Christian Bibles

[Southern_Cheer]

Why are there so many different versions and which one is the best

[Spooky_Eli]

the reason there are so many are because thay've been translated into modern English over & over, the best would(arguably) be the king james or new king james editions.

[NewLeafsFan]

the reason there are so many are because thay've been translated into modern English over & over, the best would(arguably) be the king james or new king james editions.

Living in Canada, I've never heard of those bibles. Both are very much opinion questions. It depends on what strand of Christianity that you follow.

[Spooky_Eli]

Living in Canada, I've never heard of those bibles. Both are very much opinion questions. It depends on what strand of Christianity that you follow.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KJV

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_King_James_Version

[Arkansasguy]

Why are there so many different versions and which one is the best

There's often not a one-to-one correspondence between different languages, so multiple translations can sometimes both be valid. Also, the printing press wasn't invented until the 15th century, so books before that had to be copied by hand. This meant that, even in the original language, there could be slight variations between different copies of the same text. In these cases translators have to decide which version they think is closer to the original, which is frequently debatable.

The Douay-Rheims is a pretty good translation. It's older than the KJV and includes the deutero-canonical books (Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach, and Baruch) which modern versions of the KJV exclude (although they were in the original KJV).

[Dmaxd123]

for me the best is the one that is still keeping to the original people/stories but written in a verbiage that I can understand

if it's written as close to the original as someone thinks, i don't understand it nearly as well

[Uniquemind]

Why are there so many different versions and which one is the best

The Hebrew and Greek and King James Version, and the contrast between the three do the best job of showing you a historical context of how preachers have changed the tone and scope of their sermons over the millenia.

Even as early as the 1900's (so this overlaps with sophmore world and junior year Us historical era's). You'll notice the concept of repentance isn't an instant process like most pastors teach it is today.


Changes like that are noteworthy and it shows you the flaw in humankind's interpretation of the word.


In addition theologians usually have historical backgrounds as well giving them context as to why certain versus of scripture exist randomly in certain places.


It's also important to know what the Dead Sea scrolls are as well.


So finding "Christ" isn't easy just like he said in scripture there's a lot of truth seeking to be done, and as you do so you will face ridicule but you'll be a better critical thinker for it.


—-

Also it is important to note that not all King James Versions of the Bible are the same.


A King James Bible in the 1970’s, has different grammar and word changes to one printed after 2013-2014.

Some are proper changes but others force an interpretation of the lineage of Adam, and assume the “Sons of God” in Genesis 6:2 are sons of Seth. However this prevents readers and many pastors and Catholic fathers from being aware of a darker interpretation that the “Sons of Man” refer to humanoid alien beings that performed alien abductions and sexual cross-breeding between two species, hence. The reason The Flood had to occur, and why I Noah’s bloodline was spared, he wasn’t genetically altered.


I challenge you to look at the commonalities between the modern UFO phenomena, and the very similar description of nephilim mentioned in the Bible. It’s been going on for awhile.


Also notice in Jude, that book mentions the prophet Enoch. Enoch was Noah’s grandfather and part of that perfect bloodline. There’s a book on him but it is excluded from the Bible but I highly believe it should be included, and it exists so technically the scripture hasn’t passed away....


——-



There's often not a one-to-one correspondence between different languages, so multiple translations can sometimes both be valid. Also, the printing press wasn't invented until the 15th century, so books before that had to be copied by hand. This meant that, even in the original language, there could be slight variations between different copies of the same text. In these cases translators have to decide which version they think is closer to the original, which is frequently debatable.

The Douay-Rheims is a pretty good translation. It's older than the KJV and includes the deutero-canonical books (Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach, and Baruch) which modern versions of the KJV exclude (although they were in the original KJV).



This is also correct, research these as well.

[PlasmaHam]

I've been raised on the King James Version, so that is what I always suggest people go with. The language is sometimes difficult or confusing, but I believe it is the closest English translation we have. I'm not against using other translations, especially if you have difficulties understanding the KJV's 1600s English, but I would do a bit of research to find one that is pretty close to the source material, and not some modernist, "Just accept Christ and all your problems will be solved!" translation.



Also it is important to note that not all King James Versions of the Bible are the same.


A King James Bible in the 1970’s, has different grammar and word changes to one printed after 2013-2014.
Right, which is why you see a lot of fundamentalist churches stating that they preach the 1611 King James Version. There are some die-hard 1611-only people out there, but personally given the relatively minor differences between them I don't really stress having one over the other.

[Uniquemind]

I've been raised on the King James Version, so that is what I always suggest people go with. The language is sometimes difficult or confusing, but I believe it is the closest English translation we have. I'm not against using other translations, especially if you have difficulties understanding the KJV's 1600s English, but I would do a bit of research to find one that is pretty close to the source material, and not some modernist, "Just accept Christ and all your problems will be solved!" translation.


Right, which is why you see a lot of fundamentalist churches stating that they preach the 1611 King James Version. There are some die-hard 1611-only people out there, but personally given the relatively minor differences between them I don't really stress having one over the other.



Problem is it’s not minor.

A big shift between the two changes has to do with a change in interpretation of Genesis regarding nephilm Vs the “Sons of God” meaning the bloodline of Seth.


There are two opposing views regarding the line of “Sons of God” who they are where they came from, and what they did with the daughters of man.

This verse’s interpretation is important as it relates to angelic-demonic wars and phenomena, or in present day what Noah dealt with which is prophecized to occur again during End Times.

Alien abduction and sexual abuse-experiences have a lot of parallels to demonic activity and a lot of abuse victims turn to their bible to make sense of these things; and a change in scripture would leave them with false or no answers.

[Chrisbm]

We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.

[Spooky_Eli]

We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.so by translated correctly do you mean without the bits about the bible being the absolute word of god and all others that came to be are merely false teachings?

[Chrisbm]

so by translated correctly do you mean without the bits about the bible being the absolute word of god and all others that came to be are merely false teachings?

Yes, that’s correct. There are mine bibles out there that have the wrong information. My church has the Kings James Versions Both Old and New Testoment. Then we have The Book of Mormon Another Testament Of Jesus Christ(goes and in hand with the new and Old Testament)

[CoryW]

I've been raised on the King James Version, so that is what I always suggest people go with. The language is sometimes difficult or confusing, but I believe it is the closest English translation we have. I'm not against using other translations, especially if you have difficulties understanding the KJV's 1600s English, but I would do a bit of research to find one that is pretty close to the source material, and not some modernist, "Just accept Christ and all your problems will be solved!" translation.


Right, which is why you see a lot of fundamentalist churches stating that they preach the 1611 King James Version. There are some die-hard 1611-only people out there, but personally given the relatively minor differences between them I don't really stress having one over the other.

In the KJV it says I am Alfa and I am Omaga. Do not add nor take away from this book
So if you believe the KJV you can't believe in a different Bible.

[Dalcourt]

I don't know if you can say one translation is better than another. I guess what Bible you use depends a lot on your denomination.

In my church the King James Bible is not acceptable at all. We usually use the NAB/NABRE
(New American Bible and revised edition)

[Spooky_Eli]

In the KJV it says I am Alfa and I am Omaga. Do not add nor take away from this book
So if you believe the KJV you can't believe in a different Bible.most versions of the bible say that, but if we really went through with that we'd be reading a very different text to the hjv

[lliam]

Why are there so many different versions and which one is the best


That's easy to answer in general. Because there are so many opinions, povs and interpretations, therefore there as well are accordingly a variety of interpretations in written form.

[Svladimere074]

This is a tough but good question. I believe the best bible is the that makes it easier for you to learn from and understand. But also one that is more true to the original scriptures. The closest one that was actually studied by the dead sea scrolls and is more updated to modern English and actually has Gods true name in it would be the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures by the Jehovah's Witnesses. However there is a lot of controversy do to the addition the made to john 1.1. Which they could have easy explained rather than adding. But it is more of a truer version. I feel confident in saying that would be my hands down choice. Specially since King James makers announce that they are soon going to be adding God real name back into there version nearly four thousand plus times. Its kinda sad. But glad they are making changes in the right direction.

[mattsmith48]

Sequels and reboots

[trackinglife]

There are a few reasons there are so many. First it was to translate into other languages. Over time publishers realized they could make money off commercializing Bibles. Which is why you have student Bibles marketed to young students. You have Bibles for men and bibles for women. The verses are the same but the notes are often different. Personally I don't think there should be as many as there are but it isn't up to me and if it gets more people reading it then that is better than not reading it at all.