Why do we Christians use so many different Bibles?

Question

I've compared two different ones(KJV & NWT? i think) and the KJV had verses that were taken out of the other translation!

And some translations were done by Atheists! One version(not sure which one) took all refences to the virgin birth out!



I think we should stick with the KJV? what do you think?

Answer 1

Your best bet is to learn ancient Greek, Hebrew, and Latin and read the original texts (as much as is available) for yourself. The KJV is hardly infallible, having been translated 1500+ years after the youngest texts.

Answer 2

The reason we use so many different bibles is that the bible was not written in English, a language that would not arrive for three thousand years after the scriptures began to be set down.

The reason that some verses normally found in the KJV but not found in others is that the knowledge we have today about manuscript testimony - knowledge the 70 translators did not have - cannot support their inclusion.

For instance, the ending of the Gospel of Mark, as shown in the KJV, is widely considered to be later interpolation. The oldest manuscripts never include these passages.

Then there is 1 John 5:7 - this is blatant interpolation added to support the Athanasian camp in an era of doctrinal conflict, and clearly not in the original text.

Don't get me wrong - I like the KJV, even though I am Catholic. To the extent that they could, they translated it very well. But English of the late 16th early 17th century is not the English we speak today. We can't read it the way they meant it.

That is why many efforts are made to re-translate - to improve the accuracy of the translations in light of new discoveries and manuscripts, and because our own language has changed since we first began translating scriptures.

Answer 3

The missing verses in the NWT and many other newer bibles are because scholars have learned that those verse should not be in the bible, and they are copy mistakes of additions.

As to which is the more accurate bible, please read the following.

Old Testament:
In fact, the New World Translation is a scholarly work. In 1989, Professor Benjamin Kedar of Israel said:
"In my linguistic research in connection with the Hebrew Bible and translation, I often refer to the English edition as what is known as the New World Translation. In doing so, I find my feeling repeatedly confirmed that this kind of work reflects an honest endeavor to achieve an understanding of the text that is as accurate as possible. Giving evidence of a broad command of the original language, it renders the original words into a second language understandably without deviating unnecessarily from the specific structure of the Hebrew....Every statement of language allows for a certain latitude in interpreting or translating. So the linguistic solution in any given case may be open to debate. But I have never discovered in the New World Translation any biased intent to read something into the text that it does not contain."

New Testament:

While critical of some of its translation choices, BeDuhn called the New World Translation a “remarkably good” translation, “better by far” and “consistently better” than some of the others considered. Overall, concluded BeDuhn, the New World Translation “is one of the most accurate English translations of the New Testament currently available” and “the most accurate of the translations compared.”—Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament.

“Here at last is a comprehensive comparison of nine major translations of the Bible:

King James Version, New American Standard Bible, New International Version, New Revised Standard Version, New American Bible, Amplified Bible, Today's English Version (Good News Bible), Living Bible, and the New World Translation.

The book provides a general introduction to the history and methods of Bible translation, and gives background on each of these versions. Then it compares them on key passages of the New Testament to determine their accuracy and identify their bias. Passages looked at include:

John 1:1; John 8:58; Philippians 2:5-11; Colossians 1:15-20; Titus 2:13; Hebrews 1:8; 2 Peter 1:1

Jason BeDuhn
Associate Professor of Religious Studies, and Chair
Department of Humanities, Arts, and Religion
Northern Arizona University


Per Dr. BeDuhn only the NWT translated all the above verses correctly.

The oldest manuscript used by the translators of the KJV was from the 8th Century.

Where as today we have copies that are from the 2nd century BC (Hebrew scriptures) and 2nd century AD for the Greek scriptures.

Answer 4

Christians use only one Bible. It is written in Hebrew, a little Aramaic, and Greek (Not English!). English readers must depend upon translations if they are not schooled in the biblical languages. Also we do not have the "autographs" (the original manuscripts written by the authors) so we must utilize the principles of textual criticism to come up with a text to translate. The KJV was made by a small group of translators who were rushed in their work and who had a deficient understanding of Koine Greek. Their translation was based upon a small number of late manuscripts and the translation was made into an English that is no longer spoken. Since this translation was made we have discovered many more early documents and have learned much more about Koine. Modern translations are done more carefully by a larger group of scholars who take a more appropriate length of time in their work. The sections supposedly "taken out" of the KJV are actually sections that scholars agree were never in the original manuscripts. It is not that the other translations deleted sections it is that the KJV translators imprudently added to the Word of God. The translation I like best is the NASB. Nevertheless, it helps to read other translations to consider how other translators worded their conclusions. Rather than limit ourselves to one faulty translation into a language we no longer speak, I think we should use all of the good resources at our disposal in our study of God's Word.

Answer 5

I think the reason why is that the KJV is a bit hard to understand sometimes. Honestly I would not have gotten too far in my bible reading if that's the one I was reading. I have been using the New International Version for two years and have learned much. It is not a "new" bible, it is just translated so that we can better understand it. There are references and different translations down at the bottom.

Answer 6

I think the KJV is your best bet, but I have also found that the NIV and Life Application Bibles are right on key with The KJV. They do read more easily. I actually have all three of these Bibles and compare them often and have found no fault in any of them.

Answer 7

The language of the King James Version is quite difficult for people not brought up with it to understand. Also, much has been discovered about the languages the original Scriptures were written in since the days of King James and recent translations take account of this knowledge. Certainly they are easier for modern readers to understand. Personally I use the New International Version which I find very readable and has a good reputation for accuracy.

Answer 8

I stick by the KJV myself. In the last 30 years or so there have been so many translations that it has perverted the word. The Message is the absolute worse. I read the KJV and some times read a verse in another translation to get a better idea what the verse means.

Answer 9

In my opinion, the KJV is the most accurate. I dislike the fact that people take the liberty to change the word of God, what is this all about??? It used to get me soo mad when I was younger and I would read the bible the JW use and is soooo wrong, so many verses were wrong, and they ommit important facts that have to do with Jesus.

keep the KJV, it is the best translation.

take care

Answer 10

None of the Bible versions that I know of were done by an atheist. And none that I know of have taken out references to the virgin Mary.

I think that you are simply repeating urban legends, not facts.

If you think that we need only one English version of the Bible, then why did you pick the King James (1611)? There are older English versions than that one.

Why not the Tyndale Bible (1525), Cloverdale Bible (1535), Matthew’s Bible (1537), The Great Bible (1539), or the Geneva Bible (1560)?


===edit===

If by "NWT" you mean the "New World Translation", then you are correct in that this particular version of the Bible has been altered to fit Jehovah's Witnesses' theology, and cannot be trusted since it is not an accurate translation.

Answer 11

You are right about the NWT (New World Translation--Jehovah's Witnesses bible). There are a lot of things they did to that bible.

Good translations are the New International Version, New King James, New American Standard and the Revised Standard Version. They all have been faithfully translated. A good paraphrase Bible is The Good News Bible. One way to make sure that it is a good translation is to look for a list of credible scholars in the Bible you are looking at--it shows that they are not afraid to stand behind their work of translation from the Greek and Hebrew texts. By the way, the New World Translation has no such list.