best bible translation (english)

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



gold slorg
vote imo

Surtur
So which fantasy series is better, is your question?

gold slorg
nah, they're all the same fantasy, just different translation and, thus, the artistic style thumb up

Surtur
It's like asking which arthurian legend author is better

gold slorg
what would be wrong with that smile

Surtur
Is there a bible translation that doesn't make Yahweh out to be some sort of eldritch abomination?

One without him f*cking with Job and ordering all firstborns killed and flooding the world...?

eThneoLgrRnae
The King James Bible is the only real HOLY Bible. The others are corruptions of God's Word.


The KJB is also the greatest selling book of all-time.Charlie Darwin's fantasy novel "On the Origin of Species" certainly doesn't hold a candle to it lol.

Surtur
Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
The King James Bible is the only real HOLY Bible. The others are corruptions of God's Word.

How do you know tho? It was written by men centuries ago.

eThneoLgrRnae
Originally posted by Surtur
How do you know tho? It was written by men centuries ago.



I know because it is the only one translated directly from the original texts.

Surtur
How do you know the originals are accurate?

eThneoLgrRnae
Originally posted by Surtur
How do you know the originals are accurate?


I know thru faith. How do you know that what history books tell us today are actually accurate? You don't. You have faith that they are.

Surtur
Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
I know thru faith. How do you know that what history books tell us today are actually accurate? You don't. You have faith that they are.

Okay fair enough but u gotta realize that by this logic I could spin any history and say "cuz faith" right?

eThneoLgrRnae
Yep, I get that. So what? People choose to put faith in whatever they choose as being true.I believe what history books tell us for the most part; just think that scriptural texts are just as accurate if not moreso.

Surtur
Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Yep, I get that. So what? People choose to put faith in whatever they choose as being true.I believe what history books tell us for the most part; just think that scriptural texts are just as accurate if not moreso.

Okay but don't you think that...for example, the first born thing. Don't you think that would of been recorded in history if all the first borns were killed by angels?

It would be people of all ages being slain via supernatural means. Cuz yeah some of the stuff in scripture can be matched with historical documents, etc. Some of the people mentioned were real people.

Surtur
Also, how can you be sure these supernatural beings are even what they claim? Satan has fooled people before, right?

eThneoLgrRnae
Originally posted by Surtur
Okay but don't you think that...for example, the first born thing. Don't you think that would of been recorded in history if all the first borns were killed by angels?

It would be people of all ages being slain via supernatural means. Cuz yeah some of the stuff in scripture can be matched with historical documents, etc. Some of the people mentioned were real people.


Are you referring to the male children of Jewish slaves being killed in Egypt by the pharaoh? If so, yes, that is a documented event listed in the Bible. It wasn't just the firstborns though.... it was all male children (under a certain age , iirc).

Not getting the point u r trying to make.

Surtur
Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Are you referring to the male children of Jewish slaves being killed in Egypt by the pharaoh? If so, yes, that is a documented event listed in the Bible. It wasn't just the firstborns though.... it was all male children (under a certain age , iirc).

Not getting the point u r trying to make.

It has been a while since I read the bible, but I think in response to what you just described God had angels kill all the first borns of Egyptians.

So is there any historical basis for that?

eThneoLgrRnae
Originally posted by Surtur
Also, how can you be sure these supernatural beings are even what they claim? Satan has fooled people before, right?


Again, not sure what u r saying here. The Bible is what says that angels are actually angels. The Bible is the Word of God. Looks like you're problem is with the authority of the Bible itself. That is something we will never agree on though so it's kind of pointless to argue over it.

eThneoLgrRnae
Originally posted by Surtur
It has been a while since I read the bible, but I think in response to what you just described God had angels kill all the first borns of Egyptians.

So is there any historical basis for that?


Yes, it is documented in the Bible. Again, I refer you back to my previous post. You doubt the history in the Bible and I don't. We will never change each other's mind over this.

Surtur
Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Yes, it is documented in the Bible. Again, I refer you back to my previous post. You doubt the history in the Bible and I don't. We will never change each other's mind over this.

What I'm saying is don't you think the first born of all Egyptians being slain in one night would have been documented in texts other than the bible?

eThneoLgrRnae
Originally posted by Surtur
What I'm saying is don't you think the first born of all Egyptians being slain in one night would have been documented in texts other than the bible?


Maybe the Egyptians didn't want to acknowledge that the Hebrew God was actually greater than their "gods" so they refused to put it in their history, perhaps? It would be admitting that their "gods" weren't powerful enough to protect them. The Egyptians were a very proud people, after all.

eThneoLgrRnae
We all know that things are sometimes omitted from history or changed from what really happened.

gold slorg
vote in poll pls

eThneoLgrRnae
Already have. Think I'm the only one who has voted lol. Many people on this forum are atheists and so won't bother voting since they think all Bible versions are just slightly different versions of a "fairytale" lol.

eThneoLgrRnae
Omg, I just realized that the only vote is for the NIV. I would never willingly vote for any Bible other than the King James Bible

Surtur
I doubt most here have read enough of the various versions to make a judgement.

eThneoLgrRnae
I don't know what happened when I voted the first time. But, apparently, I didn't vote because it just let me vote again.

gold slorg
i've always been full atheist, however religion gets my attention in philosophical sense and historical sense, and i've always been interested what differences can people note between the translations and what influence can they possibly have, since it's not a topic you see often when debating Christianity and its roots and influences

gold slorg
and well, generally, i like lots of thoughts in the New Testament, there is a lot of intriguing stuff in it; don't like the OT much tho, for reasons stated by half the world I guess lol

eThneoLgrRnae
Originally posted by gold slorg
i've always been full atheist, however religion gets my attention in philosophical sense and historical sense, and i've always been interested what differences can people note between the translations and what influence can they possibly have, since it's not a topic you see often when debating Christianity and its roots and influences


There are tons of differences between the different versions and only the Authorized King James version went thru such a lengthy and laborious process of translation from the original texts to make sure it matched them precisely. Don't remember the exact number but King James commissioned several dozen of the best translators in the world at that time to translate the original texts into english.

There are many videos on You Tube that talk about the differences in the different versions if you're interested. The You Tube video called "New World Order Bible Versions" is really good and goes into great detail about not just the differences the modern version have compared to the King James but the bloody history of how the 1611 King James Bible finally came into being. It's quite fascinating. I highly recommend it when for atheists such as yourself. You don't have to be s a Christian to enjoy learning about the differences and histories of the different versions.

Lestov16
Real funny to see you here. Trying to repent for supporting the Antichrist? Just know that a Trump vote in November is a ticket to the Lake of Fire

eThneoLgrRnae
Yawn.

You really need to grow up, dude.

StyleTime
Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
I know because it is the only one translated directly from the original texts.
That is incorrect.
Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae

The KJB is also the greatest selling book of all-time.Charlie Darwin's fantasy novel "On the Origin of Species" certainly doesn't hold a candle to it lol.
It's pretty easy to outsell a science book though, as the general populace doesn't read them in their free time. Not that it matters either way...

But, considering evolution is taught basically everywhere on Earth outside of a few fundamentalist theocracies, I'd say Darwin's work is actually consumed by far more people than the Bible, Quran, Rigveda or any other religious text.

There are tons of countries and cultures where Christianity has little presence, if any. That's not really true for Darwin. Even in most predominantly Christian/Buddhist/ Hindu/Shinto/etc cultures, they are still learning Darwin.

Evolutionary theory is everywhere.

StyleTime
Originally posted by StyleTime
Even in most predominantly Christian/Buddhist/ Hindu/Shinto/etc cultures, they are still learning Darwin.

Evolutionary theory is everywhere.
Couldn't edit in time, but much of the Muslim world has also moved to teaching evolution in the last decade or so. The fact that several hyper-religious countries ended their bans on teaching evolution says a lot.

I'm not saying popularity makes something correct, and people are welcome to their beliefs; however, the power of science is undeniable.

eThneoLgrRnae
Originally posted by StyleTime
That is incorrect.

It's pretty easy to outsell a science book though, as the general populace doesn't read them in their free time. Not that it matters either way...

But, considering evolution is taught basically everywhere on Earth outside of a few fundamentalist theocracies, I'd say Darwin's work is actually consumed by far more people than the Bible, Quran, Rigveda or any other religious text.

There are tons of countries and cultures where Christianity has little presence, if any. That's not really true for Darwin. Even in most predominantly Christian/Buddhist/ Hindu/Shinto/etc cultures, they are still learning Darwin.

Evolutionary theory is everywhere.


No, it's not incorrect.

Darwin's book was not a science book, moron, no matter how much you've convinced yourself it is. It is a racist, fairytale book. So sorry that I've hurt your fee fees by talking bad about your pathetic, loser idol Charley Darwin's "masterpiece"lol.


Evolution "theory" is a friggin' joke; only brainwashed people call is "science" and it's clearly obvious you're butthurt mad that the King Jamea Bible far exceeds Darwin's book in all-time sales. People don't learn evolution "theory" they are brainwashed/indoctrinated into believing in it


Don't want to be accused of being a bigot (even though I already have been many times over by retarded lefties) so I apologize for insulting your evolutionary religion. thumb up

Blakemore
Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Again, not sure what u r saying here. The Bible is what says that angels are actually angels. The Bible is the Word of God. Looks like you're problem is with the authority of the Bible itself. That is something we will never agree on though so it's kind of pointless to argue over it. He's saying that your argument of faith is implying that everything is make believe. Well I guess I should have sex with bile demons and cut my ears off. Then sew fairies onto them and shove a goblin up my ass.

eThneoLgrRnae
^shouldn't u be sucking on Matt Damon's dick some more?

Blakemore
Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
^shouldn't u be sucking on Matt Damon's dick some more? I do not suck Matt Damon's dick. Have faith that I don't.

eThneoLgrRnae
You certainly seem to be in love with him though.

Blakemore
Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
You certainly seem to be in love with him though. Considering your worship of Kent Hovind, I wouldn't be surprised if you believe in ouija boards and John Edward crap.

StyleTime
Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
No, it's not incorrect.

Literally all of the ones on the poll use the Greek/Hebrew texts, except The Living Bible. They also have the added advantage of using things like the Dead Sea Scrolls, which weren't even discovered until the 1940's.

It takes little research to go find that out.
Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Darwin's book was not a science book, moron, no matter how much you've convinced yourself it is. It is a racist, fairytale book. So sorry that I've hurt your fee fees by talking bad about your pathetic, loser idol Charley Darwin's "masterpiece"lol.

Evolution "theory" is a friggin' joke; only brainwashed people call is "science" and it's clearly obvious you're butthurt mad that the King Jamea Bible far exceeds Darwin's book in all-time sales. People don't learn evolution "theory" they are brainwashed/indoctrinated into believing in it

The hurdle for fundamentalists is understanding the difference between a holy book and a science book. In Christianity, the Bible is the absolute authority on all matters. The original texts sit atop the hierarchy of canon, and could only be challenged if an even older manuscript were discovered with different writing.

It's different in science. The Origin of the Species doesn't hold that same primacy. Darwin's works aren't the absolute authority on evolutionary theory. Science continues to evolve as we learn new things about the natural world. We now know Darwin was wrong about pangenesis, for example. Richard Dawkins is a far more credible source for current knowledge on evolution. When he dies, we will continue to advance, surpassing his work as well.

That's why these holy book comparisons fail when discussing works of science. Science isn't beholden to a single book, and evolves as new discoveries are made. Darwin is an important figure and his contributions will be remembered, but the buck doesn't stop with him. The same goes for Newton or Einstein or anyone else.
Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Darwin's book was not a science book, moron, no matter how much you've convinced yourself it is. It is a racist, fairytale book. So sorry that I've hurt your fee fees by talking bad about your pathetic, loser idol Charley Darwin's "masterpiece"lol.

Don't want to be accused of being a bigot (even though I already have been many times over by retarded lefties) so I apologize for insulting your evolutionary religion. thumb up
You're so Christ-like. Jesus would be proud.

Are you interested in an honest intellectual discussion or are you still playing the usual GDF #gottem game?

Blakemore
Originally posted by gold slorg
vote imo There wasn't any.

StoptheSteal
It says in the Bible that God will speak to man's heart and protect his meaning. Therefore all Bibles are the same.

Blakemore
Originally posted by gold slorg
vote imo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hM17LMr5WvM&t=57s

eThneoLgrRnae
Gail Riplinger (whom I highly respect;she is a wise, very godly Christian woman who has written a lot of books on Bible versions and the clear superiority of the KJV over other versions) briefly lays out some of the reasons why all of the modern day versions (including the so-called "New King James" version) are dangerous and are part of Satan's New World Order agenda.


https://youtu.be/PmIsqO1FJ6c


Bottom line: always stick with the King James Bible (the only true Word of God in english), folks. You can not and will not go wrong with it. wink

StyleTime
Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae

Bottom line: always stick with the King James Bible (the only true Word of God in english), folks. You can not and will not go wrong with it. wink
Unless you want one translated from the actual Dead Sea Scrolls, which the KJV isn't.

And some folks argue that the KJV has errors anyway.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbmLdss5uqQ

I don't even have a dog in this fight, but fact checking is fun.

eThneoLgrRnae
Originally posted by StoptheSteal
It says in the Bible that God will speak to man's heart and protect his meaning. Therefore all Bibles are the same.


Lmao. No, they are not the same. Not by a long shot.

The Authorized King James Version is the only real Holy Bible in the english language.

It is the only book where God's Words are preserved in english, and yes, they are indeed God's Words despite the fact that God used men to put them on paper in Hebrew and Greek in which the KJV translators translated the words from.

Dude111
I would say NEW KING JAMES VERSION but really we dont know what the original bible even said,its been re-written like crazy!

eThneoLgrRnae
Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
The King James Bible is the only real HOLY Bible. The others are corruptions of God's Word.


The KJB is also the greatest selling book of all-time.Charlie Darwin's fantasy novel "On the Origin of Species" certainly doesn't hold a candle to it lol.


This is just as true today as when I first posted it and still will be tomorrow and the day after that, and the day after that, and the day after that, and so on for eternity.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.