Derick Barker

commented on Mar 7, 2013

The NIV is not a good source. I hope that a place where you wish the translators made different chioces is in Isaiah 14:12 Lucifer is the the son of the morning. Not the Morning Star. The Morning Star is our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

David Williams

commented on Mar 7, 2013

Amen brother.

Chuck Tabor

commented on Mar 7, 2013

I have always answered those questions with, "It is not nearly so important what Bible translation you use as it is that you read and study the Bible translation you have!" In my experience, most people who ask these questions are looking for a shortcut to truth. They have multiple translations on their shelves and do not ready ANY of them!

Pastor K. Hobson

commented on Feb 22, 2023

I was converted at 12yo. The KJV was easy to memorize and harder to understand. Since then I've gone to college to learn Greek and Hebrew. As one who subscribes to the inerrancy of the Bible I struggle with new translations that have discontinued use of KJV such as 1 John 5:7-8. I have studied hundreds of transcripts, research and early Church Fathers that held tightly to these Words being inerrant. Yet, the NASB, NIV, ESV. and etc omit the very words which early fathers died for with their lives. I just can't reconcile this oxymoron in my mind even though I thoroughly understand why newer translators chose to leave this, along with many verses out which were in the KJV and in sacred writings by early fathers agreed and voted their inclusion. Any insight? Pastor KL HOBSON Filipino American Baptist Church Dallas Texad

Andrew Dandridge

commented on Mar 7, 2013

Many times we as christians need to use our spiritual judgement when it comes to worldly ordances or biblical teachings from others. The book in Isaiah and Genesis specifically says about taken words out of the words from God and from Rev. The NIV and the NASB and many others are misinterpretations from the original tongues. Look up John Gipp about this topic in full detail. May God have his way.

Freddy Galindo

commented on Mar 7, 2013

Sorry brother but as PHD you should know many translation change the meaning of some words an that will change the meaning of the original text and sometimes the doctrine to special in Spanish translations so be carefully with this comment.

Jeff Glenn

commented on Mar 7, 2013

Good advice and good article!

James Bertolini

commented on Mar 7, 2013

I for one do not speak old English. I can't read it either, prayerfully I have come to the NLT for my use and to preach from.

Jeremy Geerdes

commented on Mar 7, 2013

Since you say that you are using the NIV, I am curious if you have transitioned - or will transition - to the NIV2011 now that the NIV1984 is out of production.

Lafern Cobb

commented on Mar 7, 2013

Dear Pastor, I applaud your nerve for writing this article! This will be a very entertaining day! Of course you will start many fights, but it doesn't take much to get a fight started as I have come to realize. Good article! I will not share which translation I use, because I don't have just one favorite. Love your bio too! I am the Northern version! Fourth generation preacher/pastor, had two grandfathers and one grandmother before me. I have been told I am just like my grandmother, which is a great compliment. Michigan farm girl, die hard Wolverine fan, married to a great man of God, we co-pastor together (over 30 years now!). I have at least 50 versions of the Bible in our library. A pastor friend of mine who has studied and reads Hebrew fluently told me the Bible is the greatest game of telephone ever played. I think she is right! But it is the Word of God we have today and I am thankful for every version. Why? Because Jesus is in everyone of them and if you can find Jesus, you can find the Spirit, the truth and the way! God bless you and your family!

Keith B

commented on Mar 7, 2013

I would agree with the premise that a good translation is the one that gets read...unless it's some completely wonky one like The Message or even a bit lighter one like the NLT. The NIV is not a bad one to start with -- assuming you are using the 1984 version.

Matt Dubya

commented on Mar 7, 2013

I think the spirit of your article is correct, but it is a shame to suggest that all translations are created equally. If you are a scholar I think there are many underlying issues with several translations, including the texts where they were translated from. I think we also need to take into account the reason for translation as well. Why did we need to translate it again? There are several versions I wouldn't get ugly about, but there are several that lead to error and even if they are the 'one you read', if they are wrong, they don't do you any good.

Bill White

commented on Jul 19, 2021

I re-read the article, where does it say "All translations are created equal?" Even if you claim that he is just suggesting that, he specifically points out that each one is not created equal, here is the quote from the article: "Some sacrifice readability for literalness; others sacrifice literalness for readability." How can you read this article and say he claims "All translations are created equal?"

John Sears

commented on Mar 7, 2013

Thanks for the article. I use multiple translations in my sermon prep but I use the NIV (New edition) when I preach. If there is a phrase that I disagree with I tell the congregation it says this here, but I like the translation in this version better.

Mark Wooley

commented on Mar 7, 2013

Once again many Christians think that our God is powerless and cannot take care of His Word. I do not know about you but I would rather fight Satan with the real sword than a counterfeit. Satan has and will always question God's Word. Maybe just maybe that is the reason why our lives - homes - churches

John Sears

commented on Mar 7, 2013

Oh, and I also encourage the use of different translations when we have our small group Bible Study. All translations have their strengths and weaknesses, and they may even translate with a specific doctrine in mind. However, the core of the gospel is Jesus Christ. I have yet to disagree with any major translation in their representation of Jesus.

Matt Dubya

commented on Mar 7, 2013

I think the spirit of your article is correct, but it is a shame to suggest that all translations are created equally. If you are a scholar I think there are many underlying issues with several translations, including the texts where they were translated from. I think we also need to take into account the reason for translation as well. Why did we need to translate it again? There are several versions I wouldn't get ugly about, but there are several that lead to error and even if they are the 'one you read', if they are wrong, they don't do you any good.

Bill White

commented on Jul 19, 2021

I re-read the article, where does it say "All translations are created equal?" Even if you claim that he is just suggesting that, he specifically points out that each one is not created equal, here is the quote from the article: "Some sacrifice readability for literalness; others sacrifice literalness for readability." How can you read this article and say he claims "All translations are created equal?"

Geary Rowell

commented on Mar 7, 2013

You had me right up to the point where you admitted to being a Gator! I have settled on using the NIV after using the NLT for a while. I realized the NLT was written to be gender neutral and I have no use for that foolishness. For pure beauty of language I like to read the J. B. Phillips version.

Jose Menchaca

commented on Mar 7, 2013

Thank you! If the translation leads to the incarnation of the truth stated then the goal if Scripture has been achieved. Enjoyed the article!

Troy Pearsall

commented on Mar 7, 2013

Sorry pastor I just can't feel you on this subject. Yes you are right, we do need to read the version we have, but to suggest that all version are equal is sad for even a bathroom theologian.

Bill White

commented on Jul 19, 2021

I re-read the article, where does it say "All translations are created equal?" Even if you claim that he is just suggesting that, he specifically points out that each one is not created equal, here is the quote from the article: "Some sacrifice readability for literalness; others sacrifice literalness for readability." How can you read this article and say he claims "All translations are created equal?"

Rodney Shanner

commented on Mar 7, 2013

Clay, I just want to say two things: 1) I preach from the NIV because it is the most poular although I think the NRSV is best. 2) Roll Tide !!!

E. Marcus Stewart

commented on Mar 7, 2013

I would agree that the translation that gets read is the best for that individual. You cannot put G~D in a box, He will call whom He chooses and use what He wills, He used a jackass didn't He? It is expected that G~D will move that individual from an inferior translation to one that discloses the truth in clarity for understanding. I had a friend who I witnessed to for years, he got saved while attending a very liberal denomination. Without any prompting from anyone else, G~D led him to a much more conservative denomination. Personally I prefer the KJV, but use multiple translations as well as the original languages to convey His message. I disagree with the statement regarding the Message, it is an excellent choice for reading and getting the Gospel into the hands of one not likely to read the KJV or even the NIV.

Robert Guiller

commented on Mar 7, 2013

Love your heart Clay. I think the best version is the one that gets opened. Jesus is a lot more secure about his word than we are.

Clarence Bolton

commented on Mar 7, 2013

Great article!! judging from all of the other comments - you stepped on some toes and to that I say AMEN!

Kevin D. Williford

commented on Mar 7, 2013

Excellent, my sentiments exactly! The only thing that I would add is that I once had a professor who was asked "What is the worst translation to use?" He replied, "The one you read all the time." While is important to actually read a translation, reading from various translations is also good practice.

Matt Dubya

commented on Mar 7, 2013

I think the spirit of your article is correct, but it is a shame to suggest that all translations are created equally. If you are a scholar I think there are many underlying issues with several translations, including the texts where they were translated from. I think we also need to take into account the reason for translation as well. Why did we need to translate it again? There are several versions I wouldn't get ugly about, but there are several that lead to error and even if they are the 'one you read', if they are wrong, they don't do you any good.

Terry Frazier

commented on Mar 7, 2013

Before Pastoring, I taught Sunday School for many years and I have had adults who didn't have a great reading comprehension level or reading level for that matter and reading the KJV was hard for them and it hindered their ability to learn what Scripture said so I would encourage them to read a translation that they could read and understand. I preach and prep my sermons from the NASB but it always amazes me when my KJV only friends tell me that it is completely unacceptable to read or preach from any translation other than the KJV. I saw a bumper sticker on a car one day that read "If you don't read the KJV of the Bible then you are going to burn in hell". This is sad that someone who claims to be a Christian thinks that your eternal destination is based on what Bible you read. I like the KJV but it is not the most accurate translation available. And while understand the concerns of some of the comments made about the accuracy of various translations, we need to stop beating each other up over what Bible we preach from and Go Vols!!

Karl Frank

commented on Mar 7, 2013

As I pray and search for where my Lord would have me pastor, I am AMAZED at the various churches that request right in the "looking for a pastor" ad that ONLY KJV is used by the congregation. I have been a NIV Bible user for years a nd years as anyone can tell by the markings in it. But now am beginning to lean toward the NASB. G_d's word, the Bible, with all the various versions does NOT put our Heavenly Father in a specific version. G_d's word is very powerful NO matter the version.

David Hodgin

commented on Mar 7, 2013

After 30 years of teaching the word of God, I can say I have preached from the KJV, NKJV, NIV?84 and now ESV. I quit using the KJV because I got tired of using point 1 to translate the translation. I then moved from NKJV to NIV?84, because most of the people in my church used it and I went to ESV because of NIV?11. We give new believers and our youth copies of the NLT. I make a point of saying whatever version you read, be sure to read the preface and find out by whom, why and how it was translated. For example The Message isn?t bad when we understand it?s one man?s work to translate ancient concepts into modern English and so it makes a great commentary. I liked the article and am glad you wrote it.

Chuck Tabor

commented on Mar 7, 2013

I have always answered those questions with, "It is not nearly so important what Bible translation you use as it is that you read and study the Bible translation you have!" In my experience, most people who ask these questions are looking for a shortcut to truth. They have multiple translations on their shelves and do not ready ANY of them!

Chuck Tabor

commented on Mar 7, 2013

Let me also add MY two cents' worth to this discussion....GO BUCKEYES!!! (We're excited about "Urban" renewal up here!)

Chris Enoch

commented on Mar 7, 2013

Apparently not all translations are created equal. The NIV '84 has been taken off the market and taken down from websites (like Bible Gateway). Time for the ESV....

Bill White

commented on Jul 19, 2021

I re-read the article, where does it say "All translations are created equal?" Even if you claim that he is just suggesting that, he specifically points out that each one is not created equal, here is the quote from the article: "Some sacrifice readability for literalness; others sacrifice literalness for readability." How can you read this article and say he claims "All translations are created equal?"

Bruce Swanson

commented on Mar 7, 2013

Thank you for the article Clay. By the way, after reading the article again I did not see anywhere you suggest that all translations are equal. I did hear you say that it is more important that it is read than from which major translation it is read from. Of course there are issues which each translation. Along with you I am tired of hearing those who point out the problems with other translations but refuse to hear the problems with the one they dogmatically defend. The point of this article was not to defend all translations as accurate, but to encourage people to read the Bible in a version they can easily comprehend.

Leslye Haller

commented on Mar 7, 2013

Awesome discussion! Let me just chime in that we need to remember some versions, such as The Message are a paraphrase, not a translation, as the compiler of The Message, Eugene Peterson himself is quick to point out. I would personally never use The Message to preach from, but it's a wonderful resource to engage those who would otherwise find true translations hard to understand. I love these discussions!

James Burns

commented on Mar 7, 2013

Clay is right on. No translation is perfect. Sometimes even a parapharase expresses the intent of the original better than a word for word translation. The important thing is that we uphold the authority, infallibility, and inspiration of the original. There are "poor" translations that in places are better than the "best" translations.

Oun Kwon

commented on Mar 7, 2013

(1) A typo - " ... in three languages — Hebrew, a little bit of Aramaic and Greek." A comma is needed after 'Aramaic'. (2) One word should be added " ... Every English translation is in fact a translation." It should read 'in fact just a translation" (3) "God nowhere told us He prefers one translation over another." Yeah. On the one hand, there is no word 'translation' in the Bible, neither the word 'Bible' is in the Bible. Only the word 'Scripture' is there. A Bible is what hold the Scripture in a different language; the Scripture is what holds the Word of God. The Bible is NOT the world of God. There are errors and contradictions in the Bible. A Bible has flaws in translation, not just inaccuracy but anachronism and isegesis driven by hidden agendas. (4) Nida was not right to say so. The best translation is not what you will read, but what you don't have ;-< Don't trust a Bible; trust the Lord.

Bob Fry

commented on Mar 7, 2013

I believe that for the english speaking people that the kJV is the best, although I would not tell someone that they should not read another translation I would tell them that they should read it beside the KJV.

Fred Gurule

commented on Mar 7, 2013

Even though i use the kjv I seldom express Scripture without using Vine's Exspository Dic. to help define words that are out of date or that might not be clear. I use the NLT for my daily reading. I've been memorizing Scirpture for 41 years out of kjv and i find i really tough to try to memorize out of another translation. Thanks for the discussion point. Fred Gurule

Derrick Tuper

commented on Mar 7, 2013

Derick and David: just a note-in Is. 4:12 the NIV is not the only translation that does not have 'Lucifer'. The Amp. and the NASB do not use it either. Also, the Interlinear (Hebrew and Greek translation) does not have 'Lucifer' in this verse. I think we do need to be careful that we're reading a translation rather than an interpretation or paraphrase. Readability does not mean it has to compromise on accuracy.

Kelvin Lustick

commented on Mar 7, 2013

IMO the most ridiculous thing we've done as pastors this century is allow hundreds of translations to come about and call them all "God's word." Every 6 months a new English translation comes out. In order to get a copyright on each new translation, there must be enough changes in it to consider it a "separate work." Yet we always hear "it's just the same." Have you ever heard the old saying "If it's different, it ain't the same"? Stop being lazy - study and find out which translation is closest to the spirit of God's word and teach it to your people. Stop switching translations around to fit the point you are trying to make when preaching. Stop tinkering with God's word and let it change YOU.

Eugene Lee

commented on Mar 7, 2013

I think I would define more thoroughly or qualify #2 lest someone think that the New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses falls into the "every English translation" category.

Kerri Peden

commented on Mar 7, 2013

I have enjoyed this robust discussion. I feel confident our God is big enough to protect His Truth, use it to change lives and build up His church. Our lives are then the most effective 'bible' the world will read.

E. Marcus Stewart

commented on Mar 7, 2013

I find myself in agreement with the comments by Eugene Lee. The nwt is a travesty of a pretense at translation.

Tom Shepard

commented on Mar 7, 2013

It would seem to me that if we were really interested in conveying the accuracy of the Bible we would all be reading it out of the original languages - but then to explain it to our congregations - we would have to translate it - wouldn't we?

Anonymous Contributor

commented on Mar 7, 2013

The NIV, And this guy has a PHD? Before taking Mr. Smiths advice do your own home work, read the "Revision Revised" by Dean John William Burgeon a true scholar. He was there when the corruption took place hear it from his lips. Also read "Foxes Book of Martyrs" and see those who were tortured and killed because they loved God's word(William Tyndale) . If you will not fight for God's word the other side will fight to take it away.

Anonymous Contributor

commented on Mar 7, 2013

The NIV, And this guy has a PHD? Before taking Mr. Smiths advice do your own home work, read the "Revision Revised" by Dean John William Burgeon a true scholar. He was there when the corruption took place hear it from his lips. Also read "Foxes Book of Martyrs" and see those who were tortured and killed because they loved God's word(William Tyndale) . If you will not fight for God's word the other side will fight to take it away.

Dave Edden

commented on Mar 7, 2013

Semantics gentleman regarding the value of the NIV. Of course all the translations have problems, but the core, fundamental elements of salvation have not been lost in the NIV. I came to faith by reading the NIV and now Pastor a church. Its pointless getting into dogmatic argument over which translation is the right one, because we all see it differently. I think Clayton's comments have been missed in some of this discussion. The point of God's word is to bring us to Salvation (it did in my case) and then it's there to teach me how to live beyond that. If it achieves that (whichever translation you read) then it has succeeded. Blessings.

Sareeta Vythilingum

commented on Mar 8, 2013

It does not matter what version you read as long as you are being led by The Holy Spirit and you read with your heart.Sometimes you gain and sometimes you losr.

Chuck Tabor

commented on Mar 8, 2013

Let me also add MY two cents' worth to this discussion....GO BUCKEYES!!! (We're excited about "Urban" renewal up here!)

Chuck Tabor

commented on Mar 8, 2013

Let me also add MY two cents' worth to this discussion....GO BUCKEYES!!! (We're excited about "Urban" renewal up here!)

John Whittington

commented on Mar 8, 2013

I tell people if you want to know what the text actually says, read the NASB. But if you want to know what it actually means, read the NIV! For all the NIV haters I suggest some How to Choose a Translation For All It's Worth, by Mark Strauss. Also download some of (very reformed and conservative) Dr. Don Carson's messages. Notice the translation from which he reads. The translation wars is a battle meant to distract the body of Christ. If you want to fight a Bibel version, fight one created by those who don't believe New Testament Christianity, The Apostle's Creed, etc, and their translation reflects that - and fight their version. Otherwise a little more grace and mercy for those whom you consider weaker brothers. God bless.

Jerry Colter

commented on Mar 8, 2013

Good article! Good wisdom, even in most comments. Jesus said to some religious guys one day, "you search the scriptures for eternal life, but these are they which testify of me." I didn't look this up. I think I'm quoting it correctly. I believe from scripture that there is only one way to the Father, but I have discovered from the scripture and many years of serving as a pastor that there are many ways to Jesus. I have seen many people meet Jesus through many different translations! I think that's the point being made. I will use this article in teaching. Jerry Colter.

Paul Hull

commented on Mar 8, 2013

Wow! Some deep feelings are being expressed here. But too often we let feelings and opinions guide us instead of using intellect and study. Despite Kelivin's belittling of using various translations, perhaps we ought to think more in terms of determining which translation is most accurate to the original language, or the earliest translations, and go with that. I have used KJV, ESV, NASB, NIV, The Message, LITV and Green's in powerpoints during preaching. Not to support my point, but to handle accurately the word of truth which, by the way, wasn't written in English. Just to bring in a little more history, the apostles did not preach from the original language Old Testament. They used the Septuagint (LXX), a flawed translation. Even Jesus quoted from the Septuagint. With the discovery of the the Dead Sea Scrolls, we have found that there were mistranslation in that Bible. Do we discount all that Jesus and the apostles accomplished? Will they burn in hell for not having used original language documents? Silly! Ridiculous! But so are some of the arguments I've seen put out there about keeping a translation sponsored by an English king some 300 years ago. Do your homework. Find the best translation of the passage you are trying to expose and use it, rather than trying to explain what the misleading translation of your tradition should really be saying. Be responsible for 'handling aright' as the KJV puts it. -- Paul Hull

Modesto Mercado

commented on Mar 8, 2013

The brother that wrote this article has to find out why there are some bibles that we have to be careful with. I am a pastor and i tell my congregation to read kings james or the new kings james and I have explained the reasons why. if we not careful with what we read we will be confused and let away from the truth.

R Warrender

commented on Mar 8, 2013

Yes, the NIV is easier to read, but is it as accurate as other translations? It's one thing to debate the accuracy of a particular passage, it's quite another to find a passage missing altogether. Try Acts 8:37 in whatever version you may be using. KJV is not simply "Old English." Ye and Thee distinguish between "you plural" and "you singular" making it far more clear. John 3:7 "Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again."

Bill Williams

commented on Mar 8, 2013

@R, the absence of v. 37 in Acts 8 is not unique to the NIV. Most contemporary translations omit it, or at least signify in some way that the verse is not found in the oldest manuscripts available. And even those that omit the verse in the text will include it in the footnotes. But all of this has nothing to do with translation; it has to do with textual criticism.

R Warrender

commented on Mar 8, 2013

Bill, it has to do with accuracy. I do understand what many footnotes say. There have been some 300 "changes" to the NIV and other translations with many deletions. The name Jesus has been removed from many verses. Acts 8:37 is one of these in the NIV. Some fail to even show any footnote. The verse is simply not there with text moving from 8:36 to 8:38. The oldest manuscript in existence is the Isaiah Scroll. The translation that matches up to that is likely to be the most accurate.

Keith B

commented on Mar 8, 2013

Personally, I started with a King James when I was a non-believer just beginning to read the Bible. After a week I went back to the bookstore and asked for one I could read. The clerk there put an NIV in my hands. It was good enough for me to read and understand the Gospel. Did I necessarily understand the finer nuances of an obscure verse in Isaiah? No. But at that point I wasn't ready for it anyway. It was what it was....a good starting point. I then moved on to the NASB and now use the ESV. Yes, the translation is important...but the NIV is certainly good enough...it's not as if it's the NLT, Message, or even the JW's NWT.

Bill Williams

commented on Mar 8, 2013

@R, the problem with the statement: "There have been some 300 "changes" to the NIV and other translations with many deletions," is that it makes the KJV the standard. But the KJV is not the standard. The standard is the original manuscripts. Unfortunately, those no longer exist. All we have are copies of copies of copies, etc. And since all of these copies were written by hand, it is to be expected that there will be places where different copies read slightly differently, what textual critics call "variants." So our job is to look at the variants, examine the evidence in favor of each, and try to reconstruct the original text as best as possible. All of this is belongs to the field known as "textual criticism." It's a field which I am by no means an expert, although I am aware of the basic principles. My point is that if we do not take the KJV as the standard, but rather the original text as best as we can reconstruct it, the counterargument can be made that it is the underlying text of the KJV which in fact has made the changes, adding things that may not have been there originally.

John Whittington

commented on Mar 8, 2013

I want accuracy in an English translation. But consider that the New Testament quotes from the Septuagint, which has variations from the Hebrew. I guess If this variation was ok with the apostles, the "thought for thought" style of the NIV shouldn't be a problem. And besides if you read KJV, NASB, NIV or even the ESV it containes, no... it is the Word of God!

Anna Yusuf

commented on Mar 9, 2013

There are over 400 translations of the Bible into English, and about 350 million people still do not have ANY version of the Bible in their mother tongue. Perhaps instead of arguing we should be grateful-- and start investing in helping those who don't yet have a Bible in their heart language.

Prescott Jay Erwin

commented on Mar 11, 2013

CORRECTION: Clay wrote: "Every English translation is in fact a translation..." That should read: "Every English translation is in fact an interpretation..."

Suresh Manoharan

commented on Mar 12, 2013

More than arguing about which translation is better, perhaps it would be better in all translations to have classification of OT Scriptures in the order it was in Jesus/Early Church times (Luke 24:44). That way, we can better retain "chemistry" between OT and NT. If ALL Scripture is God-inspired than it's classification also must have been God-inspired.By what authority have we changed what Jesus and Early Church accepted?

Prescott Jay Erwin

commented on Mar 13, 2013

Suresh: The question to you would be, "What would that do for us? What would be that 'chemistry' we're currently missing?" The books in the English Bible follow the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Old Testament made a few hundred years B.C., which the Early Church used. The Hebrew Bible follows a slightly different order, which may not have been canonized until over a hundred years A.D. Which is correct? The Early Church had no real consensus on the order of the NT books until the 1400s. They all seem to have started with Matthew, followed by either Mark or Luke, and then John. This was followed by the Pauline church epistles then personal letters. They were arranged according to length. The non-Pauline personal letters and general epistles were also arranged according to length: Hebrews, James, Peter, John, and Jude. Many were unsure of Revelation for a long time.

Diane Albert

commented on Mar 14, 2013

You are so right. the Holy Spirit will guide you. I remember being confused while reading the Bible before I really got saved. After I did the Holy Spirit started explaining scriptures. I can just think about reading or if i am dealing with a situation. When I open the Bible I am led to a scripture dealing with my situation. It is just as you said. These questions are a distraction from what is most important. People need to decide to serve Jesus or not. Hot or cold. There is no in between. The Bile was written a long time ago. You can`t change it to fit a watered down religion. God`s word is final. He is a sovereign God. People need to stop trying to catch a Preacher in a lie about the Bible. You didn`t write it. They need to read it believe it and stop trying to find a loop hole. There isn`t one! Believe or not. It`s each individual`s choice.

Anonymous Contributor

commented on Feb 25, 2014

I think you are missing the big picture here. The question in itself says a lot about the person. Why would someone seek an understanding of a scripture closer to its original dialect? Is it because of doubt? Did they read something that bothered them and they want to try and bypass the conviction? Do they want to explore the art and history of the language to get a deeper understanding? Or do they want a deeper understanding of the word and believe they will get it by paralleling ? These are all fantastic questions. When we want to know all about something, we tend to try and dissect it. As for me, parallels are an amazing tool or for lack of a better term "q-tip" for me to listen clearer. "What kind of love was that?" ...agape, or was it deeper". ..."was it really bay, or was it ocean?" , "was he angry when he flipped over the table in the synagogue or was he passionate?". This path has been a beautiful one for me as a tool, to which has led me to koine Greek and the parallel through the codex sinaiticus, by which I deeply in courage you all to look up. For it is arguable the oldest bible known to man, written in koine Greek on animal skin in ink, carbon dated to be over 1600 years ago. I sure hope that when one asked what the best bible translation is , that you hand them a handful of versions and let them read the same verse over and over :).

Anonymous Contributor

commented on Feb 25, 2014

Context*

E. Marcus Stewart

commented on Feb 26, 2014

One deep concern that I have with the sinaiticus, as with the vaticanus codices is that they have so many errors contained within them. There are over 3,000 noted errors within the gospels alone. While the Textus Receptus are not the oldest manuscripts, there is a 93 agreement within their texts. Age means little when you consider that the vast majority of the texts were made by copyists who destroyed the original after it was verified as a true copy of the original.