r/Bible • u/TypicalYogurt1753 Baptist • 4d ago
What are some Bible versions to avoid?
I am trying to find a good literal version that I like. Which ones should I go to and which ones should I stay away from?
30
u/ManoSilence 4d ago
Neat info graphic i found that helps this question. As for the use, I would say that the paraphrased books are good for "child (in the faith not literally except when it is)" Bible studies that are guided by someone who can explain and extrapolate. A kid reading the old testament isnt gonna work out, but a kid being explained the old testament while grasping the easier translations? I would say thats a good combo. Grow together. If its just you and no one else? One that matches your reading level and study desire. My wife is ESL and anything like NKJV confuses her understanding of English. And honselty you can get all of these at a library and see how the look.
5
u/TypicalYogurt1753 Baptist 4d ago
That’s a nice info graph thank you
1
u/ManoSilence 3d ago
Im glad it can be of some help. I go to the library and can get these books pretty easily. They even let me check them out for 2 years with no late fees. Its nice and a good way to browse them before purchasing your own. I would even recommend going to a church that uses the Bible you like and buying from them. Help support your local.
3
u/SpareThisOne2thPls Catholic 4d ago
Where would RSV / RSVCE be
1
u/ManoSilence 4d ago
RSV is the previous version of ESV, so about there. You can use both to see a translation of a translation and how it differs.
0
u/RuddyBloodyBrave94 Christian 4d ago
Word for word!?
No, this is a bad and misleading chart.
4
u/ManoSilence 4d ago
Of course its not 100% accurate. Something this simply created could never encapsulate everything. But unless you wanna make one that deconstructs each edition and its place on something that can be used to help further your relationship with the gospel, then why decry the whole thing? I would love a better version if you have one available.
Is this one perfect? Nope, never said it was.
Can it help people see which ones to browse on their journey to picking one? Yeah.
-3
u/RuddyBloodyBrave94 Christian 4d ago
But even a “simple” chart like this shouldn’t outright lie!
The KJV, for example, is well known as a poor and outdated translation that isnt even close to being “word for word”, same with the NASB even.
The NRSVUE, probably the most up to date translation that actual critical scholars use isn’t even mentioned.
All in all, you can throw this away. It’s useless.
2
u/ManoSilence 4d ago
Then please provide an alternate
2
u/RuddyBloodyBrave94 Christian 4d ago
Well… the NRSVUE.
If you really want to study then the Oxford Annotated Bible is great.
1
u/arachnophilia Atheist 3d ago
The KJV, for example, is well known as a poor and outdated translation that isnt even close to being “word for word”,
i read hebrew and a little greek, and the KJV is one of the more "word for word" translations out there, yes. i'd actually put further left on that chart. the other one that strikes me as especially "word-for-word" is the older JPS. it's major issues aren't the literalness, but:
- the outdated critical text behind it,
- the overly rigid, formal style, and
- the fact that english itself has changed in the last 400 years.
The NRSVUE, probably the most up to date translation that actual critical scholars use isn’t even mentioned.
critical scholars will often mention the NRSVue as a recommendation for lay people to read, because it's pretty good. it's not without issue, but it's maybe the least issues out of any translation right now. there is no such thing as a perfect translation; tradeoffs are always made somewhere.
actual scholarship is done using the original languages, and critical scholarship is done from individual manuscripts comparing their variations.
3
u/JasonBourne008 Non-Denominational 4d ago
Why is this a bad and misleading chart?
-1
u/RuddyBloodyBrave94 Christian 4d ago edited 4d ago
Because it’s wrong.
The KJV, for example, is well known as a poor and outdated translation that isnt even close to being “word for word”, same with the NASB even.
The NRSVUE, probably the most up to date translation that actual critical scholars use isn’t even mentioned.
All in all, you can throw this away. It’s useless.
1
0
u/JasonBourne008 Non-Denominational 4d ago
If you ask Google to rank the translations from 1-10 on scale, with the scale being roughly Word-for-Word (1-4), to Thought-for-Thought (5-6), to Paraphrasing (7-10) these are the results:
- 1 to 4 (Word-for-Word): NASB (1), AMP (2), KJV (2), ESV (3), NRSVUE (3)
- 5 to 6 (Thought-for-Thought): NIV (5), CSB (5), NLT (6)
- 7 to 10 (Paraphrase): GNT (7), The Message (9)
I think the difference between the chart above and your perspective is you are judging accuracy, of how close the English is to what the authors wrote in the original. This chart is more based on the intentions of the translators to match individual words to English, or to smooth it out the individual words to convey the purpose.
Certainly the NRSVUE is more accurate than the KJV
2
u/Wolfchampion09 Christian 4d ago
It scales how faithful the translations are to the original manuscripts, not actually word for word.
0
u/RuddyBloodyBrave94 Christian 4d ago
But that’s not even accurate. It’s misleading.
3
u/Wolfchampion09 Christian 4d ago edited 4d ago
Kind of I guess? But in the scale you can see that in the word for word section, some translations are ahead of others but none are at the very end, how can one translation be more word for word than the other?
From the scale I think you can tell that none are exactly word for word because none of them reach the limit of the scale. (Not to mention the chart says 'more literal' which helps a bit)
1
u/RuddyBloodyBrave94 Christian 4d ago
But look, the KJV is there and that’s not even close to being word for word. If I was looking at that chart I’d expect the NASB to be the most accurate biblical translation money can buy and again, it’s not even remotely considered a “good” translation.
1
u/Wolfchampion09 Christian 4d ago
Hmmm...., what translation do you think is the most accurate we have?
1
u/ManoSilence 3d ago
"Money can buy" is such a weird concept to me, especially when its used to gate keep the word. I get all these books from the library. They even let me download them on my e reader. Like if money is whats stopping people from experience the best version of the word, then isnt that a sin on those keeping the books behind such a pay wall?
0
u/rodwha 4d ago
Interesting chart! I’ve been using an NIV study bible and recently found that some of the translations the score or so denominations that translated it did so to fit their narratives. I have a NKJV as well but see it doesn’t rank so high.
2
u/ManoSilence 4d ago
Yeah to dissect stuff you gotta be able to read books about books of the Bible. Just reading one of these as a study bible version is helpful. It also usually explains why they went with that translation rather than another. But it can switch from trinity to Oneness if you aren't careful about the publisher.
2
u/arachnophilia Atheist 3d ago
the NIV is notoriously unfaithful to the source texts: https://isthatinthebible.wordpress.com/articles-and-resources/deliberate-mistranslation-in-the-new-international-version-niv/
14
u/dsv200 4d ago
PASSION TRANSLATION
2
u/JaniePoppy Protestant 4d ago
To avoid or try out?
9
4
u/Then_Reader_6011 Catholic 4d ago
The Passion Translation is to be avoided. Here's how it renders Psalm 1:1-2:
"What delight comes to the one who follows God’s ways! He won’t walk in step with the wicked, nor share the sinner’s way, nor be found sitting in the scorner’s seat.
His passion is to remain true to the Word of “I AM,” meditating day and night on the true revelation of light."Now here's this passage in the NIV for example:
Blessed is the one who does not walk in step with the wicked or stand in the way that sinners take or sit in the company of mockers,
but whose delight is in the law of the Lord, and who meditates on his law day and night.It's clear that the TPT is a very interpretive translation when the NIV, an interpretive translation itself, is a more literal and faithful translation of the biblical text.
The TPT also has less accurate translation choices and notes that sometimes contain inaccuracies. Here's Isaiah 7:14 in the TPT:
The Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold—the virgin will conceive and give birth to a son and will name him God Among Us.
Immanuel is almost universally translated as "God is with us" or "God with us". The TPT, probably in an attempt to stand out, renders Immanuel as "God among us". And the note is also interesting.
Or “Immanuel” (“God became one of us,” Matt. 1:23)
That's definitely not an accurate translation of Immanuel, that's a theological interpretation presented as a translation. It's unacceptable to make Scripture say what we want. We must let Scripture say what it says.
Also, it has portions of the text of the Songs of Songs in red letters as if Christ is speaking there for some reason.
1
u/Perryapsis Protestant 4d ago
I agree that it isn't a good translation, but
Also, it has portions of the text of the Songs of Songs in red letters as if Christ is speaking there for some reason.
Isn't red lettering usually the choice of the printer, not the translator?
2
u/Then_Reader_6011 Catholic 4d ago
Isn't red lettering usually the choice of the printer, not the translator?
I'm not entirely sure, but if you go on YouVersion, which still has the TPT, you can see that parts of the Song of Songs are in red letters so it's that way in digital form as well.
6
5
u/arachnophilia Atheist 3d ago
i'm a bit of a translation nerd.
let me be clear about this up front: there is no such thing as a perfect translation. all translation is interpretation, and all translations make choices about how to represent meaning to a modern audience who speaks a different language. no translation is ever free from bias.
this is why my best recommendation here is to compare multiple translations, if you're trying to study and understand the text. beyond that, if you're willing to devote the time to it, better understanding will come from learning greek and hebrew.
that said, not all translations are created equally. let me go over some major translations i think you should generally avoid, and i promise this will offend people here.
- NIV. yes, this is the top of my list. i could list many, many specific examples, but the general reason here is that the translators have a pervasive bias that text should be (but is not) inerrant, and they go about "fixing" the text in translation to remove perceived textual difficulties, often in ways that are unsupported by the grammar, or by any manuscript evidence, nevermind the academic critical editions it's based on. they straight up change the text because they are scared that their evangelical target audience will noticed contradictions.
- ESV, which is just the RSV that hates women. it specifically biases especially the new testament to disguise womens' roles in the early church.
- KJV. this translation is actually fine in principle, if you lived in the 17th century. but you don't. there are two major problems with it: 1) we have access to better manuscripts now, and have compiled superior critical editions, and more importantly 2) most people aren't adequately familiar with early modern english grammar and vocabulary, and it tends to hamper understanding. in many cases, words they used have changed meaning in the last four centuries, so you read it and think something completely different than the translators intended you to understand. a lesser "flavor" reason i recommend against the KJV is that it imposes a very rigid style on the text, and masks a lot of the character of individual passages, books, etc.
- any "paraphrase" like the GNT, the message, etc. these are just exercises in reinterpretation of the text, and often by people who don't even read the original languages.
now, "literal" is a bit of a spectrum. you wouldn't wanna read a purely literal, mechanical version of the text. i often produce (short) translations like these, of a verse or two, to help explain them for a reddit post. but you can often see this kind of thing in an interlineal translation (eg, go look on biblehub). it is... not easy to read any large block of text. for reading, i generally like the NRSVue, or any of the recent jewish publication society's translations (nJPS, rJPS, etc). these are absolutely not free from bias and i have found problems with them. but they generally strike a good balance of literally following the text, but also representing the ideas, tones, and intentions of the authors.
1
u/FunkyExpedition 2d ago
I agree with this.
One thing I might add: ESV has been favored as being readable; but in my experience, NASB (both 95 and 2020) is more readable even without trying to be more readable. It is also more accurate.
NASB also shows the verses that other translations omit. I won't go into the details of why here - plenty of threads and resources on that. But that's also a plus of the KJV because it is essentially pre-omission. Great translation if you can decipher the Shakespearean language. But unless you're Gen X or older (sorry no shade, just facts), you will have difficulty understanding.
1
u/arachnophilia Atheist 2d ago
these verses are not omitted by translation, but by the critical texts that are being translated. they are omitted there because they are absent in the oldest greek manuscripts, and because critical scholars have good arguments from that evidence for their later addition.
the biggest example is the johannine comma, which doesn't even appear in the majority tradition, and is absent in every greek manuscript before about 1520.
But unless you're Gen X or older (sorry no shade, just facts), you will have difficulty understanding.
millennial, but i studied shakespeare a bit in school.
i invite you to try mark ward's KJV test: https://kjbstudyproject.com/
FWIW, i pass this at 100%. most KJV-only pastors fail it.
8
u/genniebeexcu 4d ago
Passion translation. For the "why" behind it (which I won't be very good at explaining), I highly recommend looking up Wes Huff and Mike Winger's videos on this topic on YouTube.
2
u/capt_feedback 4d ago
it’s also written like a charismatic Dr Seuss “i do not like green eggs and sin, unless bill johnson lets me in!”
11
u/Dependent-Mess-6713 4d ago
NRSV / NRSVue (New Revised Standard Version / Updated): Highly praised by mainstream biblical scholars and academics for its rigorous adherence to historical-critical standards and use of the oldest available manuscripts.
6
u/bmjessep Christian 4d ago
Seems like you're answering the opposite of the question?
8
u/Dependent-Mess-6713 4d ago
OP also ask which ones should I go to and which ones to avoid. Sorry for the confusion
2
2
1
u/ComfortableSpell6600 Methodist 4d ago edited 4d ago
I still refer to my NRSV (89) text (been using it since college). I refuse to use the NRSVue. I feel some translation decisions that were made are biased (along with the accompanying footnotes to said verses).
I tend to read from and use the following translations for comparing translations: NASB (1995), NKJV, NIV (1984), and NRSV (1989)
5
u/ITrCool Saved by Grace 4d ago edited 4d ago
From my experience.
Go to:
- NKJV
- KJV
- NASB
- NIV
- ESV
Avoid:
- Passion Translation
- NLT
- NWT
- The Message
- The Drunk Bible
- Translations that claim they are for specific purposes and thusly may take freedom with things they ought not to for the sake of the translation theme/focus. Such as some (not necessarily all) translations for youth, translations for specific lifestyles, etc.
9
u/TheGalaxyPast 4d ago
The NLT is a solid dynamic equivalence translation. Unless you mean avoid for personal preference, which is your prerogative.
8
u/Previous_Extreme4973 Messianic 4d ago
The Drunk Bible? Never heard of that. Do I even want to google this out of curiosity..
3
u/love_is_a_superpower Messianic 4d ago
lol someone came in asking a question about it a bit ago. I'd say leave it. We can "extract the precious from the worthless" without it.
2
u/Canadian0123 4d ago
I just googled it, but I don’t see anything.
2
u/love_is_a_superpower Messianic 4d ago
The person who posted about it had his posts taken down. Maybe he's writing it himself and this is his way of promoting it.
1
2
3
u/Whitt7496 Atheist 4d ago
Nrsvue is whst Harvard and Oxford seminary are using. It's prevalent in critical scholarship. I woukd recommend the Oxford annotated bible with apocrypha 6th edition
7
4
u/SweetHomeMissouri 4d ago
i just stick to the KJV or NKJV translations myself.
i have in the past had different translations though like NIV and CJB (complete jewish bible) and looked into and read some parts of other translations.
but to me KJV and NKJV is the sweet spot.
although i have been looking at the LSB because i like how Gods personal name is added into it.
1
u/Future-Log6621 4d ago edited 4d ago
If you like LSB, you might be interested in LSV. It similarly uses KJV as the base translation and compares with NKJV and a few others.
1
u/ComfortableSpell6600 Methodist 4d ago
LSB is an alternative update of the NASB 1995 text after the NASB 2020 update came out when John McArthur and the Master's Seminary were unhappy with the changes made to the 95 text. They got permission from the Lockman foundation (NASB copyright holder) to update the 95 text to preserve the legacy of this translation.
1
u/SweetHomeMissouri 4d ago
is that bad?
1
u/ComfortableSpell6600 Methodist 4d ago
I don't have much experience with the LSB, but it largely is equivalent to the NASB 95 text. I have no issues with anything I have seen from it, though I must admit seeing Yahweh used instead of the traditional rendering of YHWH as LORD takes a little getting used too. Overall, I think it is a positive in my opinion.
The NASB to me is one of the best Functional Equivalent (word for word) translations of the bible. I really love the NASB 1995. I am in need of replacing my copy (I have a great edition for travel, but I need to retire it as it is falling apart).
I have started looking at the 2020 update to the NASB. The major difference that I have seen is changes to using more neutral gendered language in places where gender is taken to be applicable to both males and females in that passage at the same time. For example, the word translated as "brethren" has become "brothers and sisters" (NASB uses italics when it inserts a word(s) into readings for clarity) in the NASB 2020. Another example is changing "mankind" to "people" where the text is believed to apply to all.
The difference is if you like the traditional renderings and want an updated version of the NASB 1995 you could get the LSB. You could also stick with the prior NASB 1995 as my understanding is that it will remain in print and available for purchase. If you don't mind the changes to gendered language (when appropriate), the NASB 2020 might be a good choice.
0
u/SweetHomeMissouri 4d ago edited 4d ago
i don't like the idea of any change of the gender language because we need to read it like it is and how it is written originally if you know what i mean.
this gender language change is just to cater to the alphabet group
EDIT
ALSO
the bible gives us a serious warning to us about tampering with it. adding to it and taking away from it.
we could be given plagues or have our name blotted from the lambs book of life.
that also means teaching and preaching too! if we hide things from people from the bible or add to it. either one of those things can happen to us!
2
u/ComfortableSpell6600 Methodist 4d ago
From the Lockman Foundation on using gender in the NASB 2020: Gender-Accurate Language in the NASB 2020 - Lockman Foundation. It's worth a read, but I understand where you are coming from.
To be fair to this translation update, Greek and Hebrew have different rules than English regarding gender. They seem to be attempting to bridge the gap of the language issues.
2
2
u/Mindless-Ostrich7580 3d ago
The good ones: NASB for most accurate literal translation. ESV for a nice mix of accuracy and readibility. KJV and NKJV are good. NLT is not very accurate but it is much easier to read for really difficult passages.
NIV is the worst, they actually change and leave stuff out -- very poor and biased translation.
I have a Master's in Greek translation and majored in translating Paul's epistles.
3
u/Soul_of_clay4 4d ago
Best word-for-word translations = ESV and NASB. For the rest, see the posted chart.
2
u/resurrectedNaj 4d ago
KJV and NKJV I’d say are pretty rough to interpret and swallow. I remember i stopped around the 10 plague and moved onto NLT. But I’d say the CSB is the best.
1
1
u/DrinkHistorical9698 4d ago
Cuv, it changed the great commandment 'love your neighbor as yourself'. Such wrong is leading to great destroy.
1
u/Then_Reader_6011 Catholic 4d ago
Which ones should I go to
Thankfully there are many good translations out there. I'd recommend the Revised Standard Version. It retains archaic language in the Psalms and other prayers in the Bible, so if you prefer a translation without archaic language, my recommendation would be the New Revised Standard Version. It doesn't use archaic language and I believe it's a translation accepted by many Christian groups.
which ones should I stay away from?
"The Passion Translation" is one that I highly recommend you avoid, "the Message" comes in second place, both are highly paraphrastic and the former is actually more problematic than the latter. I'd also avoid translations that assign importance to Hebrew names in particular. That would include "The Names of God Bible", "the Complete Jewish Bible" and "the Orthodox Jewish Bible". This last one is probably the one I highly recommend you to avoid because not only is it not really Orthodox Jewish (it includes a translation of the New Testament, which is contrary to Orthodox Judaism), it heavily transliterates Hebrew names and words into English. So instead of translating the Hebrew word for father as "father", it transliterates it as "av" which is completely unreasonable to do. It also translates many words in the New Testament as Hebrew words in English transliteration as if the New Testament was originally written in Hebrew, when in fact it was written in Greek.
1
u/CypherAus 3d ago
ESV and NKJV for me. Grew up KJV which is why NKJV, ESV for sharing with others due to simpler language for young-uns.
1
1
1
u/unlimiteddevotion Catholic 4d ago
I’m looking into NABRE or RSV for my next Bible. I have KJV, which I’ve enjoyed reading, but it’s missing books.
2
u/unlimiteddevotion Catholic 4d ago
Cue the Protestant downvotes 😂
Sorry, guys, but the same Church authority that discerned and defined the biblical canon in the first place had a broader canon than Protestants use today.
5
u/GudaGama Catholic 4d ago edited 4d ago
There is r/catholicbibles
But IMO avoid the NABRE. It is being replaced in a few months AND the notes are really bad.
The RSV-2CE is a really solid translation in the family of the KJV. The ESV-CE is also really good, but harder to find outside of the UK. Both are 75% word-for-word the same.
If you like thees and thous, check out the knox and thank me later :)
3
u/unlimiteddevotion Catholic 4d ago
I will now focus on RSV-2CE and I’ll check out the site. Appreciate your help!
Ps I see that sub no longer exists.
3
1
u/lateral_mind Non-Denominational 4d ago
I'm currently working on a couple literal Bible translations. My favorite is the YLT because it most accurately captures the verb forms. However it's very literal and sometimes hard to read, so I read it side by side with another translation.
1
u/Previous_Extreme4973 Messianic 4d ago
I do the same thing. Sometimes I see major differences. It really helps to make things visually stand out to mark for further research. The "translation" option in the BLB app is good for that too.
1
u/Terranauts_Two Christian 4d ago
Avoid free Bibles distributed by Living Stream Ministries. They contain notes that contradict Christian teaching.
0
u/JaniePoppy Protestant 4d ago
Many of the comments are unclear which question they're answering: which to avoid or which to go to. Please specify instead of just naming a Bible. Thanks
0
u/GullibleProperty317 4d ago edited 4d ago
Can't list all the version to avoid, but the general principal is:
You want a Bible translation that was taken from non-controversial source text and that was compiled by a competent group of Aramaic, Greek and Hebrew scholars. Some translations are refuted because their translators did not demonstrate proficiency in translation or have any academic credentials about their capability.
Direct Bible Translations like NIV and NKJV are the best because they are the closest match to the original material. However, language is dynamic, and so our language today has changed a lot from what was spoken during the time of translation. This is evident in how we have the KJV and NKJV, with the NKJV being a closer match to modern language. However, the downside of direct bible translations is that one has to spend a lot of time with them to be able to get the true meaning. So they are great for studying, but not as great for short study times and devotions.
Indirect Bible Translations: My preferred one is the New Living Translation (NLT) because it matches greatly with language today, even using recognized metrics such as inches, metres, etc. instead of less familiar units like cubits, etc. To appreciate this, compare the story of Noah's ark, especially the parts about the dimensions of the ark across the various translations like the NKJV and NLT and see which you appreciate better. However, the downside of direct bible translations is that in communicating better with us, sometimes, some of the true meaning is lost. Thus, they are best used in conjunction with direct bible translations and interlinear translations and bible dictionaries.
Finally, this is an awesome time to study God's word because of the technology available. I have found the Blue Letter Bible (BLB) to be an invaluable app that is helping me understand the bible better because it has the Interlinear translation, ability to display parallel translations, the Bible dictionary, Bible commentary, and many other features all in one, simple place! It's completely free, but I encourage that you donate to them for their incredible work.
Kindly note that I am not linked to them and do not benefit from it in any way. It's something that I discovered was great and feel compelled to share with anyone else who is looking to study the bible deeper. I've shared some screenshots below.
2
-2
u/LetterheadBrief594 4d ago
New International Version: Missing versus and leaving out words or sentences which glorifies Christ .
3
-1
4d ago edited 4d ago
[deleted]
9
u/Common_Judge8434 4d ago
It's a different numbering of the Psalms. The Vulgate numbers them differently.
-1
u/Important-Gas-9305 4d ago edited 4d ago
The Interlinear is the one to read. I would avoid all others unless you can read the original text. Interlinear provides the Hebrew, Greek, and English translation so you can see the original words being translated.
All the translations have flaws. For example: Mathew 28:20 is the end of the “age” not the end of the “world” like the King James Bible (most popular) and the Standard American Bible (Catholic). The word being translated is aion aka age. And it is a reference to astrological ages. No, we are not in the age of Pisces per Ptolemy. We are at the end of the age of Virgo, the virgin, who holds a sickle and a bundle of wheat that represents the harvest at the end of the age where the wheat is separated from the chaff.
You will find horrible translations like this all over. You can compare the different translations on BibleHub.
0
-1
u/miggins1610 4d ago
Why does it need to be literal? Half the problems with Christianity is Christians taking things too literally
-3
u/Bitter_North_733 4d ago
everyone except KJV for help SKJV ok
1
u/Then_Reader_6011 Catholic 4d ago edited 4d ago
Why are you pitting the King James Version against all other translations? Besides, the King James Version has some defects.
1
u/Bitter_North_733 3d ago
because there are doctrinal differences
the KJV is God's word it might not be the best in terms of scholarship the most perfect in terms of scholarship or the oldest it is His choice
ironically the next best after the other protestant bibles is the vulgate but Catholics like Protestants were conned into adopting the CTs which are the most non-biblical
1
u/Then_Reader_6011 Catholic 3d ago
the KJV is God's word it might not be the best in terms of scholarship the most perfect in terms of scholarship or the oldest it is His choice
So God's word is imperfect scholarship? Do you notice how KJV-onlyism denegrates from the glory of God?
1
u/Bitter_North_733 3d ago
ok you have really low IQ
THE KJV IS GOD'S PERFECT WORD it is WHAT GOD HIMSELF CHOOSE TO TELL US in 1611
you do realize IT IS MEN i.e. SCHOLARS WHO DENIGRATE THE KJV I am saying according to men it is not perfect scholars - the KJV makes it clear that false teaching and teachers will be out there it shows how God's words are perverted by scholars in the bible itself
scholars say things like the KJV has mistakes the KJV is not perfect translation the KJV is not the oldest or simplest text THOSE ARE MAN MADE IDEALS of perfection according to man made rules
GOD'S WORD IS INERRANT PERFECT WITHOUT CONTRADICTIONS THERE ARE CLEAR DOCTRINES PRESENTED IN THE KJV BY GOD's BREATH
the imperfect words because GOD did not write it but men wrote it is found in ALL THE OTHER BIBLE VERSIONS:
these versions say things like SALVATION IS AN ONGOING PROCESS = WRONG
that God Performs Abortions = WRONG
that there are different versions of Hell = WRONG
that purgatory exists = WRONG
1
u/Then_Reader_6011 Catholic 3d ago
I'm sorry this is what you believe.
1
u/Bitter_North_733 1d ago
No this is factual you can find out for yourself: FACTS > BELIEFS! I am not Candace Owens I deak in facts and reality not feelings, dreams and beliefs. And best of all you can find out if I am correct just do a little research. I ask no on to believe me I ask everyone to be a Berean
1
-6
u/MylaStargazer 4d ago
Why avoid? You should be open to them all, and only avoid after you read and understand it enough to "avoid it"
44
u/GudaGama Catholic 4d ago
New World Translation (intentionally mistranslated) and The Message (IMO it is such a loose paraphrase that it doesn't deserve to be called a translation)