Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Which Bible is Most Accurate?

Could you cite a source for that?

The problem with your original statement is that it ignores the fact that the KJV had source documents from which it was translated. More importantly, modern versions cited in this thread (NIV, NKJV, ESV, NASB) do not use english translations as sources, but only those from the original languages. Only the original sources have been utilized since the translation of the KJV, and they predate the Roman Catholic Church. There were peices of the vulgate used as sources for the KJV, but older documents that predate these have been found to replace those as more reliable source material.

Since the translation of the KJV new source documents have been unearthed; documents which predate the Roman Catholic Church.

Fact is, the Roman Catholic Church has its own (non-KJV) version of the Bible.

Of course the most ironic thing about your assertion is that in many threads you use Scripture to defend your own positions. Why would you do that if what you say above were true? That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. You're saying that the source of your own positions is false. You're undercutting yourself.

WOW! That's off the charts even for YOU!

So when Jesus said "Pray, then, in this way:" (Matt6:9) exactly HOW do you come to such a conclusion Swampy? All of chapter 6 was direct instruction from Jesus to his disciples---------the FIRST "Christians". So what should the "modern Christian" be concerned with? If you mention Joel Osteen you'll own me a new keyboard......

Where do you get this stuff? All you have to do is a brief investigation and you'll find that is utterly false. [/quote]

There are sources (usually catholic) that lie about it, but my statement is factual. [/quote]So all those guys who were given access to the original manuscripts studdied them for years, discarded all that knowledge, and then paraphrased the KJV? Dood, come one.

Read the Lord's Prayer in the KJV, and then read it in any other version. Notice the difference. Now why is it that no other Bible has "For thine is the kingdom, the power, and the glory, for ever and ever, Amen.?"


I can't wait to hear your conspiratorial answer for that one (after spending 30 minutes on Google) [/quote]

I couldn't care less about the Lord's prayer. It has no application for a modern Christian. [/quote]

Forgive him, Father, for he know not how far up his azz his head be.

1flier

This guy is trolling and in very bad taste.

Unfortunately the OP has asked a loaded question that no one can answer.

It is sad to see someone try to interject such utter nonsense just to ruffle some feathers.

I expected better

Snake

Swampy thinks the Remington catalog is the Bible

I truly hate to get in on this, but I get a lot of good from reading others' fields of knowledge, so here goes- there are 3 types of biblical "translation": Formal (attempted word-for-word), Dynamic (attempted thought-for thought), and Paraphrase (what the translator thinks is meant). The most nit-pickin' accurate attempts are Formal; both the others are more subjective. Personally, I use the American Standard version of 1901, for one reason- when I translate directly from the koine greek, after much hassle and labor, what I wrote out is what the ASV already said. NAS or RSV are "updates" of ASV, a bit more modern. More important is vocabulary level- where the NAS was meant for 7th grade level, ASV is ranked at 11th, the most vocab-demanding of english translations. KJV of 1611 is actually easier than ASV, though they're similar. The "best" Bible, though, is: The One you'll READ. Back to my little, dark corner.

nuff said

Which one AV or RV.

Can't argue with that, which might be the reason for the original question.

Steve

Good post. Thanks for the input, add in stuff around here a little more often, please.

As a kid, I always studied the Shooters Bible more than any others.

Sorry, but no original texts are known to be still in existence...and they certainly weren't known to be in existence between 1608 and 1611. If they were, why did they throw them away after making the translation?

There you have it. He doesn't care about the way Christ Himself told us to pray.

Sounds like "ignore" is in his future. Y'all should do that w/ him & his posts, too.

In the church in which I grew up, we were the lone "outsiders".
Everyone else belonged to one of two family branches. All of the "related" kids in my Sunday School and Catechism classes had the King James version. My folks had proudly presented me with a Revised Standard version one Christmas. I quickly learned 1)which is the correct version and 2)about how unacceptable differences can be within a given church.

To understand Swampman, you need to do some research on his mentor, William Branham. He was a TV-type preacher in the 60's & 70's who had a bad habit of inventing scripture. To give you an idea how far off base the guy was, he took this verse:
Gen 4:1 � And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD., and made it say that Eve slept with the serpent and Cain was Satan's son.

Ding, ding, ding! I think we have a winner here!

Almost any Bible you read is far more accurate than any Bible that sits on the shelf. Sort of a parallel to "Any gun you have in your hand is better than any gun that is sitting in your safe."

Read. Pray. Discuss. Test against what you know to be the nature of God. God will do His part and make it accurate.

If you glass bed one will it make it more accurate????

And would you use a lighter translated one to take out the little sins?

And say the latin text to take out the more powerful apparitions?

Are any offered with McSwirly patterns???

And are the synthetic bindings better than the natural wood base ones????

Scoped, peep, or rifle sights...

Pre or Post 60's?

He wasn't teaching me how to pray. He was teaching them how to pray.

I have no idea what you are talking about. I have no mentor and follow nothing but the scripture.