So Zig Forums, which is the best Bible translation (serious question)

OP the KJV Bible is the only version I am aware of in existence that wouldn't make God a liar if it were true. Which it is true. See matthew 7:15-20, matthew 12:33, 1 peter 1:25, 2 peter 1:20-21, 2 timothy 3:16, titus 1:2, and revelation 19:10. Then pick your version of choice to read mark 1:2/malachi 3:1, 2 samuel 21:19/1 samuel 17:51/2 chronicles 20:5, isaiah 14:12/revelation 22:16, john 7:8-10, and acts 7:45/deutoronomy 31. The first series of verses is establishing what the word of God is and that God can't lie. The second set of verses is two things that can not be simutanously true for some versions. But it is all true in the KJV.

Hmm, interesting translation. Out of interest, which one do you think is correct in these instances?

Luke 21:19

Attached: BibleKJV.jpg (320x240, 27.2K)

Those verses literally prove nothing. Either could be true except maybe for 2 Corinthians 2:17 in the MKJV but I don't know what the definition of "hawking" in that context would be.

Out of all the big ones I like the New American Standard Bible the most. King James and Douay-Rheims are very good for things like Psalms. Some people like the NET Bible for the footnotes but the translation itself is kind of poor and the foot notes are very hit or miss. Some are good and some are straight up bullshit, like when it says you can't interpret God saying "Let Us make man in Our image" as a reference to the Trinity because it "imposes on a trinitarian perspective on a text that long predates trinitarian beliefs" or something to that effect. Only someone who doesn't believe in the Trinity(i.e. someone who isn't a Christian) would say something like that because anyone believes in the Trinity must also believe that It has always existed. The Orthodox Study Bible for the Old Testament and the Eastern Orthodox Bible for the New Testament are the best way to go if you want to be autistic about the Bible. Also avoid the NIV and anything shat out by Oxford like the plague.

Holy Bible 1933/38
Learn finnish first. Pic unrelated

Attached: 95820733.jpg (638x888, 100.5K)

I think it's less clear and decisive in all of those cases. I'm just saying you couldn't defend each respective doctrine properly using something like that.

I still think from what little I've seen it has fewer flaws than something like NKJV, but still. This is serious. I just did a quick check for like 20 minutes on that translation and found these plus more. It also uses the name "Jehovah" in every place where it normally would say "LORD" in small capitals. We know Lord is a proper translation because in the NT every single quotation of the word Jehovah is translated to the Greek word for lord. So that's a lot of changes for the MKJV to undo, starting in Genesis 2 and reaching into thousands of differences. Hard to predict what else was changed in the process.

This "modern" King James (but was it really authorized?) also changes the definitions of words in certain passages regarding sodomites such as in Jude 1:7 and 2 Peter 2:6-9. It is highly suspicious.

None of these changes were necessary but yet I found them in there after a brief search. I think these are relevant passages that have been changed or at least muddied from their decisiveness as found in the Authorized version.

Consider the following differences between the EOB and the KJV and whether they are significant:

The Eastern Orthodox Bible in—
Matthew 5:32 changed "fornication" to "sexual immorality"
Matthew 7:14 changed it to say the way is difficult
Mark 16:9-20 is cut out and separated from the gospel
Romans 11:6 has the second half of the verse removed (in footnote)
Romans 16:25-27 moved to the end of Romans 14
2 Corinthians 12:21 changed the word "humble" to "humiliate" for no reason
Colossians 1:14 removed the words "through his blood"
Hebrews 1:8 altered, so that it does not show the Father clearly speaking to the Son. In the King James Bible, it is clear that the Father is speaking to the Son here.

Hebrews 11:6 removed the word "diligently"
1 Peter 3:3 added the word "merely"
1 John 5:7 placed in brackets

Are you intentionally being dense? There's nothing wrong with calling the LORD, Jehovah or vice versa. Just because it is different doesn't mean it makes God a liar if it were true.
Indeed it is, but this is why you test the spirits 1 john 4 against their fruits matthew 7:15-20 to see if they are of God who can not lie titus 1:2. Did you even read the verses in ?

I said it was hard to predict what else was changed in the process. Whoever enacted all those changes could have used these thousands of places as a cover to alter other things that I haven't checked.

Again none of those verses would make God a liar if it were true other then the sexual doing what society thinks/immores/immorality thing.

Look I don't really feel like talking about Ezekiel 31 to you right now. I only wanted to present the main differences so people could decide for themselves and understand the fact that they don't all say the same thing. Can I do that? I'm not even trying to shill a subjective viewpoint on anything, that's why I have kept my comment brief.

>which one do you think is correct in these instances?

Attached: pope-francis-12.jpg (600x325, 16.08K)

Alright, I guess logically they could both be wrong.

Attached: 3ae6e396e.png (266x201, 93.4K)

NASB

That's hilarious, the message HAS to be a joke.
Anyways, it's a paraphrase and not a translation.

You… I'll get you later

Speaking of paraphrased Bibles, I do like the New Living Translation. It's not my study Bible, but it is easier to read to me. I've used it to get new Christians into the habit of reading the word. Their biggest complaint is that the language of the Bible is so difficult to read for them, especially when no one reads anything anymore. Many might disagree, but everyone I've introduced to the NLV has moved on to big boy Bibles eventually.

there is endless debate about which is the best bible translation from a non-denominational perspective, I would just say KJV since its such a classic.

...

What are you talking about? There's only one Bible translation… the KJV of course!

i have the NASB and i see 0 reason why you shouldnt either

I'm using the Ignatius Bible

Just so you guys take this into account, this 'Bible Version Translation' chart is NIV promotion. And there's obviously better translations than the NIV.

I like the ESV and the NASB and sometimes the NLT when it comes to Bibles without Apocrypha. When it's a Bible with Apocrypha I like the Jerusalem Bible.

Attached: Bible-version-on-translation-method-spectrum.jpg (781x357, 166.76K)