what bibletranslation to get?

The Textus Receptus or The Received Text is the only manuscript that is trustworthy. Krispy Kritter can offer so much more info on this subject, I am sure he'll put in his offering.

However, the bibles that are translated from the Textus Receptus is the KJV, Tyndales New Testament, and the Geneva Bible with the Reformers notes.

My recommendation would be the Geneva Bible, and you can check it out here:
[url=https://www.tollelegepress.com/store/product.php?productid=58]Geneva Bible[/url]

KJV brutha...

Krispy

i was thinking of getting the ESV or the Nasb or Nkjv what do you all recommend and why...

I primarily use the KJV translation of the bible, but I do use the NIV paraphrase at times. They are based of different manuscripts and the NIV is not a literal translation but rather paraphrase. But God blesses and uses this method for me to glean things that I pass by on the KJV.

'Call me King James Only! But only if....'

That was a [b]great[/b] thread. I recommend that one to anyone who has questions about translations.

Krispy

... some of the poetry of the bible is lost on the NIV and NASB.

Not to mention accuracy, among other things.

Krispy

I have taken two languages in school and I know from experience that when you translate something from one language to another, you lose some of the real meaning and wording every time. It's almost impossible to translate something from one language to another and get the exact same accurate meaning and wording in anything. The earliest translation you can get into English is probably the best. It contains more of the actual meaning of the original Word of God.

What you say is true, however, [b]ALL[/b] of the modern versions (NIV, NASB, LVT, ESV, etc) are translated from a completely different school of manuscripts from that of the Reformers Bibles, Tyndale, KJV. So you're not even reading the same thing when you read a KJV side by side with any modern version.

It's almost like reading a Spanish translation of a John Grisham novel, and a Spanish translation of a Frank Peretti novel, and calling it the same story. (thats a drastic analogy, but you can understand what I am saying)

Thats the heart of the issue. They are not the same Bibles... at all.

Secondly, I believe that God has preserved His Word. This means I do not necessarily believe that whole meanings were lost. I believe God had His hand on the translation into English in 1611 (and before that as well). Not in the same way He did when it was first written, meaning I dont believe the translators of the KJV were inspired as Paul was inspired, but I believe completely that God was in control.

When you have a known lesbian on the translation committee of the NIV (she did not keep it a secret from the others on the committee... this is a well documented fact), I find it hard to believe God was in control.

By the way, I believe there are many other reasons why the NIV and other modern versions should be rejected... but on a moral level, this is one reason that should be taken seriously, but is usually down played... as you will see on this thread shortly.

Krispy

By the way, one argument meant to shoot down people like me is "Well... the even the translators of the KJV recommend in the front of the KJV that the reader should consult other translations." Yes they did. However, at that time they did [b]not[/b] mean "other versions" based on "other manuscripts". They meant other translations of the Textus Receptus, which is good advice. But they had no intention of that meaning the NIV, NASB, etc.

At that time the manuscripts used (not all of them were known of at that time) for the modern versions were used to translate the Catholic "bible"... and the KJV translators would never had recommended what they considered "Catholic" manuscripts to their readers.

So someone says "well, the apographa (spell check, please) was in the 1611"... yes, it was. But only as historical, but not as scripture. The translators did not consider it to be inspired scripture. Thats why it was seperate from the OT and NT, and not intermingled.

Krispy

what also confuses me is people who say they don't understand it....when English is their native language?

The only people I have ever met who speak english as a mother tongue, and claim not to be able to understand the KJV are people who dont read the Bible on a regular basis, and have never read it all the way thru.

I dont mean to be hard on folks, but thats been my experience.

I can understand if english is your second language... in which case I recommend both the KJV, and a translation in your language based on the Textus Receptus, and the same Hebrew. However, a century ago the Bible was [b]central[/b] in teaching people english... both english speaking children in schools, as well as immigrants. But now we say "oh, they'll never understand the KJV." Thats a lie. A lie perpetrated by publishing companies.

Krispy

one thing i dont really get is....why do they consider thease other manuscripts "better" then the TR manuscripts?

Thats the million dollar question. Not only do the two main manuscripts comprising the "Alexandrian Text" (modern versions) contradict the Textus Receptus in many areas... they also contradict each other.

Krispy