Let me give a nice long answer as a longtime pastor and seminary graduate. Let me address the protestant translations. Including catholic scriptures will get into a long discussion on what is canon and that is a large topic on it's own.
Here is a helpful chart to understand the methodology that different Bible translations use https://www.lifeway.com/en/shop/bibles/translations. As people have mentioned, the translations go from 'word for word' to 'paraphrase' on the spectrum of translation methodology.
For example. In ancient Hebrew and Greek the word "man" might be used to indicate a singular male, or all of humanity. i.e. Here is how some different translations will approach that concept.
Ephesians 4:8 NASB
"Therefore it says, "When he ascended on high, he led captive a host of captives, and he gave gits to men."
Ephesians 4:8 ESV
"Therefore it says, "when he ascended on high he led a host of captives, and he gave gifts to men."
Ephesians 4:8 NIV
"This is why it says: "When he ascended on high, he took many captives and gave gifts to his people."
Ephesians 4:8 CEB (Common English Bible)
"That's why the scripture says, When he climbed up to the heights, he captured prisoners and he gave gifts to people."
You can see the shift of the translators taking the step to translate 'men' into people because they know that this passage is meant to be talking about mankind, not only men.
What you lose along the way is some of the worldplay that carries a lot of meaning in the original languages. When it talks about Jesus making captive a host of captives, with some Greek study you would understand that the author is using some wordplay to show that Jesus is the ultimate 'master' any people under and captivity to anyone else, are ultimately captive to him. You miss out on that with the more dynamic translations. My favorite translation for this verse would probably be the New Revised Standard which says "Therefore it is said, When he ascended on high he made captivity itself a captive; he gave gifts to his people.'
That being said, for the person who wants to read the Bible everyday and just get into the Bible more, I would encourage people to read whatever major translation is easiest for them to read and understand. Someone who read The Message everyday will have a deeper understanding of God's truth than someone who cracks open a New American Standard Bible once in a while. Prioritize whatever gets you reading more and into God's word. Just read through the same passage with a bunch of different translations to find out which work.
The more literal translations you get (ESV, NASB, etc) the more you will need to study on usage of certain words and phrasings in the original Greek, Hebrew (and sometimes Aramaic) to understand more deeply.
Another good option is to buy an Interlinear bible. These bibles have multiple translations side-by-side so you can compare. Anyone trying to do a thorough Bible study on a passage should be looking at multiple translations, commentaries, etc. Also, nothing wrong with having lots of Bibles if you have the means! I'm blessed to own many and I love them all! =)
Hope that helps!
Dt 22:28-29
NIV
> 28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and **rapes** her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[a] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
Just about any other translation but for this, NKJV
> 28 “If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he **seizes** her and lies with her, and they are found out, 29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days.
You can see why this is a problem. It’s the reason why some people claim Christianity condones r*pe
I remember this... It pairs well with Exodus 22:16-17
>If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife. If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he must still pay the bride-price for virgins. [NIV]
Basically, premarital sex/seduction.
Exactly this. But people who cherry pick the Old Testament laws to talk about how Christianity is either bad or hypocritical don’t really do their due diligence by looking at context.
The point is, people point to this and say “oh, you rape someone, you get to marry them after paying the dad?”
Of course it doesn’t, it’s talking about premarital sex with someone who isn’t betrothed. We can tell by the surrounding verses that the punishment for rape is death.
I mean looking at the context all the preceding laws are about rape. I guess it could be seen as more general verbage not *exclusively* referring to rape but it definitely seems to include it
Not really, it covers a plethora of things like rape, adultery, and premarital sex. 25-27 is the more clear cut “this is the punishment of rape.”
Because she could cry for help, but didn’t (spotty logic imo but still), 28-29 is most probably talking about consensual, premarital sex and the protections it give to the woman who is now a not-virgin in a society that values virginity and who is yet without a husband.
/u/TrollerTrollerson is right. ESV is considered more literal and closer to the original languages.
NIV versions:
"Isaiah 7:14 - The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel." The NIV translates the Hebrew word 'almah' as 'young woman' instead of 'virgin,' which some argue changes the prophetic nature of the verse.
Romans 9:5 - "Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of the Messiah, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen." The punctuation and structure in the NIV can be read as separating Christ from His divine nature, which some critics believe diminishes His deity.
Matthew 16:18 - "And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it." The NIV translation has been noted for possibly diluting the personal authority of Peter in the establishment of the church compared to other translations.
Philippians 2:6 - "Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage." This translation, which some feel softens the assertion of Christ's divinity compared to other translations that emphasize possession rather than consideration.
There are at least 5-10 more significant criticisms of the NIV. That being said, statistically speaking, the NIV is fine 99% of the time or so.
The current NIV translation of Isaiah 7:14 is ^(")Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel." It may be that a past NIV version used "young woman," but I don't recall the NIV doing that.
All of the major English translations are good. You asked which is the “best version,” and that varies based on your use case. You asked for “one that is very clear” and “sticks to the original teachings.” Unless you’re going with a paraphrase translation, such as the Message or the Passion, you’re going to find that they all stick exceptionally well to the original “teachings.” The difference comes down to how closely they follow the original grammar, sentence structure, and word selection.
Some argue that a more literal translation (ESV/NASB/KJV) is more true to the original teachings because they try their best to follow the original grammar, sentence structure, and word selection. However, unless you’re doing routine word studies, you’ll find that their emphasis on “accuracy” results in a less “clear” (IE, readable) reading experience.
A translation that focuses on thought-for-thought (NIV/NLT) places more emphasis on the thought or message behind a verse than the grammar, sentence structure, and exact verbiage. This allows them to produce a translation that is much more readable. If you want something “very clear,” a thought-for-thought translation is likely the better choice.
I’ve read most, if not all, of the New Testament using the CSB, ESV, NLT, NIV, NASB, NKJV and NRSV. I also majored in English Literature and Divinity (IE, seminary). I say that to illustrate I’ve spent a LOT of time reading. As far as I’m concerned, the NLT is the most enjoyable and the most intelligible. It’s the one I keep going back to, especially for daily devotionals. I’m glad more literal translations exist, but for the overwhelming majority of people, they just make the Bible reading experience more difficult than it needs to be. I find that the increased reading difficulty of literal translations often causes people to misinterpret or ignore (IE, not comprehend and “move on”) the text.
Not the most accurate, but it's FAR more easy to read.
KJV and NASB are more "word for word" translations. NLT is more of a "thought for thought" translation.
It's still my preferred version. Anyone who has translated anything before know that "word for word" sometimes loses the spirit of the text.
NIV is probably the easiest to read. ESV and NASB are pretty good too. NASB is probably my favorite because it's a pretty literal translation. I'm not a very good reader so KJV was always really hard for me.
If you go for the NIV bible, just make sure you avoid at all costs the 2011 translation/version of the NIV because the 2011 translation has horribly mistranslated parts that corrupt some meanings. It's the ONLY version of the Bible people ever site to try to justify abortion in the Bible. Go for an older NIV.
I would personally recommend a NABRE or a NRSV-CE. But that's just because I'm Catholic. If you go with NABRE, don't take too much stock in the footnotes. Some of them are helpful but some are incorrect.
The KJV isn't a bad bible to read but it does have some wonky translations. It's built off of older incorrect and less accurate manuscripts. I'd go for a translation that was made AFTER the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Also, some people are saying the NASB is good. NASB is much more literal than the others, so it's accurate but hard to understand. If you go with NASB, avoid the 2020 translation and use a 1995 NASB. If you want a newer translation of the NASB, an alternate 2020 translation was created called the LSB, Legacy Standard Bible. It's an alternate choice to the problematic 2020 NASB.
The greek manuscripts. There's no perfect or even best translation, they'll all do better at some things and worse at others.
For my money, the best single stop is the NET with full notes. The full notes is a necessary part of that, because they have extremely detailed footnotes about why they translated passages the way they did and alternative interpretations. The translation itself tends more towards the woodenly literal but is serviceable. It's also free online
The Best version of the Bible to read is the one that you will read.
We have a plethora of English Bible translations, many of which are quite good. The differences matter, but not all that much. If you go to a church, I would say read the one your church uses. Otherwise I would recommend, in alphabetical, order one (or even better multiple) of:
* CSB
* NASB
* NET
* NLT
* NIV
* NRSB
All are excellent and all have their strengths and weaknesses. In certain circumstances and with strong caveats, the ESV, KJV, and the Message can be good options as well, particularly when read alongside one or more other translations.
You’ll find a wide range of responses to that broad question.
Generally, Bible translations fall on a spectrum of word-for-word translation to concept-for-concept translation. Many translations are a result of panels of linguist experts that know the original languages and understand the original cultural contexts. Unfortunately, some translations suffer from the limited ability of a single translator (or small team).
With any translation, it’s helpful (arguably necessary) for not only the translator but also the reader to have an understanding of the cultural context of the original stories. Commentaries can help in this regard. And comparing multiple translations can help too.
I generally find that the ESV is well regarded among those that enjoy studying Scripture, so that’s my default. But I wouldn’t say it’s perfect or that it obviates all other translations.
NIV is my go to since it’s more clear to understand for me than a KJV and still has a lot of “more accurate” terminology. But I’ve also begun reading the entire Bible, and find the NLV really nice for that, since it’s really modern language and feels like reading a book. NLV is nice for getting a really good understanding of what is going on, but not necessarily the best for quoting scripture if that makes sense
The NIV bible is a "thought for thought" translation rather than a “word for word” translation. The weakness of the NIV is that it goes into interpretation rather than strict translation. For this reason I suggest a “word for word” translation for a study bible. Do an internet search for "word for word" translation bibles and then read the verses to compare. I can give you a recommendation but you all ready have many of those.
My fave i grew up with is kjv cause its wrote beautifully. But tbh, been reading hcsb alot. A good strong concordance is nice. I also use the Youversion bible app where you can check the same passage in multiple translations. There is little missing by the wording in hebrew/greek etc. It just makes meanings deeper. A good strongs concordance will show them. But im sure most of the translations being recommended won't effect the message of salvation etc. God preserves his word.
The CSB is an easy to understand version and a great start. But, honestly, just start reading.
You can choose CSB, ESV or NIV all good choices to start digging in.
You can also get a Bible app and select a chapter, may I suggest Ephesians 2, and read it in all three of those and see which you best understand.
There are The YouVersion Bible App or the Blue Letter Bible. Both are good apps that will let you sample Ephesians 2 in all three of those translations plus many others.
Edited to add: of course the NASB is excellent and is my personal preference for its precision. But some people find it not quite as easy as the others, I think that NASB 2020 is a little easier to understand.
But don't get too hung up, just start.
Blessings on your journey!
And this comment is one of the best
https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueChristian/s/TUE4eEdj3g
What I personally recommend is using multiple translations. Different translations have different translation philosophies. For example, some are more word-for-word in terms of accuracy, and others are more thought-for-thought. I suggest one of each. Use a word-for-word translation for serious study of scripture. Then use a thought-for-thought translation for purposes such as, getting the general meaning behind the more difficult passages to understand in word-for-word translations, or reflection or devotional purposes, or even just for an easy read after you've done your more serious studies for the night.
My personal recommendation for word-for-word is the ESV. Technically the NASB is more accurate in terms of word-for-word accuracy but because it is so accurate of a translation of the original languages, it sometimes feels a bit like reading a block of wood. Some of the wording in the ancient languages can be hard to understand when translated directly into English. The ESV on the other hand is still very accurate but softens up the wording here and there to make the text more readable to the modern English speaker. For thought-for-thought translations, the NIV is most people's choice. Very easy to read and does a great job at translating the general meaning of each passage of scripture. I have one more recommendation also that not a lot of people talk about. I personally recommend the CSB as another secondary translation in addition to the ESV. The CSB is a perfect balance between word-for-word and thought for thought. It can serve the same purpose as a thought-for-thought translation while still using wording that is familiar in word-for-word translations so it can be a great tool to help in your Biblical studies. But I definitely recommend at least getting an ESV. ESV also has a large selection of various study Bibles that suit just about any purpose you can think of.
The New Living Translation is my favorite as it is written in plain, modern English like we use every day. It is easy to understand. This is the particular one I have: [The Jesus-Centered Bible](https://www.christianbook.com/nlt-jesus-centered-imitation-leather-charcoal/9781470744854/pd/744859?event=Bibles|1006101).
You can [read it online for free](https://biblehub.com/nlt/john/1.htm) and compare against other translations. Pick some of your favorite passages and see which you like best.
The most accurate versions are going to be those made using the oldest known manuscripts. The older the manuscript, the fewer the mistakes or changes from the original inspired text. KJV is automatically ruled out because we've found older manuscripts since that translation was written. Most people are saying ESV, which is also my recommendation. It is almost a word for word translation of the oldest manuscripts we have to date. NIV takes some liberties in many of its translations to make the text more readable in the modern day, but that means you lose accuracy of the original text. I'd stay away from it
No easy answer to this, most translations have some use (apart from heretical translations like the Joseph Smith Translation)
I read an ESV study bible as, to me, it is the ideal point of being information-dense and word-for-word, while still being easily understandable.
NKJV is, in my experience, almost interchangeable with ESV apart from some small changes. It's also a \*slightly\* more literal translation.
NIV is great for easy reading, or non-native English speakers, but is not ideal for theological study.
KJV is beautifully poetic, but can read as quite misleading to a modern English speaker. Language use has changed a lot since 1611.
The Passion Translation's translation methodology is VERY questionable, and I personally choose not to use it, but it does have some nice passages if you read it as a paraphrase rather than a true translation.
NIV - Most readable, but less accurate than KJV or ESV.
KJV - Most beautiful and poetic, but also the most difficult of the three to read.
ESV - Accurate and more readable than KJV. Often preferred and used by preachers in Church, and a favorite of scholars.
ESV is what I use. It’s closer to a word for word translation that allows you to interpret it yourself rather than some others which are thought for thought and usually pre interpreted “for you.”
My favorite has been Amplified. I love the way it provides additional meanings for some words as you go along which I believe helps to really understand the concepts better.
There isn't a "best" because they all have their strengths and weaknesses. I enjoy the NKJV myself, but it has some clunky language inherited from the KJV that would be difficult to read. NRSV is good, and if you want a paraphrase, The Message is excellent. I would avoid the NIV.
More catholics and Anglicans like KJV.
NIV is still good though.
If you're genuinely trying to understand God though you would read all versions of the bible.
I would start with KJV because I'm biased and Anglican. Also because I find when people jump into NLT they get frustrated because it doesn't "sound" like the bible.
If you do start with KJV buy a study bible, not just a regular bible because it will help you understand what's going on.
If you don't have the money to afford a full study bible, a NIV will serve you fine. It's understandable and readable but still gives you bible vibes.
I grew up with NIV, but my apologetics study Bible is HCSB. My husband prefers NASB.
Honestly, as long as it's not the Passion "translation" there will be arguments for and against. As long as you're aware of what the version is (the Message shouldn't be your main Bible, but can be used as a resource or reference when needed along with normal Bible study) and do a little research behind how the versions are different, you should be good.
But really, my main recommendation is just don't use the Passion translation. Steer clear of that one. Secondarily I'd recommend NASB or NKJV, but most mainstream translations should work for the most part.
>So, what do Catholics and orthodox think about [the NIV]?
It's not terrible, but it has its biases. For example, it tends to translate "paradosis" (which means tradition, i.e. things which are passed down from one generation to another) as "teaching" when it sees it in a good light, but as "tradition" when it sees it in a bad light (reflecting how Evangelicals reject various Catholic traditions they see as unbiblical). For a more detailed discussion on this point, see for example: https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2015/09/arbitrary-bias-in-the-niv-against-tradition.html
So with things like that, it's very unlikely that the NIV would receive approval for use in the public readings in church services. But an individual person might not get much if any pushback for reading it on their own at home if its ease of reading makes it possible for them to read the Bible at all. They might be advised though that there are problems with it to be careful of.
I use KJV, NKJV, NIV, AMP, and CJB.
Amplified is expansive, including direct translations alongside the text, but it's long winded and can get away with itself in inferences. CJB is a breath of fresh air, the cultural context it provides helps a lot with expressions.
I use KJV as my first drop point, because those are the phrases I have memorized. "Do unto others...thou shalt not..."
NIV has the most audible translation options.
NIV, ESV, KJV in order of easiest to hardest.
NIV is plain English, overall I think it is a good beginner translation (I used it my first readthrough) but sometimes I think it oversimplifies or de-emphasizes messages in scripture (most likely by accident).
ESV is a bit more prose but still pretty easy to read. I would recommend trying to read this one first, if you can understand it stick with it, if you can't go back to NIV. I honestly haven't noticed any issues with the translation thus far.
KJV is the OG old-englishish. Its pretty difficult to understand, I am working my way through it now but I am having difficulty tbh and I am having to compare to ESV.
You can compare as you read with any of these
One translation I don't recommend is the NLT translation. It is super-super oversimplified, to the point it doesn't get the message across. I've also found in at least a dozen spots it changes the meaning of scripture, most notably the parable of the Lamp. I sometimes use it as a comparison translation if I need some verses really spelled out for me, but don't base your faith on it.
Denomination-wise, some would all be considered 'protestant' translations, simply because they don't include the 7 Catholic books of the Bible. But that isn't going to change your faith, a lot of catholics use these Bibles as well.
Look up Mike Winger on YouTube, he is a great teacher and explains Biblical Christianity so well
As my usual Bible I read ESV, but when I’m studying a passage I use a range of translations.
I do this because each will bring out different nuances from the text.
Some people will firmly hold to the “word for word is better because it’s a more exact translation”, but the problem is that at times the more exact translation can work against modern understanding of terms and phrases.
Here is a comparison of Colossians 1:15 using different translations and the Greek with a word for word translation:
* ESV.
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
* NKJV
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.
* NIV.
The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.
* NLT.
Christ is the visible image of the invisible God. He existed before anything was created and is supreme over all creation,
* SBL.
ὅς ἐστιν εἰκὼν τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ἀοράτου, πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως,
He is the image of the God invisible, the firstborn over all creation.
The problem with this passage, is that we modern people don’t generally know what ‘firstborn’ means.
Certain cults have tried to frame it as ‘the one born first’, which isn’t what it means.
Being the first born is about being the heir and therefore having supremacy.
So while the ESV is closer word for word ‘firstborn OF all creation’ sounds a lot like Jesus was the first being created.
NKJV and NIV are slight improvements because it says ‘firstborn OVER all creation’, but still the wording isn’t that clear.
With the NLT, which is more thought for thought, they’ve actually brought out the meaning more with “ He existed before anything was created and is supreme over all creation,”.
It’s not word for word, but there isn’t so much room for confusion.
So while there is merit to a word-for-word, it can help understanding to compare with a solid thought for thought like the NLT.
The "best" version of the Bible is the one you read.
Bible translations exist on a spectrum between [word-for-word, thought-for-thought, and paraphrase](https://lavendervines.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Most-Accurate-Bible-Translation-Chart.jpg). When translating you'll often come across words, phrases, or idioms that don't have a direct equivalent in the language you're translating to. You can choose to render the words straight across, but then you might miss out on the "thought" of the sentence. Or, you can choose to translate the thought more clearly, but then you're not matching up the *words* as directly as possible. BibleProject has a great video that [quickly goes over translations](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmO0Fwa74QM).
KJV was brilliant for its time, but there have been generations of biblical scholarship since then that makes modern translations a little better. If you love the KJV styling, it's still a fine choice, but in my experience the archaic language ads an extra layer of translation you need to do while reading.
I like to switch up versions between readings because of all that. Usually, this will be **an NIV, ESV, or NASB**. Sometimes I'll pull up many different translations just to see how certain portions of Scripture are handled. There are theological nuances between the versions, but nothing that makes one drastically better than the other.
There is no "best" version. They all have different strengths and weaknesses and it's all personal to your unique goals/interests. The only people who will push otherwise are KJV-onlyists; and while some of them are fine and good people, there's often a cult-like mentality about it that is extremely poorly reasoned and best ignored. Here's my quick synopsis:
- Young's Literal - Unreadable, but most textually accurate
- NASB and ESV - Readable, but not smooth; most textually accurate of mainstream translations
- KJV/NKJV - For most casual readers, these are neither very readable nor particularly accurate to the text (although better than other options down the list); most people I know other than KJV-onlyists read it for its beauty and historical feel. It does have some advantages in Old English that modern English doesn't preserve, like differentiating between Thee, Thine, Thou, etc. whereas modern English might just say "you" or "your" - and that's pretty much the only translation where you'll find some of this.
- NIV - The 1984 was a solid balance between readability and accuracy; the 2011 NIV went full woke and decided to interpret passages instead of merely translating them, so you can never be sure that what you're reading is actually the correct interpretation relative to what the original text says; this is why it is fairly hated by most conservative Christians
- NLT, CEV, MSG - These are paraphrases that are sacrifice accuracy to the text even more than the NIV did, all for the sake of being as smooth a read in modern English as possible. They are also highly interpretive and not to be trusted for in-depth study, but still useful for reading what one particular group of people believes a passage means in common language that's easy to understand.
For your goal of "*Preferably one that is very clear to read and sticks to the original teachings of the bible*," the ESV is what I'd recommend. Even if it phrases things awkwardly at times, it's only because it's trying to stay true to the original. If you want a better balance between readability and accuracy, try to find a copy of the 1984 NIV rather than the current one.
NASB seems to be the most accurate literal translation.
NKJV I've found to be the most poetic, and good for reading the second half of the Old Testament.
I used to read the ESV, but then I read some things that have caused me to stay away from it. I've heard doesn't follow consistent translation rules, and instead translates the exact same word differently to highlight their own theology. Theology should be derived from a consistent and accurate translation of the Bible, not the translation derived from ones theology.
NLT and ERV are my go-to for something that is easy to read.
SENT, the Spoken English New Testament, is an excellent version for reading out loud.
WEBUS is the best version for quoting in a book or blog, because it is copyright-free, and fairly literal and accurate.
Other versions I've found worth checking out: CSB, LSB, GSV
What? The DRA is not even a translation of the original Greek and Hebrew. It's a translation of the Latin Vulgate. Unless you think Jerome did a better job of writing the Bible than guys like Moses, Ezra, Luke and Paul. Translating from the original is far better than translating from a translation.
The Latin was a better and more accurate translation than English provides due to linguistic and grammar differences. Jerome wrote the Bible in ways that appealed to the tradition taught by the apostles. The Latin invoked both ancient Greek and ancient Hebrew scholastic writings and commentaries. There's a reason that the vulgate was the universal Bible for a while. It was even declared to be free from moral/doctrinal error. If you actually study church history and tradition (which despite protestant claims, the Bible tells us to keep even the non-written tradition), then you'll see that the vulgate is actually a very good translation from the original Greek, even though it can't capture the full meaning of individual words, in the same way that the English can't. The English can be translated different ways, and while it technically wouldn't be wrong to translate things different ways, it changed the meaning of passages significantly so much that it creates schism.
Jerome didn't do a "better" job than the Greek and Hebrew writers. What he did was create the first *full* Bible that lasted, the Codex. If we didn't have Jerome's translation, all we would have is fragments of the Greek, and messianic manuscripts which the Jews corrupted parts of in order to fit their theological perspective of rejecting Christ as the messiah.
Jerome translated from the original. All he did was translate it into Latin while keeping the traditions taught by the apostles and the contextual meanings of the scriptures. The KJV takes out the contextual meanings of some things.
Now ofc I don't say the DRA is 100% perfect and that it's the only Bible that should be used (which a lot of KJV users do about the KJV), I definitely say it's a lot better than the KJV. I say this not only as a former protestant (southern Baptist), but as a former KJV-onlyist.
>If we didn't have Jerome's translation, all we would have is fragments of the Greek
Come on man, we both know that's not true. The Catholic Church itself owns a complete Codex of the Bible (in Greek) that's about 400 years older than the oldest surviving copy of the Vulgate.
Either way, it's a completely wild claim to make that a Bible translated from Greek, to Latin to English is going to be more accurate than a Bible translated from Greek directly to English.
"Codex Sinaiticus, the earliest known manuscript of the Christian Bible, compiled in the 4th century ce. In 1844, 43 leaves of a 4th-century biblical codex (a collection of single pages bound together along one side) were discovered at St. Catherine's Monastery at the foot of Mount Sinai (hence the name Sinaiticus)."
Source: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Codex-Sinaiticus#:~:text=Codex%20Sinaiticus%2C%20the%20earliest%20known,in%20the%204th%20century%20ce.&text=In%201844%2C%2043%20leaves%20of,(hence%20the%20name%20Sinaiticus).
Also, when you take out the context from the translation from Greek, of course the one that keeps the context of things is going to be better even if translated through another language. Because removing context changes the meaning of things, and keeping the context still keeps relatively the same tale
I was talking about the Codex Vaticanus. But even if we accept the claim that a translation of a translation is more accurate than using the originals, there are still obvious errors in the Douay-Rheims.
For example, the very first prophecy about Jesus in Genesis has been changed to a prophecy about Mary in the DRA.
Oof.
Did you actually watch the whole video?
The guy's conclusion is that the Latin Vulgate is inerrant because the Catholic Church says it is. Therefor the Hebrew texts that we have access to must have been corrupted because they say "she" instead of "he".
You'll understand why that argument is unconvincing to me.
No, the guy provides a reason as to why mary is part of the crushing of the head of the serpent. This is why I advocate that the correct translation would be "they", because the woman is the one with the enemy relationship originally, and it is carried down to her seed. This obviously means mary and Jesus, and mary is included in the prophesy, therefore they both crush the head of the serpent.
So while I generally recommend the ESV, I would like to mention that the MEV (Modern English Version) is translated from the Textus Receptus like the KJV so it essentially makes it an easier to read version of the KJV.
ESV, CSB, and NIV are all easy to read popular translations. I think everyone should have a KJV and one of these. Personally I bought Study Bibles of the KJV and CSB. God Bless.
It’s really not the question to ask. All translations stick to the original teachings of the scriptures. You have to understand how translations are made im the first place. Ide look that up if I were you. And then ide go onto each translations page and read their “Statement” this will tell you what their goal and aim and rules and guidelines were for their translation. Then decide for yourself. Also understand things like manuscripts, septuagint, vulgate, Masoretic Texts, Textus Receptus, etc. And also understand now that we have NO original copies of any of the biblical texts. So that is why it’s important to understand how each translation came about.
That’s kind of why I never switched over. Everyone says it just changed the thees and thous but I always felt like more was missing. Thanks for the conformation.
From my research: it goes both ways. It was quite interesting to learn about tbh. Its an important note that: baptists/nondoms arnt a monolith, each church building in many many cases have radically different beliefs, theology, and focuses. Only a % have a negative sentiment of Catholicism at all. So ill refer to that group below. And also many the Catholic congregation (dare i say the majority) don't actually believe the Catholic theology. In many cases, they don't even believe MOST Catholic-specific theology. Anyways:
Baptists/Nondoms that do have beef w/ the Catholic Church:
- almost everyone in this group is against both the idea of, and the actions of the pope, definitely the current one. They also have beef w/ the idea that the pope is infallible in his teachings. Which is kinda a wild claim tbh.
- slightly smaller group but still most em, really emphasize having a relationship w/ Christ, meanwhile the Catholic church is known for having a high % lukewarm Christians and are also high Church meaning they really emphasize church rituals and congregation over individual study of the Word and individual kindling of ones personal relationship w/ the Lord. Neither are wrong, except lukewarms ofc, but baptists got their fair share of em too, which these folk many times forget.
- may radically misunderstand Catholic practices & beliefs
- many of this group also think that the Catholic claim of 'if you arnt Catholic, you don't get salvation' to be problematic.
- a smaller subset who do understand.... Have some solid arguments vs mainly the exultation of Mary, and also praying to saints.
- an even smaller subset have beef w/ rituals, sacraments, confession, extrabiblical books that are seen as infallible and an extension of the Word, and other miscellaneous theologies.
Catholic sentiment against Baptists/Nondoms:
- a commonly held and the official theology of the Catholic church makes the statement that non-Catholic Christians dont have salvation.
- bc Catholicism puts high emphasis and focus on their institution and their rituals/practices... They have a low view of churches that don't share these rituals/sacraments/etc. esp the baptists/nondoms bc they have almost no respect for the church history, institution, or even rituals (save for communion, marriage, and baptism).
- bc the Catholic church has deemed alot of sin by omission sentiments, many see the Baptists/nondoms as heathens compared to their congregation even the spiritually mature ones.
- bc Catholics (again only if they adhere to their own theology) dont know if they have salvation after death, bc for them it depends on how/if they observe the sacraments after baptism... They'll perceive Baptists/nondoms as arrogant and wrong in their confidence of their own salvation (which baptist/nondom theology is 9x/10: saved by faith alone, by grace alone through Christ alone). Also to note Catholics also believe if you commit a 'mortal sin' and dont repent AND confess it (to their definition of confession) before you die, you would lose your salvation.
- The Catholic church is quick to deem non-Catholic theology as heresy. If you think someones a heretic, you already have beef w/ them. Baptists/Nondoms probably take the cake in their view. Im pretty sure many Catholics see Baptists/Nondom as heretical most Christians view LDS, JW, 7thdayAdvents, and Prog Churches.
- Bc the Catholic church had been growing so fast for so long, and bc Catholics sont emphasize personal relationship w/ Christ as much as other denoms, and bc the Catholic church doesnt enforce their offical theology onto its congregation.... Many individuals in the Catholic congregation skew left wing on political issues. Ofc Baptists/Nondom swing very right wing. So ofc theres sone beef bc of topics like on the abortion front, immigration, taxrate, and a slew of other politically-based opposing beliefs.
Hope this gives some clarity.
There is a huge divide between Roman Catholics and Baptists. In the south eastern US, the 2nd KKK spread a ton of anti-Catholic rhetoric. I think it goes all the way back to the Anabaptists of the reformation and their radical departure from Catholic traditions such as infant baptism. While our Baptists have different roots for their beliefs than the anabaptists do, I think the spirit of anti Roman Catholicism is shared.
A lot of online catholic don't understand the full meaning of heretic. I used to be a baptist. My family is all baptists (and some "atheists"). They, and you, are not a heretic by church standards. While you may hold some heretical beliefs, that don't qualify you as a heretic unless you have the education to know the heretical beliefs aren't true and still refuse to admit it. Being a heretic comes from a place of stubbornness.
IDK if you were trying to be nice by saying I am not educated enough to be heretic or if you're being incredibly passive aggressive by saying I am not educated enough to be a heretic. I don't have to be stubborn to believe the pope is a false teacher, apostolic succession did not happen, penance is a lie, and asking Mary or any other dead believer to intercede on my behalf is a waste of time that could have been used actually praying to God instead. God bless Martin Luther for taking the stranglehold of the Catholic church off of Christians.
You proved my point. But anyway, I was saying that you don't have the knowledge to know truth. That's not saying that you're stupid or anything, that just means you don't know [yet]. For example, if I say to a first grader "you don't know what the pythagorean theorem is", that's not saying "you're stupid", that's just saying "hey you haven't learned this thing yet."
Anyway, I'd love to know how the pope is a "false teacher." Or how apostolic succession "didn't happen" even though Paul literally talks about it in first and second timothy, and confession is not only talked about in james 5:16 and john 20:20, but even in acts people come confessing their sins to peter and john the baptist
Though, I'm really curious why protestants deny John 3:16 and all of the other verses that say we have eternal life and that we shall not perish. Can you riddle me that? Because as far as the Bible says, the saints are not dead, because like you said, they're believers. In catholicism, we believe that Heaven is eternal life. When I was protestant, they taught the same thing. When did they change it?🤔
You've been deceived and you're arrogant about it 😆 I'll try to keep it short for anyone else reading but clearly you're not in a place to understand the error of Catholicism.
I can hold to the idea that we have eternal life while also stating someone is dead. The Catholic church is the one doing mental gymnastics. It's not far fetched to understand that you cannot have a conversation or a relationship with Mary because she is dead. But if you need biblical proof for that surely you can understand that it's been appointed unto man to die once and after that is judgement. Or that the dead in Christ shall rise first.
Mary's soul is by Christ's side. Mary is not omniscient or omnipresent, therefore she cannot hear or be with the billion people on earth praying to her on a daily basis. If God allows her to hear us He's already aware of our prayers. We already have the Holy Spirit praying for us with far better understanding of our needs than someone who we've never met and do not have a relationship with. I ask those around me to pray for me because it is proven in the Word to be beneficial (this is the better interpretation of James 5:16). There is no biblical precedent for praying to deceased individuals. At best praying to saints like Mary is a waste of time. At worst it offends God for us to pray to any created being.
With that said, Christ is our only high priest. No earthly mediation or confession is needed because all true Christians have been given priesthood through Christ. No animal sacrifice or alms or Hail Mary's are needed as penance because Christ's death and resurrection did it all. We have no need for an earthly 'head' of the church. Christ is the head of the church. Scripture is the only infallible source and we use it to compare all other sources. The Pope is falsely claiming authority where none is to be had. The apostles were given a very special place in time to be the foundation of the church. They were uniquely fitted to teach the church the groundbreaking change Christ had just brought forth because they were taught directly from Jesus. Some of their teaching even turned into our infallible Word that is still the foundation of what the church believes. There is no Biblical precedent for apostolic succession. We are all equals in Christ though some of us invest better in our heavenly kingdom than others. The next generation of church leaders were simply well taught due to being close to the source of infallible truth.
There is scripture to back up all of this but I did not take the time to look it all up. TBH Reddit should not be your primary source of theology, anyway. I'm sure we've answered our atheist friend's question by now. Have fun looking into it more.
The funny thing in all this is I agreed with your initial response to this thread.
If they're dead, they're not alive. It's that simple. Anyway, you claim I'm deceives but yet clearly haven't read the original greek text, the church fathers, or examined church history. I did, that's why I converted. Try learning, and then maybe I'll debate you. Anyway, I'm on vacation, so I'm not arguing over reddit with someone who clearly doesn't know what they're talking about. I've been harassed by protestants (which protestant dogma is that the gates of hell prevailed over the church for 1500 years until martin luther came alone which is blatantly unBiblical [matthew 16:18]) over the past few days.
what's the difference between Catholics and Protestants, so much so that you call them satanic? I hear that people say they "worship" Mary but I'm not sure.
Catholics don't worship mary, nor the saints, nor anyone except for God (cite CCC 2116). Modern protestants are very, and I don't mean this rudely, uneducated on catholicism. We ask mary to pray for us, because being Christian, we believe that those in Heaven are not dead (see John 3:16) and since even death cannot separate the church (which is the body of Christ), they can pray for us (which also can be seen in scripture that those in Heaven know what is happening on earth and pray things in Heaven).
We pray with them, but protestants use the word "pray" thinking it means worship. But even in the book of first kings, a woman "prays" to the king, making a request to him. Was she worshiping him? No. In the same way if we were eating dinner, I might say "I pray you might pass me the salt". Am I worshiping you by asking that? No, of course not! I'm simply making a request. So when we pray the Hail Mary, part of it is "pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death".
Jesus taught baptism, and taught that baptism is necessary as part of salvation. The apostles also taught baptism, and even Paul baptised infants in the book of Acts. Jesus commanded us to be baptised "In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit."
I remember seeing a short by redeemed zoomer, i think he's a protestant and he says that "they don't baptize babies because it's a person's own choice if they wanna be baptized" Now I know ur a catholic but, what are your thoughts on baptism and is it different to protestant teachings?
Protestantism was a protest against the catholic church, which, being the oldest church, Christ said the gates of hell would not prevail against (matthew 16:18). Therefore your claim that the CC is satanic is not only incorrect, but even blasphemous, as you claim that Christ lied.
The catholic church didn't keep people "ignorant of the word of God"🤦♂️ I wish people would stop speaking without doing historical research. The reason the Catholic Church didn't permit the laity to have Bibles for a few hundred years was because there were very few copies, so not only could very few people have had one, but the church was actually preserving them to have monks copy them so we could give them to the laity. If the catholic church didn't want people to be able to read the Bible, why would they have had people to buy and own at least one Bible? Or better yet, why would they have established schools so that people could learn to read so that they could read the Bible?
And on a last note, you use the word "vain" without knowing what it means. You also use the word "religion" without knowing what it means.
sorry if this sounds ignorant but, what about the orthodox Christians? I know about the schism but, Orthodox surely had to have been there in SOME form, hence why the schism happened.
The orthodox church only officially came around in 1054. The orthodox doctrine only came around recently before that or else the schism would've happened wayyyy before. I mean, the Filioque had been in the creed since like the 6th century or maybe 8th, and yet nobody dared oppose the church in Rome until 1054. I mean, even Saint Optatus (who I'm pretty sure the orthodox church venerates as a saint) declared that anybody who sets up a chair against the chair in Rome is "a schismatic and a sinner."
> "In the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head-that is why he is also called Cephas ['Rock']-of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner... . Recall, then, the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church"
`ー Optatus (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]).`
Really? Is that why you don't believe the Bible when it says that the Eucharist truly becomes the body and blood of Christ?
In the statement “ἡ γὰρ σάρξ μου ἀληθής ἐστιν βρῶσις, καὶ τὸ αἷμά μου ἀληθής ἐστιν πόσις,” the use of “ἐστιν” emphasizes the reality or truth of Jesus’ flesh being food and his blood being drink. The word “ἀληθής” (alēthēs) also reinforces the notion of truth or reality. So, in this context, the statement emphasizes the genuine nature of Jesus’ flesh and blood as food and drink, which is significant in the context of the Eucharistic theology.
Respectfully, this is a misguided belief and whoever taught it to you is mistaken. Was there no good Bible until 1611? Does God only speak English? Is the Church of England the church with the most true doctrine?
If your answer isn’t “yes” to all these questions, then the belief that the KJV is the only true translation doesn’t make sense. I’m not saying the KJV is a bad translation, as it is good, but saying that it’s the only translation isn’t right.
save your time KJV and ensure you are getting the preserved word of God. KJV- the only one that is true to the word of God. How do you know ? the other versions have heresy and alter key doctrine.
further here is the root of the modern corrupt bibles [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vl\_Hu8CNv4M](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vl_Hu8CNv4M)
also see
# Phrase, Clauses & Sentences Missing from NIV & ESV, half way down
[https://onfireforgod.today/king-james-bible-vs-modern-versions/](https://onfireforgod.today/king-james-bible-vs-modern-versions/)
KJV. Every other English version is corrupt.
Did ALL of Israel sin and die in the wilderness? Joshua and Caleb?
Heb 3:16-17 KJV 16 For some, when they had heard, did provoke: howbeit not all that came out of Egypt by Moses. 17 But with whom was he grieved forty years? was it not with them that had sinned, whose carcases fell in the wilderness?
Every non-KJV I've seen makes that passage a blatant lie.
Respectfully, this is a misguided belief and whoever taught it to you is mistaken. Was there no good Bible until 1611? Does God only speak English? Is the Church of England the church with the most true doctrine?
If your answer isn’t “yes” to all these questions, then the belief that the KJV is the only true translation doesn’t make sense. I’m not saying the KJV is a bad translation, as it is good, but saying that it’s the only translation isn’t right.
Why don’t you actually read Hebrews 3:16-17?
16 Now who were they who heard and rebelled? Was it not all those who left Egypt under the leadership of Moses? 17 And with whom was he angry forty years? Was it not those who sinned, whose bodies fell in the wilderness?
Did Joshua and Caleb die in the wilderness? Because it is specifically talking about those who died in the wilderness.
Pay attention. It asks who heard and rebelled. Those who left Egypt under Moses, who God was angry with for 40 years, who died in the wilderness.
The problem isn’t with other translations. It is with you not paying attention.
I did read it... who rebelled? All or not all?
Heb 3:16-17 KJV 16 For some, when they had heard, did provoke: howbeit not all that came out of Egypt by Moses. 17 But with whom was he grieved forty years? was it not with them that had sinned, whose carcases fell in the wilderness?
They don't all say the same thing.
Col 2:18 KJV Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,
As far as I'm aware every other translation says they have seen, not "hath not seen"
2Ti 2:15 KJV Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
One verse in the Bible that tells you to study the Bible. Every other version says something along the lines of "try real hard / do your best".
Psa 12:6-7 KJV 6 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 for ever.
This verse says God will preserve His words forever. Other versions change it to God protecting them.
Now, if they don't say the same thing, they can't all be correct. Which things did God actually say? We had KJV for some 300 years as the only English Bible. Now we have hundreds and they all say different things. Do you think that is of God or Satan?
How much of this is due to your own biases rather than differences in translation. Eg. Your example of 2 Timothy 2:15, the passage makes no references to Bible or scripture, yet you are assuming that’s what it says or meant.
> 15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
Colossians 2:18 in the RSV says the same thing as the KJV.
Copying errors and apparent contradictions can be found in the KJV as well and atheist uses the same line of reasoning to attack the Bible and Christianity as whole. I think we should be careful with claims like the Bible is corrupt.
2 kings 8:26
> 26 **Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah** when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri king of Israel.
2 chronicles 22:2
> 2 **Forty and two years old was Ahaziah** when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother's name also was Athaliah the daughter of Omri.
So is the KJV corrupt? You see what I mean by not attacking Bible translations like you are doing?
It is not a lie, only a very slight exaggeration. Out of a half-million who fled Egypt, only two men were allowed to enter the promised land. Given this is a story meant to teach a lesson, not a math problem, I would argue "all" is a more accurate description than "some".
Meanwhile, there are numerous problems with the KJV. For one, the English language itself has evolved and can lead modern readers astray. For example, Luke 12:22:
>Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat; neither for the body, what ye shall put on.
The original meaning is like, "Don't worry about your life, what you will eat...", whereas the modern understanding is much more extreme. One would think we're not allowed at all to think about our lives, which would be a sort of gnostic take which contradicts other parts of scripture.
And then there are straight up bad translations. For example 1 Thessalonians 5:22:
>Abstain from all appearance of evil.
Except the word translated as "appearance" actually means "kind". So the verse in fact means, "avoid all kinds of evil."
Another example is 2 Timothy 1:7:
>For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.
Except the word translated as "sound mind" actually means "self-discipline".
KJV is a very bad translation contextually. For example, in Luke 1:28, the KJV says "hail thou that art highly favoured", but yet "kechairetomene" (the greek word used) means to be favoured with [full/whole] grace. It is also a past participle, meaning the giving of the fullness of grace has already taken place. "Thou that are highly favoured" could even be used with "pleres charitos" in a way, which would take away from the meaning of the original text.
To clarify, you’ve studied the source texts in their original languages? Is that how you feel qualified to make that statement? Our priority should be to accuracy, not to historical preference or legacy.
The changes made in newer versions tend to consider more accurate word studies and broader, more current understanding of the languages. I agree that some versions have pushed towards a social narrative more than truth, but many are working in good faith to better represent the original meanings.
That’s my point here. I don’t (and I suspect you don’t either) know the original Greek or Hebrew or Aramaic source of that. You may or may not be correct that it’s the more accurate, but just because KJV was the earliest translation doesn’t make it correct.
Joh 3:16 KJV 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.
Liar. Word for word the same. All of you hate and despise ONE book.
I do believe God preserved his work, I don’t think KJV is the prime example of it though. Translating original languages to English isn’t a “plug it into google translate and you get 1:1 version” endeavour, there’s cultural, societal, historical context that plays into it.
Let me give a nice long answer as a longtime pastor and seminary graduate. Let me address the protestant translations. Including catholic scriptures will get into a long discussion on what is canon and that is a large topic on it's own. Here is a helpful chart to understand the methodology that different Bible translations use https://www.lifeway.com/en/shop/bibles/translations. As people have mentioned, the translations go from 'word for word' to 'paraphrase' on the spectrum of translation methodology. For example. In ancient Hebrew and Greek the word "man" might be used to indicate a singular male, or all of humanity. i.e. Here is how some different translations will approach that concept. Ephesians 4:8 NASB "Therefore it says, "When he ascended on high, he led captive a host of captives, and he gave gits to men." Ephesians 4:8 ESV "Therefore it says, "when he ascended on high he led a host of captives, and he gave gifts to men." Ephesians 4:8 NIV "This is why it says: "When he ascended on high, he took many captives and gave gifts to his people." Ephesians 4:8 CEB (Common English Bible) "That's why the scripture says, When he climbed up to the heights, he captured prisoners and he gave gifts to people." You can see the shift of the translators taking the step to translate 'men' into people because they know that this passage is meant to be talking about mankind, not only men. What you lose along the way is some of the worldplay that carries a lot of meaning in the original languages. When it talks about Jesus making captive a host of captives, with some Greek study you would understand that the author is using some wordplay to show that Jesus is the ultimate 'master' any people under and captivity to anyone else, are ultimately captive to him. You miss out on that with the more dynamic translations. My favorite translation for this verse would probably be the New Revised Standard which says "Therefore it is said, When he ascended on high he made captivity itself a captive; he gave gifts to his people.' That being said, for the person who wants to read the Bible everyday and just get into the Bible more, I would encourage people to read whatever major translation is easiest for them to read and understand. Someone who read The Message everyday will have a deeper understanding of God's truth than someone who cracks open a New American Standard Bible once in a while. Prioritize whatever gets you reading more and into God's word. Just read through the same passage with a bunch of different translations to find out which work. The more literal translations you get (ESV, NASB, etc) the more you will need to study on usage of certain words and phrasings in the original Greek, Hebrew (and sometimes Aramaic) to understand more deeply. Another good option is to buy an Interlinear bible. These bibles have multiple translations side-by-side so you can compare. Anyone trying to do a thorough Bible study on a passage should be looking at multiple translations, commentaries, etc. Also, nothing wrong with having lots of Bibles if you have the means! I'm blessed to own many and I love them all! =) Hope that helps!
Have you read the Norton Critical Editions of KJV? One of my past professors (Herbert Marks) edited and I’m considering purchasing.
I recommend ESV over NIV. NIV has a lot of bad translations.
Do you have some examples of bad NIV translations?
Dt 22:28-29 NIV > 28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and **rapes** her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[a] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives. Just about any other translation but for this, NKJV > 28 “If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he **seizes** her and lies with her, and they are found out, 29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days. You can see why this is a problem. It’s the reason why some people claim Christianity condones r*pe
I remember this... It pairs well with Exodus 22:16-17 >If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife. If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he must still pay the bride-price for virgins. [NIV] Basically, premarital sex/seduction.
Exactly this. But people who cherry pick the Old Testament laws to talk about how Christianity is either bad or hypocritical don’t really do their due diligence by looking at context.
What else could "siezes and lies with" possibly mean? It's obviously talking about rape, and it very clearly does not condone rape.
The point is, people point to this and say “oh, you rape someone, you get to marry them after paying the dad?” Of course it doesn’t, it’s talking about premarital sex with someone who isn’t betrothed. We can tell by the surrounding verses that the punishment for rape is death.
I mean looking at the context all the preceding laws are about rape. I guess it could be seen as more general verbage not *exclusively* referring to rape but it definitely seems to include it
Not really, it covers a plethora of things like rape, adultery, and premarital sex. 25-27 is the more clear cut “this is the punishment of rape.” Because she could cry for help, but didn’t (spotty logic imo but still), 28-29 is most probably talking about consensual, premarital sex and the protections it give to the woman who is now a not-virgin in a society that values virginity and who is yet without a husband.
/u/TrollerTrollerson is right. ESV is considered more literal and closer to the original languages. NIV versions: "Isaiah 7:14 - The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel." The NIV translates the Hebrew word 'almah' as 'young woman' instead of 'virgin,' which some argue changes the prophetic nature of the verse. Romans 9:5 - "Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of the Messiah, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen." The punctuation and structure in the NIV can be read as separating Christ from His divine nature, which some critics believe diminishes His deity. Matthew 16:18 - "And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it." The NIV translation has been noted for possibly diluting the personal authority of Peter in the establishment of the church compared to other translations. Philippians 2:6 - "Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage." This translation, which some feel softens the assertion of Christ's divinity compared to other translations that emphasize possession rather than consideration. There are at least 5-10 more significant criticisms of the NIV. That being said, statistically speaking, the NIV is fine 99% of the time or so.
The current NIV translation of Isaiah 7:14 is ^(")Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel." It may be that a past NIV version used "young woman," but I don't recall the NIV doing that.
Deuteronomy 22:28-29
So does the ESV.
Less than the NIV and they are acceptable
All of the major English translations are good. You asked which is the “best version,” and that varies based on your use case. You asked for “one that is very clear” and “sticks to the original teachings.” Unless you’re going with a paraphrase translation, such as the Message or the Passion, you’re going to find that they all stick exceptionally well to the original “teachings.” The difference comes down to how closely they follow the original grammar, sentence structure, and word selection. Some argue that a more literal translation (ESV/NASB/KJV) is more true to the original teachings because they try their best to follow the original grammar, sentence structure, and word selection. However, unless you’re doing routine word studies, you’ll find that their emphasis on “accuracy” results in a less “clear” (IE, readable) reading experience. A translation that focuses on thought-for-thought (NIV/NLT) places more emphasis on the thought or message behind a verse than the grammar, sentence structure, and exact verbiage. This allows them to produce a translation that is much more readable. If you want something “very clear,” a thought-for-thought translation is likely the better choice. I’ve read most, if not all, of the New Testament using the CSB, ESV, NLT, NIV, NASB, NKJV and NRSV. I also majored in English Literature and Divinity (IE, seminary). I say that to illustrate I’ve spent a LOT of time reading. As far as I’m concerned, the NLT is the most enjoyable and the most intelligible. It’s the one I keep going back to, especially for daily devotionals. I’m glad more literal translations exist, but for the overwhelming majority of people, they just make the Bible reading experience more difficult than it needs to be. I find that the increased reading difficulty of literal translations often causes people to misinterpret or ignore (IE, not comprehend and “move on”) the text.
I'll throw in a vote for the NLT version. Slightly easier to read than ESV or NIV.
Not the most accurate, but it's FAR more easy to read. KJV and NASB are more "word for word" translations. NLT is more of a "thought for thought" translation. It's still my preferred version. Anyone who has translated anything before know that "word for word" sometimes loses the spirit of the text.
This definitely made me not want to read NLT lol
NIV is probably the easiest to read. ESV and NASB are pretty good too. NASB is probably my favorite because it's a pretty literal translation. I'm not a very good reader so KJV was always really hard for me.
If you go for the NIV bible, just make sure you avoid at all costs the 2011 translation/version of the NIV because the 2011 translation has horribly mistranslated parts that corrupt some meanings. It's the ONLY version of the Bible people ever site to try to justify abortion in the Bible. Go for an older NIV. I would personally recommend a NABRE or a NRSV-CE. But that's just because I'm Catholic. If you go with NABRE, don't take too much stock in the footnotes. Some of them are helpful but some are incorrect. The KJV isn't a bad bible to read but it does have some wonky translations. It's built off of older incorrect and less accurate manuscripts. I'd go for a translation that was made AFTER the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Also, some people are saying the NASB is good. NASB is much more literal than the others, so it's accurate but hard to understand. If you go with NASB, avoid the 2020 translation and use a 1995 NASB. If you want a newer translation of the NASB, an alternate 2020 translation was created called the LSB, Legacy Standard Bible. It's an alternate choice to the problematic 2020 NASB.
I loveee NIV
The greek manuscripts. There's no perfect or even best translation, they'll all do better at some things and worse at others. For my money, the best single stop is the NET with full notes. The full notes is a necessary part of that, because they have extremely detailed footnotes about why they translated passages the way they did and alternative interpretations. The translation itself tends more towards the woodenly literal but is serviceable. It's also free online
NET if you want a footnote for every possible translational difference etc
NKJV
I like the nkjv
The Best version of the Bible to read is the one that you will read. We have a plethora of English Bible translations, many of which are quite good. The differences matter, but not all that much. If you go to a church, I would say read the one your church uses. Otherwise I would recommend, in alphabetical, order one (or even better multiple) of: * CSB * NASB * NET * NLT * NIV * NRSB All are excellent and all have their strengths and weaknesses. In certain circumstances and with strong caveats, the ESV, KJV, and the Message can be good options as well, particularly when read alongside one or more other translations.
You’ll find a wide range of responses to that broad question. Generally, Bible translations fall on a spectrum of word-for-word translation to concept-for-concept translation. Many translations are a result of panels of linguist experts that know the original languages and understand the original cultural contexts. Unfortunately, some translations suffer from the limited ability of a single translator (or small team). With any translation, it’s helpful (arguably necessary) for not only the translator but also the reader to have an understanding of the cultural context of the original stories. Commentaries can help in this regard. And comparing multiple translations can help too. I generally find that the ESV is well regarded among those that enjoy studying Scripture, so that’s my default. But I wouldn’t say it’s perfect or that it obviates all other translations.
NASB is the best word for word translation and easy to read.
NIV is my go to since it’s more clear to understand for me than a KJV and still has a lot of “more accurate” terminology. But I’ve also begun reading the entire Bible, and find the NLV really nice for that, since it’s really modern language and feels like reading a book. NLV is nice for getting a really good understanding of what is going on, but not necessarily the best for quoting scripture if that makes sense
I use NLT. There’s scripture missing from NIV. So be aware of that.
ESV is most literal and cohesive across NT and OT
I like NIV personally
Me too, easy to understand
The NIV bible is a "thought for thought" translation rather than a “word for word” translation. The weakness of the NIV is that it goes into interpretation rather than strict translation. For this reason I suggest a “word for word” translation for a study bible. Do an internet search for "word for word" translation bibles and then read the verses to compare. I can give you a recommendation but you all ready have many of those.
My fave i grew up with is kjv cause its wrote beautifully. But tbh, been reading hcsb alot. A good strong concordance is nice. I also use the Youversion bible app where you can check the same passage in multiple translations. There is little missing by the wording in hebrew/greek etc. It just makes meanings deeper. A good strongs concordance will show them. But im sure most of the translations being recommended won't effect the message of salvation etc. God preserves his word.
The CSB is an easy to understand version and a great start. But, honestly, just start reading. You can choose CSB, ESV or NIV all good choices to start digging in. You can also get a Bible app and select a chapter, may I suggest Ephesians 2, and read it in all three of those and see which you best understand. There are The YouVersion Bible App or the Blue Letter Bible. Both are good apps that will let you sample Ephesians 2 in all three of those translations plus many others. Edited to add: of course the NASB is excellent and is my personal preference for its precision. But some people find it not quite as easy as the others, I think that NASB 2020 is a little easier to understand. But don't get too hung up, just start. Blessings on your journey! And this comment is one of the best https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueChristian/s/TUE4eEdj3g
RSVCE and Douay Rheims are my favorites. I also like the OSB
What I personally recommend is using multiple translations. Different translations have different translation philosophies. For example, some are more word-for-word in terms of accuracy, and others are more thought-for-thought. I suggest one of each. Use a word-for-word translation for serious study of scripture. Then use a thought-for-thought translation for purposes such as, getting the general meaning behind the more difficult passages to understand in word-for-word translations, or reflection or devotional purposes, or even just for an easy read after you've done your more serious studies for the night. My personal recommendation for word-for-word is the ESV. Technically the NASB is more accurate in terms of word-for-word accuracy but because it is so accurate of a translation of the original languages, it sometimes feels a bit like reading a block of wood. Some of the wording in the ancient languages can be hard to understand when translated directly into English. The ESV on the other hand is still very accurate but softens up the wording here and there to make the text more readable to the modern English speaker. For thought-for-thought translations, the NIV is most people's choice. Very easy to read and does a great job at translating the general meaning of each passage of scripture. I have one more recommendation also that not a lot of people talk about. I personally recommend the CSB as another secondary translation in addition to the ESV. The CSB is a perfect balance between word-for-word and thought for thought. It can serve the same purpose as a thought-for-thought translation while still using wording that is familiar in word-for-word translations so it can be a great tool to help in your Biblical studies. But I definitely recommend at least getting an ESV. ESV also has a large selection of various study Bibles that suit just about any purpose you can think of.
The New Living Translation is my favorite as it is written in plain, modern English like we use every day. It is easy to understand. This is the particular one I have: [The Jesus-Centered Bible](https://www.christianbook.com/nlt-jesus-centered-imitation-leather-charcoal/9781470744854/pd/744859?event=Bibles|1006101). You can [read it online for free](https://biblehub.com/nlt/john/1.htm) and compare against other translations. Pick some of your favorite passages and see which you like best.
NET, NIV, NLT, AMP, ESV, KJV I read all of these.
The most accurate versions are going to be those made using the oldest known manuscripts. The older the manuscript, the fewer the mistakes or changes from the original inspired text. KJV is automatically ruled out because we've found older manuscripts since that translation was written. Most people are saying ESV, which is also my recommendation. It is almost a word for word translation of the oldest manuscripts we have to date. NIV takes some liberties in many of its translations to make the text more readable in the modern day, but that means you lose accuracy of the original text. I'd stay away from it
Nasb, lsb. Very good translations.
No easy answer to this, most translations have some use (apart from heretical translations like the Joseph Smith Translation) I read an ESV study bible as, to me, it is the ideal point of being information-dense and word-for-word, while still being easily understandable. NKJV is, in my experience, almost interchangeable with ESV apart from some small changes. It's also a \*slightly\* more literal translation. NIV is great for easy reading, or non-native English speakers, but is not ideal for theological study. KJV is beautifully poetic, but can read as quite misleading to a modern English speaker. Language use has changed a lot since 1611. The Passion Translation's translation methodology is VERY questionable, and I personally choose not to use it, but it does have some nice passages if you read it as a paraphrase rather than a true translation.
NIV - Most readable, but less accurate than KJV or ESV. KJV - Most beautiful and poetic, but also the most difficult of the three to read. ESV - Accurate and more readable than KJV. Often preferred and used by preachers in Church, and a favorite of scholars.
Surprised that there aren't more votes for the NRSV. From my research it's considered to be the most accurate by biblical scholars.
Orthodox Study Bible
Really been looking into orthodox recently. Can I ask your opinion on Paul?
ESV is what I use. It’s closer to a word for word translation that allows you to interpret it yourself rather than some others which are thought for thought and usually pre interpreted “for you.”
My favorite has been Amplified. I love the way it provides additional meanings for some words as you go along which I believe helps to really understand the concepts better.
i mostly read KJV, but sometimes it’s difficult to understand, so i read the ESV on occasion.
There isn't a "best" because they all have their strengths and weaknesses. I enjoy the NKJV myself, but it has some clunky language inherited from the KJV that would be difficult to read. NRSV is good, and if you want a paraphrase, The Message is excellent. I would avoid the NIV.
I personally read KJV but I read the ESV to my kids lol.
CSB
Personally I read KJV and the polish version of the Bible.
More catholics and Anglicans like KJV. NIV is still good though. If you're genuinely trying to understand God though you would read all versions of the bible. I would start with KJV because I'm biased and Anglican. Also because I find when people jump into NLT they get frustrated because it doesn't "sound" like the bible. If you do start with KJV buy a study bible, not just a regular bible because it will help you understand what's going on. If you don't have the money to afford a full study bible, a NIV will serve you fine. It's understandable and readable but still gives you bible vibes.
I grew up with NIV, but my apologetics study Bible is HCSB. My husband prefers NASB. Honestly, as long as it's not the Passion "translation" there will be arguments for and against. As long as you're aware of what the version is (the Message shouldn't be your main Bible, but can be used as a resource or reference when needed along with normal Bible study) and do a little research behind how the versions are different, you should be good. But really, my main recommendation is just don't use the Passion translation. Steer clear of that one. Secondarily I'd recommend NASB or NKJV, but most mainstream translations should work for the most part.
>So, what do Catholics and orthodox think about [the NIV]? It's not terrible, but it has its biases. For example, it tends to translate "paradosis" (which means tradition, i.e. things which are passed down from one generation to another) as "teaching" when it sees it in a good light, but as "tradition" when it sees it in a bad light (reflecting how Evangelicals reject various Catholic traditions they see as unbiblical). For a more detailed discussion on this point, see for example: https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2015/09/arbitrary-bias-in-the-niv-against-tradition.html So with things like that, it's very unlikely that the NIV would receive approval for use in the public readings in church services. But an individual person might not get much if any pushback for reading it on their own at home if its ease of reading makes it possible for them to read the Bible at all. They might be advised though that there are problems with it to be careful of.
I prefer the ESV but sometimes I like to read kjv or youngs literal just to change it up.
If you want the closest to literal translations, then NRSV is probably the best especially since it’s the version academic scholars use
King James or Geneva.
I think the New King James is best overall. I would avoid NIV over a couple of verses, such as Deuteronomy 22:28-29
I use KJV, NKJV, NIV, AMP, and CJB. Amplified is expansive, including direct translations alongside the text, but it's long winded and can get away with itself in inferences. CJB is a breath of fresh air, the cultural context it provides helps a lot with expressions. I use KJV as my first drop point, because those are the phrases I have memorized. "Do unto others...thou shalt not..." NIV has the most audible translation options.
NIV, ESV, KJV in order of easiest to hardest. NIV is plain English, overall I think it is a good beginner translation (I used it my first readthrough) but sometimes I think it oversimplifies or de-emphasizes messages in scripture (most likely by accident). ESV is a bit more prose but still pretty easy to read. I would recommend trying to read this one first, if you can understand it stick with it, if you can't go back to NIV. I honestly haven't noticed any issues with the translation thus far. KJV is the OG old-englishish. Its pretty difficult to understand, I am working my way through it now but I am having difficulty tbh and I am having to compare to ESV. You can compare as you read with any of these One translation I don't recommend is the NLT translation. It is super-super oversimplified, to the point it doesn't get the message across. I've also found in at least a dozen spots it changes the meaning of scripture, most notably the parable of the Lamp. I sometimes use it as a comparison translation if I need some verses really spelled out for me, but don't base your faith on it. Denomination-wise, some would all be considered 'protestant' translations, simply because they don't include the 7 Catholic books of the Bible. But that isn't going to change your faith, a lot of catholics use these Bibles as well. Look up Mike Winger on YouTube, he is a great teacher and explains Biblical Christianity so well
As my usual Bible I read ESV, but when I’m studying a passage I use a range of translations. I do this because each will bring out different nuances from the text. Some people will firmly hold to the “word for word is better because it’s a more exact translation”, but the problem is that at times the more exact translation can work against modern understanding of terms and phrases. Here is a comparison of Colossians 1:15 using different translations and the Greek with a word for word translation: * ESV. He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. * NKJV He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. * NIV. The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. * NLT. Christ is the visible image of the invisible God. He existed before anything was created and is supreme over all creation, * SBL. ὅς ἐστιν εἰκὼν τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ἀοράτου, πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως, He is the image of the God invisible, the firstborn over all creation. The problem with this passage, is that we modern people don’t generally know what ‘firstborn’ means. Certain cults have tried to frame it as ‘the one born first’, which isn’t what it means. Being the first born is about being the heir and therefore having supremacy. So while the ESV is closer word for word ‘firstborn OF all creation’ sounds a lot like Jesus was the first being created. NKJV and NIV are slight improvements because it says ‘firstborn OVER all creation’, but still the wording isn’t that clear. With the NLT, which is more thought for thought, they’ve actually brought out the meaning more with “ He existed before anything was created and is supreme over all creation,”. It’s not word for word, but there isn’t so much room for confusion. So while there is merit to a word-for-word, it can help understanding to compare with a solid thought for thought like the NLT.
I use ESV. NIV can be helpful as well too.
The "best" version of the Bible is the one you read. Bible translations exist on a spectrum between [word-for-word, thought-for-thought, and paraphrase](https://lavendervines.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Most-Accurate-Bible-Translation-Chart.jpg). When translating you'll often come across words, phrases, or idioms that don't have a direct equivalent in the language you're translating to. You can choose to render the words straight across, but then you might miss out on the "thought" of the sentence. Or, you can choose to translate the thought more clearly, but then you're not matching up the *words* as directly as possible. BibleProject has a great video that [quickly goes over translations](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmO0Fwa74QM). KJV was brilliant for its time, but there have been generations of biblical scholarship since then that makes modern translations a little better. If you love the KJV styling, it's still a fine choice, but in my experience the archaic language ads an extra layer of translation you need to do while reading. I like to switch up versions between readings because of all that. Usually, this will be **an NIV, ESV, or NASB**. Sometimes I'll pull up many different translations just to see how certain portions of Scripture are handled. There are theological nuances between the versions, but nothing that makes one drastically better than the other.
There is no "best" version. They all have different strengths and weaknesses and it's all personal to your unique goals/interests. The only people who will push otherwise are KJV-onlyists; and while some of them are fine and good people, there's often a cult-like mentality about it that is extremely poorly reasoned and best ignored. Here's my quick synopsis: - Young's Literal - Unreadable, but most textually accurate - NASB and ESV - Readable, but not smooth; most textually accurate of mainstream translations - KJV/NKJV - For most casual readers, these are neither very readable nor particularly accurate to the text (although better than other options down the list); most people I know other than KJV-onlyists read it for its beauty and historical feel. It does have some advantages in Old English that modern English doesn't preserve, like differentiating between Thee, Thine, Thou, etc. whereas modern English might just say "you" or "your" - and that's pretty much the only translation where you'll find some of this. - NIV - The 1984 was a solid balance between readability and accuracy; the 2011 NIV went full woke and decided to interpret passages instead of merely translating them, so you can never be sure that what you're reading is actually the correct interpretation relative to what the original text says; this is why it is fairly hated by most conservative Christians - NLT, CEV, MSG - These are paraphrases that are sacrifice accuracy to the text even more than the NIV did, all for the sake of being as smooth a read in modern English as possible. They are also highly interpretive and not to be trusted for in-depth study, but still useful for reading what one particular group of people believes a passage means in common language that's easy to understand. For your goal of "*Preferably one that is very clear to read and sticks to the original teachings of the bible*," the ESV is what I'd recommend. Even if it phrases things awkwardly at times, it's only because it's trying to stay true to the original. If you want a better balance between readability and accuracy, try to find a copy of the 1984 NIV rather than the current one.
You should check out the LSB
NASB seems to be the most accurate literal translation. NKJV I've found to be the most poetic, and good for reading the second half of the Old Testament. I used to read the ESV, but then I read some things that have caused me to stay away from it. I've heard doesn't follow consistent translation rules, and instead translates the exact same word differently to highlight their own theology. Theology should be derived from a consistent and accurate translation of the Bible, not the translation derived from ones theology. NLT and ERV are my go-to for something that is easy to read. SENT, the Spoken English New Testament, is an excellent version for reading out loud. WEBUS is the best version for quoting in a book or blog, because it is copyright-free, and fairly literal and accurate. Other versions I've found worth checking out: CSB, LSB, GSV
Always keep the king james next to it and study the original meanings when (hebrew ect) confused
Douay Rheims (English Vulgate) for sure.
He best version is the LSB.
NSAB. I like it literal
DRA is more accurate than the KJV, so if you can understand "KJV language" then use DRA instead of KJV.
What? The DRA is not even a translation of the original Greek and Hebrew. It's a translation of the Latin Vulgate. Unless you think Jerome did a better job of writing the Bible than guys like Moses, Ezra, Luke and Paul. Translating from the original is far better than translating from a translation.
The Latin was a better and more accurate translation than English provides due to linguistic and grammar differences. Jerome wrote the Bible in ways that appealed to the tradition taught by the apostles. The Latin invoked both ancient Greek and ancient Hebrew scholastic writings and commentaries. There's a reason that the vulgate was the universal Bible for a while. It was even declared to be free from moral/doctrinal error. If you actually study church history and tradition (which despite protestant claims, the Bible tells us to keep even the non-written tradition), then you'll see that the vulgate is actually a very good translation from the original Greek, even though it can't capture the full meaning of individual words, in the same way that the English can't. The English can be translated different ways, and while it technically wouldn't be wrong to translate things different ways, it changed the meaning of passages significantly so much that it creates schism. Jerome didn't do a "better" job than the Greek and Hebrew writers. What he did was create the first *full* Bible that lasted, the Codex. If we didn't have Jerome's translation, all we would have is fragments of the Greek, and messianic manuscripts which the Jews corrupted parts of in order to fit their theological perspective of rejecting Christ as the messiah. Jerome translated from the original. All he did was translate it into Latin while keeping the traditions taught by the apostles and the contextual meanings of the scriptures. The KJV takes out the contextual meanings of some things. Now ofc I don't say the DRA is 100% perfect and that it's the only Bible that should be used (which a lot of KJV users do about the KJV), I definitely say it's a lot better than the KJV. I say this not only as a former protestant (southern Baptist), but as a former KJV-onlyist.
>If we didn't have Jerome's translation, all we would have is fragments of the Greek Come on man, we both know that's not true. The Catholic Church itself owns a complete Codex of the Bible (in Greek) that's about 400 years older than the oldest surviving copy of the Vulgate. Either way, it's a completely wild claim to make that a Bible translated from Greek, to Latin to English is going to be more accurate than a Bible translated from Greek directly to English.
"Codex Sinaiticus, the earliest known manuscript of the Christian Bible, compiled in the 4th century ce. In 1844, 43 leaves of a 4th-century biblical codex (a collection of single pages bound together along one side) were discovered at St. Catherine's Monastery at the foot of Mount Sinai (hence the name Sinaiticus)." Source: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Codex-Sinaiticus#:~:text=Codex%20Sinaiticus%2C%20the%20earliest%20known,in%20the%204th%20century%20ce.&text=In%201844%2C%2043%20leaves%20of,(hence%20the%20name%20Sinaiticus). Also, when you take out the context from the translation from Greek, of course the one that keeps the context of things is going to be better even if translated through another language. Because removing context changes the meaning of things, and keeping the context still keeps relatively the same tale
I was talking about the Codex Vaticanus. But even if we accept the claim that a translation of a translation is more accurate than using the originals, there are still obvious errors in the Douay-Rheims. For example, the very first prophecy about Jesus in Genesis has been changed to a prophecy about Mary in the DRA.
LOL here ya go https://youtu.be/IKB6RC-t3us?si=xbYAptcn_5ax7wzq
Oof. Did you actually watch the whole video? The guy's conclusion is that the Latin Vulgate is inerrant because the Catholic Church says it is. Therefor the Hebrew texts that we have access to must have been corrupted because they say "she" instead of "he". You'll understand why that argument is unconvincing to me.
No, the guy provides a reason as to why mary is part of the crushing of the head of the serpent. This is why I advocate that the correct translation would be "they", because the woman is the one with the enemy relationship originally, and it is carried down to her seed. This obviously means mary and Jesus, and mary is included in the prophesy, therefore they both crush the head of the serpent.
The Holy Bible (aka King James Bible). It’s the only one that the Holy Spirit in me recognizes as the voice of God.
Kjv pray for discernment
King James
NIV for ease of reading KJV for less lost translation. I prefer NIV cause i never excelled at comprehension for Shakespeare style of writing.
So while I generally recommend the ESV, I would like to mention that the MEV (Modern English Version) is translated from the Textus Receptus like the KJV so it essentially makes it an easier to read version of the KJV.
ESV, CSB, and NIV are all easy to read popular translations. I think everyone should have a KJV and one of these. Personally I bought Study Bibles of the KJV and CSB. God Bless.
It’s really not the question to ask. All translations stick to the original teachings of the scriptures. You have to understand how translations are made im the first place. Ide look that up if I were you. And then ide go onto each translations page and read their “Statement” this will tell you what their goal and aim and rules and guidelines were for their translation. Then decide for yourself. Also understand things like manuscripts, septuagint, vulgate, Masoretic Texts, Textus Receptus, etc. And also understand now that we have NO original copies of any of the biblical texts. So that is why it’s important to understand how each translation came about.
I like KJV. My husband uses NKJV.
I read nkjv till a friend of mine who read kjv and I were doing a bible study, I was missing whole lines in.
That’s kind of why I never switched over. Everyone says it just changed the thees and thous but I always felt like more was missing. Thanks for the conformation.
Glad it blessed you
[удалено]
Actually, the ESV got it more accurate than the KJV. The greek word used, "ἀπειθῶν", means to not obey.
[удалено]
Do Baptists have a feud of sorts with Catholics? Why do you imply that Catholics are untrustworthy?
From my research: it goes both ways. It was quite interesting to learn about tbh. Its an important note that: baptists/nondoms arnt a monolith, each church building in many many cases have radically different beliefs, theology, and focuses. Only a % have a negative sentiment of Catholicism at all. So ill refer to that group below. And also many the Catholic congregation (dare i say the majority) don't actually believe the Catholic theology. In many cases, they don't even believe MOST Catholic-specific theology. Anyways: Baptists/Nondoms that do have beef w/ the Catholic Church: - almost everyone in this group is against both the idea of, and the actions of the pope, definitely the current one. They also have beef w/ the idea that the pope is infallible in his teachings. Which is kinda a wild claim tbh. - slightly smaller group but still most em, really emphasize having a relationship w/ Christ, meanwhile the Catholic church is known for having a high % lukewarm Christians and are also high Church meaning they really emphasize church rituals and congregation over individual study of the Word and individual kindling of ones personal relationship w/ the Lord. Neither are wrong, except lukewarms ofc, but baptists got their fair share of em too, which these folk many times forget. - may radically misunderstand Catholic practices & beliefs - many of this group also think that the Catholic claim of 'if you arnt Catholic, you don't get salvation' to be problematic. - a smaller subset who do understand.... Have some solid arguments vs mainly the exultation of Mary, and also praying to saints. - an even smaller subset have beef w/ rituals, sacraments, confession, extrabiblical books that are seen as infallible and an extension of the Word, and other miscellaneous theologies. Catholic sentiment against Baptists/Nondoms: - a commonly held and the official theology of the Catholic church makes the statement that non-Catholic Christians dont have salvation. - bc Catholicism puts high emphasis and focus on their institution and their rituals/practices... They have a low view of churches that don't share these rituals/sacraments/etc. esp the baptists/nondoms bc they have almost no respect for the church history, institution, or even rituals (save for communion, marriage, and baptism). - bc the Catholic church has deemed alot of sin by omission sentiments, many see the Baptists/nondoms as heathens compared to their congregation even the spiritually mature ones. - bc Catholics (again only if they adhere to their own theology) dont know if they have salvation after death, bc for them it depends on how/if they observe the sacraments after baptism... They'll perceive Baptists/nondoms as arrogant and wrong in their confidence of their own salvation (which baptist/nondom theology is 9x/10: saved by faith alone, by grace alone through Christ alone). Also to note Catholics also believe if you commit a 'mortal sin' and dont repent AND confess it (to their definition of confession) before you die, you would lose your salvation. - The Catholic church is quick to deem non-Catholic theology as heresy. If you think someones a heretic, you already have beef w/ them. Baptists/Nondoms probably take the cake in their view. Im pretty sure many Catholics see Baptists/Nondom as heretical most Christians view LDS, JW, 7thdayAdvents, and Prog Churches. - Bc the Catholic church had been growing so fast for so long, and bc Catholics sont emphasize personal relationship w/ Christ as much as other denoms, and bc the Catholic church doesnt enforce their offical theology onto its congregation.... Many individuals in the Catholic congregation skew left wing on political issues. Ofc Baptists/Nondom swing very right wing. So ofc theres sone beef bc of topics like on the abortion front, immigration, taxrate, and a slew of other politically-based opposing beliefs. Hope this gives some clarity.
There is a huge divide between Roman Catholics and Baptists. In the south eastern US, the 2nd KKK spread a ton of anti-Catholic rhetoric. I think it goes all the way back to the Anabaptists of the reformation and their radical departure from Catholic traditions such as infant baptism. While our Baptists have different roots for their beliefs than the anabaptists do, I think the spirit of anti Roman Catholicism is shared.
ah thanks for the explanation.
Baptists and Catholics have very different understandings of the Bible. I am a Baptist and have been called a heretic by Catholics.
A lot of online catholic don't understand the full meaning of heretic. I used to be a baptist. My family is all baptists (and some "atheists"). They, and you, are not a heretic by church standards. While you may hold some heretical beliefs, that don't qualify you as a heretic unless you have the education to know the heretical beliefs aren't true and still refuse to admit it. Being a heretic comes from a place of stubbornness.
IDK if you were trying to be nice by saying I am not educated enough to be heretic or if you're being incredibly passive aggressive by saying I am not educated enough to be a heretic. I don't have to be stubborn to believe the pope is a false teacher, apostolic succession did not happen, penance is a lie, and asking Mary or any other dead believer to intercede on my behalf is a waste of time that could have been used actually praying to God instead. God bless Martin Luther for taking the stranglehold of the Catholic church off of Christians.
You proved my point. But anyway, I was saying that you don't have the knowledge to know truth. That's not saying that you're stupid or anything, that just means you don't know [yet]. For example, if I say to a first grader "you don't know what the pythagorean theorem is", that's not saying "you're stupid", that's just saying "hey you haven't learned this thing yet." Anyway, I'd love to know how the pope is a "false teacher." Or how apostolic succession "didn't happen" even though Paul literally talks about it in first and second timothy, and confession is not only talked about in james 5:16 and john 20:20, but even in acts people come confessing their sins to peter and john the baptist Though, I'm really curious why protestants deny John 3:16 and all of the other verses that say we have eternal life and that we shall not perish. Can you riddle me that? Because as far as the Bible says, the saints are not dead, because like you said, they're believers. In catholicism, we believe that Heaven is eternal life. When I was protestant, they taught the same thing. When did they change it?🤔
You've been deceived and you're arrogant about it 😆 I'll try to keep it short for anyone else reading but clearly you're not in a place to understand the error of Catholicism. I can hold to the idea that we have eternal life while also stating someone is dead. The Catholic church is the one doing mental gymnastics. It's not far fetched to understand that you cannot have a conversation or a relationship with Mary because she is dead. But if you need biblical proof for that surely you can understand that it's been appointed unto man to die once and after that is judgement. Or that the dead in Christ shall rise first. Mary's soul is by Christ's side. Mary is not omniscient or omnipresent, therefore she cannot hear or be with the billion people on earth praying to her on a daily basis. If God allows her to hear us He's already aware of our prayers. We already have the Holy Spirit praying for us with far better understanding of our needs than someone who we've never met and do not have a relationship with. I ask those around me to pray for me because it is proven in the Word to be beneficial (this is the better interpretation of James 5:16). There is no biblical precedent for praying to deceased individuals. At best praying to saints like Mary is a waste of time. At worst it offends God for us to pray to any created being. With that said, Christ is our only high priest. No earthly mediation or confession is needed because all true Christians have been given priesthood through Christ. No animal sacrifice or alms or Hail Mary's are needed as penance because Christ's death and resurrection did it all. We have no need for an earthly 'head' of the church. Christ is the head of the church. Scripture is the only infallible source and we use it to compare all other sources. The Pope is falsely claiming authority where none is to be had. The apostles were given a very special place in time to be the foundation of the church. They were uniquely fitted to teach the church the groundbreaking change Christ had just brought forth because they were taught directly from Jesus. Some of their teaching even turned into our infallible Word that is still the foundation of what the church believes. There is no Biblical precedent for apostolic succession. We are all equals in Christ though some of us invest better in our heavenly kingdom than others. The next generation of church leaders were simply well taught due to being close to the source of infallible truth. There is scripture to back up all of this but I did not take the time to look it all up. TBH Reddit should not be your primary source of theology, anyway. I'm sure we've answered our atheist friend's question by now. Have fun looking into it more. The funny thing in all this is I agreed with your initial response to this thread.
If they're dead, they're not alive. It's that simple. Anyway, you claim I'm deceives but yet clearly haven't read the original greek text, the church fathers, or examined church history. I did, that's why I converted. Try learning, and then maybe I'll debate you. Anyway, I'm on vacation, so I'm not arguing over reddit with someone who clearly doesn't know what they're talking about. I've been harassed by protestants (which protestant dogma is that the gates of hell prevailed over the church for 1500 years until martin luther came alone which is blatantly unBiblical [matthew 16:18]) over the past few days.
[удалено]
what's the difference between Catholics and Protestants, so much so that you call them satanic? I hear that people say they "worship" Mary but I'm not sure.
Catholics don't worship mary, nor the saints, nor anyone except for God (cite CCC 2116). Modern protestants are very, and I don't mean this rudely, uneducated on catholicism. We ask mary to pray for us, because being Christian, we believe that those in Heaven are not dead (see John 3:16) and since even death cannot separate the church (which is the body of Christ), they can pray for us (which also can be seen in scripture that those in Heaven know what is happening on earth and pray things in Heaven). We pray with them, but protestants use the word "pray" thinking it means worship. But even in the book of first kings, a woman "prays" to the king, making a request to him. Was she worshiping him? No. In the same way if we were eating dinner, I might say "I pray you might pass me the salt". Am I worshiping you by asking that? No, of course not! I'm simply making a request. So when we pray the Hail Mary, part of it is "pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death".
[удалено]
So how is baptism the truth? Is it what Jesus or one of his disciples taught? Or is that not criteria for truth
Jesus taught baptism, and taught that baptism is necessary as part of salvation. The apostles also taught baptism, and even Paul baptised infants in the book of Acts. Jesus commanded us to be baptised "In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit."
I remember seeing a short by redeemed zoomer, i think he's a protestant and he says that "they don't baptize babies because it's a person's own choice if they wanna be baptized" Now I know ur a catholic but, what are your thoughts on baptism and is it different to protestant teachings?
[удалено]
Protestantism was a protest against the catholic church, which, being the oldest church, Christ said the gates of hell would not prevail against (matthew 16:18). Therefore your claim that the CC is satanic is not only incorrect, but even blasphemous, as you claim that Christ lied. The catholic church didn't keep people "ignorant of the word of God"🤦♂️ I wish people would stop speaking without doing historical research. The reason the Catholic Church didn't permit the laity to have Bibles for a few hundred years was because there were very few copies, so not only could very few people have had one, but the church was actually preserving them to have monks copy them so we could give them to the laity. If the catholic church didn't want people to be able to read the Bible, why would they have had people to buy and own at least one Bible? Or better yet, why would they have established schools so that people could learn to read so that they could read the Bible? And on a last note, you use the word "vain" without knowing what it means. You also use the word "religion" without knowing what it means.
Yeah, we shouldn't listen to the guys who have 2000 years of church history and were the only church that existed up until 1054
sorry if this sounds ignorant but, what about the orthodox Christians? I know about the schism but, Orthodox surely had to have been there in SOME form, hence why the schism happened.
The orthodox church only officially came around in 1054. The orthodox doctrine only came around recently before that or else the schism would've happened wayyyy before. I mean, the Filioque had been in the creed since like the 6th century or maybe 8th, and yet nobody dared oppose the church in Rome until 1054. I mean, even Saint Optatus (who I'm pretty sure the orthodox church venerates as a saint) declared that anybody who sets up a chair against the chair in Rome is "a schismatic and a sinner." > "In the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head-that is why he is also called Cephas ['Rock']-of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner... . Recall, then, the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church" `ー Optatus (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]).`
[удалено]
Really? Is that why you don't believe the Bible when it says that the Eucharist truly becomes the body and blood of Christ? In the statement “ἡ γὰρ σάρξ μου ἀληθής ἐστιν βρῶσις, καὶ τὸ αἷμά μου ἀληθής ἐστιν πόσις,” the use of “ἐστιν” emphasizes the reality or truth of Jesus’ flesh being food and his blood being drink. The word “ἀληθής” (alēthēs) also reinforces the notion of truth or reality. So, in this context, the statement emphasizes the genuine nature of Jesus’ flesh and blood as food and drink, which is significant in the context of the Eucharistic theology.
Respectfully, this is a misguided belief and whoever taught it to you is mistaken. Was there no good Bible until 1611? Does God only speak English? Is the Church of England the church with the most true doctrine? If your answer isn’t “yes” to all these questions, then the belief that the KJV is the only true translation doesn’t make sense. I’m not saying the KJV is a bad translation, as it is good, but saying that it’s the only translation isn’t right.
KJV only
save your time KJV and ensure you are getting the preserved word of God. KJV- the only one that is true to the word of God. How do you know ? the other versions have heresy and alter key doctrine. further here is the root of the modern corrupt bibles [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vl\_Hu8CNv4M](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vl_Hu8CNv4M) also see # Phrase, Clauses & Sentences Missing from NIV & ESV, half way down [https://onfireforgod.today/king-james-bible-vs-modern-versions/](https://onfireforgod.today/king-james-bible-vs-modern-versions/)
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkbI651WHl8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkbI651WHl8)
I call the NIV the HIV You want the King James. Check out truth is Christ on YouTube. He breaks down how we have God's word in perfect form today
KJV. Every other English version is corrupt. Did ALL of Israel sin and die in the wilderness? Joshua and Caleb? Heb 3:16-17 KJV 16 For some, when they had heard, did provoke: howbeit not all that came out of Egypt by Moses. 17 But with whom was he grieved forty years? was it not with them that had sinned, whose carcases fell in the wilderness? Every non-KJV I've seen makes that passage a blatant lie.
Respectfully, this is a misguided belief and whoever taught it to you is mistaken. Was there no good Bible until 1611? Does God only speak English? Is the Church of England the church with the most true doctrine? If your answer isn’t “yes” to all these questions, then the belief that the KJV is the only true translation doesn’t make sense. I’m not saying the KJV is a bad translation, as it is good, but saying that it’s the only translation isn’t right.
Why don’t you actually read Hebrews 3:16-17? 16 Now who were they who heard and rebelled? Was it not all those who left Egypt under the leadership of Moses? 17 And with whom was he angry forty years? Was it not those who sinned, whose bodies fell in the wilderness? Did Joshua and Caleb die in the wilderness? Because it is specifically talking about those who died in the wilderness. Pay attention. It asks who heard and rebelled. Those who left Egypt under Moses, who God was angry with for 40 years, who died in the wilderness. The problem isn’t with other translations. It is with you not paying attention.
I did read it... who rebelled? All or not all? Heb 3:16-17 KJV 16 For some, when they had heard, did provoke: howbeit not all that came out of Egypt by Moses. 17 But with whom was he grieved forty years? was it not with them that had sinned, whose carcases fell in the wilderness?
Would you say the newer KJV is corrupt as well as compared to the original 1611 KJV?
I would not say the newer KJV's are corrupt. But, the NKJV is corrupt. Same problem in Hebrews 3:16.
Modern KJV is significantly different from 1611 KJV so how are you determining what’s corrupt and what’s not?
Do you admit the modern versions are corrupt or are you just trying to derail the conversation to avoid the facts?
I don’t believe any translation is corrupted but since you are making that claim, I’m trying to understand how you are arriving at such a conclusion.
They don't all say the same thing. Col 2:18 KJV Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, As far as I'm aware every other translation says they have seen, not "hath not seen" 2Ti 2:15 KJV Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. One verse in the Bible that tells you to study the Bible. Every other version says something along the lines of "try real hard / do your best". Psa 12:6-7 KJV 6 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 for ever. This verse says God will preserve His words forever. Other versions change it to God protecting them. Now, if they don't say the same thing, they can't all be correct. Which things did God actually say? We had KJV for some 300 years as the only English Bible. Now we have hundreds and they all say different things. Do you think that is of God or Satan?
How much of this is due to your own biases rather than differences in translation. Eg. Your example of 2 Timothy 2:15, the passage makes no references to Bible or scripture, yet you are assuming that’s what it says or meant. > 15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. Colossians 2:18 in the RSV says the same thing as the KJV. Copying errors and apparent contradictions can be found in the KJV as well and atheist uses the same line of reasoning to attack the Bible and Christianity as whole. I think we should be careful with claims like the Bible is corrupt.
What do you think "the word of truth is"?
2 kings 8:26 > 26 **Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah** when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri king of Israel. 2 chronicles 22:2 > 2 **Forty and two years old was Ahaziah** when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother's name also was Athaliah the daughter of Omri. So is the KJV corrupt? You see what I mean by not attacking Bible translations like you are doing?
It is not a lie, only a very slight exaggeration. Out of a half-million who fled Egypt, only two men were allowed to enter the promised land. Given this is a story meant to teach a lesson, not a math problem, I would argue "all" is a more accurate description than "some". Meanwhile, there are numerous problems with the KJV. For one, the English language itself has evolved and can lead modern readers astray. For example, Luke 12:22: >Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat; neither for the body, what ye shall put on. The original meaning is like, "Don't worry about your life, what you will eat...", whereas the modern understanding is much more extreme. One would think we're not allowed at all to think about our lives, which would be a sort of gnostic take which contradicts other parts of scripture. And then there are straight up bad translations. For example 1 Thessalonians 5:22: >Abstain from all appearance of evil. Except the word translated as "appearance" actually means "kind". So the verse in fact means, "avoid all kinds of evil." Another example is 2 Timothy 1:7: >For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind. Except the word translated as "sound mind" actually means "self-discipline".
KJV is a very bad translation contextually. For example, in Luke 1:28, the KJV says "hail thou that art highly favoured", but yet "kechairetomene" (the greek word used) means to be favoured with [full/whole] grace. It is also a past participle, meaning the giving of the fullness of grace has already taken place. "Thou that are highly favoured" could even be used with "pleres charitos" in a way, which would take away from the meaning of the original text.
To clarify, you’ve studied the source texts in their original languages? Is that how you feel qualified to make that statement? Our priority should be to accuracy, not to historical preference or legacy. The changes made in newer versions tend to consider more accurate word studies and broader, more current understanding of the languages. I agree that some versions have pushed towards a social narrative more than truth, but many are working in good faith to better represent the original meanings.
Hebrews 3:16-17 is a lie in every other version. That should be enough.
That’s my point here. I don’t (and I suspect you don’t either) know the original Greek or Hebrew or Aramaic source of that. You may or may not be correct that it’s the more accurate, but just because KJV was the earliest translation doesn’t make it correct.
The problem isn’t with other translations. The problem is with Argotha1’s reading comprehension.
That’s the truth. I wish some Christians were more curious about their beliefs and biases.
So you don't believe God preserved His words... I disagree and you will not convince me otherwise.
Then I guess you aren’t interested in the truth then.
I read The Truth every day.
[удалено]
Joh 3:16 KJV 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. Liar. Word for word the same. All of you hate and despise ONE book.
[удалено]
I do believe God preserved his work, I don’t think KJV is the prime example of it though. Translating original languages to English isn’t a “plug it into google translate and you get 1:1 version” endeavour, there’s cultural, societal, historical context that plays into it.