Which Bible????

[OzarkWoman]

Why is it that many believe the KJV to be the truest interpretation, especially considering that there were many Bibles before the KJV, such as the Geneva one? Of course there are many more out there.

[phkrause]

Good question. For me, I don't like the KJV. Not that its a bad one, just don't like the way it reads. Very hard to understand. I agree there are many good Bibles and all of them have there pros and cons. If I'm not mistaken most of them have been translated from the Greek version, that was translated from the Hebrew. I like the Complete Jewish Bible the best, because its translated, by a Jew (Messianic Jew) that is well versed in Hebrew, Greek and Arimaic(sp), from the orignal Hebrew and Greek, etc. There is also an online Jewish Bible (OT) and also translated from the original manuscripts.

[OzarkWoman]

Good question. For me, I don't like the KJV. Not that its a bad one, just don't like the way it reads. Very hard to understand. I agree there are many good Bibles and all of them have there pros and cons. If I'm not mistaken most of them have been translated from the Greek version, that was translated from the Hebrew. I like the Complete Jewish Bible the best, because its translated, by a Jew (Messianic Jew) that is well versed in Hebrew, Greek and Arimaic(sp), from the orignal Hebrew and Greek, etc. There is also an online Jewish Bible (OT) and also translated from the original manuscripts.

WOW!! I also like the Jewish Bible.

I just bought, a couple weeks ago, the 1599 Geneva Bible and it is interesting. They left the misspellings and the English that was used back then. It also has commentaries by different church leaders of the time.

[phkrause]

WOW!! I also like the Jewish Bible.

I just bought, a couple weeks ago, the 1599 Geneva Bible and it is interesting. They left the misspellings and the English that was used back then. It also has commentaries by different church leaders of the time.

Not sure about the Geneva Bible, actually have never heard about it till right now. I guess I'll look it up. Wondering how and from where its been translated from.

[Gerr]

Why the KJV?

1. It's the Bible Paul used.

2. It's the only one inspired by the Holy Spirit.

3. It uses the official language of Christians.

[CoAspen]

Why the KJV?

1. It's the Bible Paul used.

2. It's the only one inspired by the Holy Spirit.

3. It uses the official language of Christians.

Unsure of what you mean by #3?.....well...#1 and #2 also. had not heard of that before!

[OzarkWoman]

Why the KJV?

1. It's the Bible Paul used.

2. It's the only one inspired by the Holy Spirit.

3. It uses the official language of Christians.

Paul?? Are you being sarcastic or what?

[phkrause]

Originally Posted By: Gerry Cabalo

Why the KJV?

1. It's the Bible Paul used.

2. It's the only one inspired by the Holy Spirit.

3. It uses the official language of Christians.

Unsure of what you mean by #3?.....well...#1 and #2 also. had not heard of that before!

Have to agree CoAspen. How could Paul have the KJV???? When the NT leaders had the Hebrew scrolls or as we call them the OT.

[Gerr]

No, not being sarcastic. Just wanted to make you smile. Didn't someone say the KJV was inspired? I say it's the preferred language of Christians because they like the archaic words and even use them when talking to God.

[Kevin H]

I could tell the humor. I heard a pastor tell a story when he once preached from a newer translation a woman stood up and said "I want you to preach from the Bible that Paul used!" and that she thought that it was Paul that used the KJV.

Today's argument is that the manuscripts that were used for the KJV are the only pure unadulterated text and that all the other manuscripts used in translations are corrupt.

A few issues: Archaeologists and Linguists say that at the time of Jesus there were a number of versions, but that it was even more confusing as there were 3 families of texts:

The Palestinian text, which was the Bible of the remnant in the land from the Babylonian attacks and who returned from the exile. This is the Bible Jesus used. The best known and most complete we have is the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Second is the Egyptian family. This was the family developed by those who when Babylon attacked, went to Egypt. Jeremiah told them not to go to Egypt, but they went anyway and formed a thriving community. It is from here that we know for sure about 457 BC, and where Mary and Joseph escaped when Herod killed the babies in Bethlehem. Had they listened to Jeremiah, Jesus would not have been able to escape... but again had they listened to Jeremiah, Jesus could have been born during the exile and set up the kingdom and not have to worry about Herod. The best known and most complete version in this family is the Septuagint. There is evidence that there were other versions in this family as well, including the Bible Paul used.

Third was the Babylonian family: This was the family that developed among those who did not go home after the exile. This was the Bible of the magi, and this is what has become our Bible. There was a well known Rabbi who had come to Jerusalem from Babylon soon after the time of Jesus. He liked the Bible he grew up with. As he used this Bible others became more aware of the Babylonian scriptures, and they liked how they recorded the ages of the patriarchs. In the Palestinian Family, if you added up the ages you would conclude that the world was 7,000 years old when Jesus came. About a century before Jesus, a Rabbi added up the ages and realized that the world was about to turn 7,000 years old. He began comparing the days of creation to the thousand of years that he figured the earth to be from adding the ages and said that the Messiah was going to come when the world was 7,000 years that it would be the Sabbath of the world. When Jesus came at that predicted time, the Jews who rejected him did not like that the 7,000 years pointed to Jesus. the way the ages were recorded in the Babylonian text had the world only about 4,000 years old, and brought the 7th thousand year away from Jesus. Thus this family of texts became very popular with Jews. Eventually this developed into the Masoretic text. Christians liked the Septuagint. When they wanted to start translating the Old Testament from the Hebrew, they turned to the Masoretic text, which is the Babylonian family. And thus the Babylonian Family of texts have become our Bible.

Now the books of the Prophets, the three families are virtually word for word in common. The few places where they are not are usually obvious copping errors. Although we now know that Jesus' sermon on the mount came from a text in Isaiah that we would not recognize from the Babylonian family that we use. However the other books have not been as close, like I mentioned that the age of the patriarchs had the age of the earth a couple thousand of years different, but there are no MAJOR theological differences between the texts.

[Gail]

The Geneva Bible was the one that came with the Pilgrim fathers on the Mayflower.

I have that and also a Tyndale one, and shortly will also have a Matthew's version. All of these were before the KJV.

I also sometimes refer to the Complete Jewish Bible and a Jewish study Bible for their side of certain subjects. If anything, a reference to several different versions from both Western and Eastern thought does well to enlarge my perspective. I enjoy them a lot.

[Kevin H]

The Geneva Bible was the one that came with the Pilgrim fathers on the Mayflower.

I have that and also a Tyndale one, and shortly will also have a Matthew's version. All of these were before the KJV.

I also sometimes refer to the Complete Jewish Bible and a Jewish study Bible for their side of certain subjects. If anything, a reference to several different versions from both Western and Eastern thought does well to enlarge my perspective. I enjoy them a lot.

There was also the bishop's Bible, but that was not very popular and the copies that exist I've read are in excellent condition, because it is so difficult to read.

The Geneva Bible was the very popular one. There were others in Europe, but usually either Protestant or Catholic with texts translated or notes added to attack the other. The King James Bible was made to be a compromise, not too Protestant, not too Catholic.

[Gerr]

The Geneva Bible was the one that came with the Pilgrim fathers on the Mayflower.

I have that and also a Tyndale one, and shortly will also have a Matthew's version. All of these were before the KJV.

I also sometimes refer to the Complete Jewish Bible and a Jewish study Bible for their side of certain subjects. If anything, a reference to several different versions from both Western and Eastern thought does well to enlarge my perspective. I enjoy them a lot.

And look how it corrupted the Pilgrims to persecute all the non-conformists to their beliefs. Had they used the KJV.....

[CoAspen]

No, not being sarcastic. Just wanted to make you smile. Didn't someone say the KJV was inspired? I say it's the preferred language of Christians because they like the archaic words and even use them when talking to God.

Thanks for the laugh!

[Kevin H]

Originally Posted By: Gail

The Geneva Bible was the one that came with the Pilgrim fathers on the Mayflower.

I have that and also a Tyndale one, and shortly will also have a Matthew's version. All of these were before the KJV.

I also sometimes refer to the Complete Jewish Bible and a Jewish study Bible for their side of certain subjects. If anything, a reference to several different versions from both Western and Eastern thought does well to enlarge my perspective. I enjoy them a lot.

And look how it corrupted the Pilgrims to persecute all the non-conformists to their beliefs. Had they used the KJV.....

Actually you are confusing the Pilgrims with the Puritans, I'd need to recheck my history, but since the Puritans were trying to work with in the Church of England, they may have had the KJV.

[Gerr]

Actually you are confusing the Pilgrims with the Puritans, I'd need to recheck my history, but since the Puritans were trying to work with in the Church of England, they may have had the KJV.

Indeed! My bad.