's blessings, even through the culture change of vocabulary. The major teacher is the Holy Spirit. If He doesn't agree with the written style of that Scripture, then it must be disregarded.
- AugustineLv 61 decade ago
There have been changes and revisions that may seem trivial and unimportant but that has not always been the case, though it may seem so.
Example. In some versions of the Book of Revelation, speaking about the "Mark" of the Beast, it can be found to say the "Character" of the Beast.
A "Mark" and "Character" can be the same thing, synonymous for an actual mark made with a pen or pencil, and at the same synonymous with leaving your "Mark" or "Character" on another, causing them to act a certain way.
There have been very subtle yet huge problems with versions and interpretations.
- lnfrared LoafLv 61 decade ago
why not just translate the original hebrew into modern english and get rid of the king james version? there should be an improvement considering the lack of vocabulary of old english...
maybe if we did, the bible will loose its marketability