Which Version is the Bible? by Dr. Floyd Nolen Jones

To read the book, click on this link: Bible Believers ChurchIt is posted on this site for reading. It will strengthen your view of the authority of Scripture and help give back to the church our sole standard for what we believe and do.

"which versaion is the bible?"Obviously no version is "THE bible" in the absolute sense of the word. All of them are translations of the bible. Perhaps the question should be "which version is the best translation of the bible?".

Which Version is the Bible? by Dr. Floyd Nolen JonesAsk a silly question and you'll most likely get a silly answer.

it kinda depends on your take on the doctrine of preservation.I don't think so. If by preservation you mean that God has preserved accurate greek manuscripts for us then the qustion is - "which text is the true bible". If, on the other hand, you mean that God has preserved a particular english translation of the bible, then it is surely obvious that no english translation was preserved from the time scripture was first written. You may say, of course, that God preserved certain manuscripts and subsequently saw to it that, for example, the KJV was a perfect translation of these texts.Which do you mean by preservation?

This is what we mean by preservation:"Psalm 12:6\tThe words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.7\tThou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."What we mean is that God has promised to preserve His words in EVERY generation. So if we have them purely today, where are they? Almost any so called "Bible scholar" today will tell you that many passages are in doubt and shouldn't be included in the text. The NIV has taken many scriptures out of the Bible. But because people today are not Bible readers, consumers, they haven't given much of a fight. The ones that do, get marginalized by the rest.Other scriptures have been outright changed. The truth of the matter is that if you have a corrupt textual underpinning, you will have a corrupt vernacular translation. You just get the corruption in another language. To see scriptures that have been changed, just look at Phil. 2:6 where the NIV says that Jesus didn't think He could be equal with God. Or look at 1 Tim. 3:16 where the NIV, NASB omits that "God" was manifest in the flesh. We are left in doubt as to the deity of Christ. It says, "He who." Who is that? An angel? Of course this is what Thayer of Thayer's Lexicon would have believed. He vehemently denied the deity of Christ. Why? He had this "new" text. (Its not new, it was created over a thousand years ago in Alexandria)But I challenge you all to read at least the first chapter of the book. Here's the link again:http://www.bbconfire.com/articles/whichversion/table.aspMaybe some of you would like to check out an introductory article on this issue. Here is the link for that:http://www.bbconfire.com/articles/drdavidbrown/greatuncials.aspGet ready for some serious info. God bless all who seek His truth and love His Word.TR

The truth of the matter is that if you have a corrupt textual underpinning, you will have a corrupt vernacular translation. These discussion have been discussed at length in the past on this site by very learned men. Do these topics in a forum as this where many have little understanding of the depth of the issues can only be sifted by the attack on translations of the bible that you may feel are inferior based on your personal preference of manuscripts profit us? This is a forum dedicated to REVIVAL- not discussion of topics that undermine peoples faith and introduce great controversy. This is the enemies business and the time has come to put legs on our prayers and see a stop to all this. I have yet one word for such behavior- REPENT! Cease and desist from expressing your faith by introducing controversy. 5. If a minister means to promote a revival, he should be very careful not to introduce controversy. He will grieve away the Spirit of God. In this way probably more revivals are put down, than in any other. Look back upon the history of the church from the beginning, and you will see that ministers are generally responsible for grieving away the Spirit and causing declensions by controversy. It is the ministers who bring forward controversial subjects for discussion, and by and by they get very zealous on the subject, and then get the church into a controversial spirit, and so the Spirit of God is grieved away.If I had time to go over the history of the church from the days of the Apostles, I could show that all the controversies that have taken place, and all the great declensions in religion, too, were chargeable upon ministers. I believe the ministers of the present day are responsible for the present state of the church, and it will be seen to be true at the judgment. Who does not know that ministers have been crying out "Heresy," and "New Measures," and talking about the "Evils of Revivals," until they have got the church all in confusion? Look at the poor Presbyterian church, and see ministers getting up their Act and Testimony, and keeping up a continual war! O God, have mercy on ministers. They talk about their days of fasting and prayer, but are these the men to call on others to fast and pray? They ought to fast and pray themselves. It is time that ministers should assemble together, and fast and pray over the evil of controversy, for they have caused it. The church itself never would get into a controversial spirit unless led into it by ministers. The body of the church are always averse to controversy, and will keep out of it, only as they are dragged into it by ministers. When Christians are revived they are not inclined to meddle with controversy, either to read or hear it. But they may be told of such and such "damnable heresies," that are afloat, till they get their feelings enlisted in controversy, and then farewell to the revival. If a minister, in preaching, finds it necessary to discuss particular points, about which Christians differ in opinion, let him BY ALL MEANS avoid a controversial spirit and manner of doing it.[footnote-This was said with pain in 1833-34] (CHARLES G. FINNEY)

RobertW,Why are you so bent on shutting me down? This is a forum dedicated to REVIVAL- not discussion of topics that undermine peoples faith and introduce great controversy.Amen. But is contending for a pure Bible controversy? I think not. At least not among saints.How can you have revival without the Bible? If a man doesn't know he has a pure Bible, how can he preach with conviction? I think not having a pure Bible hinders revival. Do you deny this? Can we have revival without a Bible??? Maybe you want fluff, but I want fire!I have done nothing to attack you. Please give me the same common courtesy. It is you who are causing dissention. I want peace. No one is forcing you to read what I post. If you don't like it, don't read it. Pretty simple."Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?" - Galatians 4:16

What we mean is that God has promised to preserve His words in EVERY generation. So if we have them purely today, where are they? Did the Kings translators have a pure translation in their day?

I have done nothing to attack you. Please give me the same common courtesy. It is you who are causing dissention. I want peace.Well, 28 posts in a little over 24 hours is quite a progression. At that pace you will overtake the administrator in less than 7 months. You have come onto the site with 'guns blazing' and have not had a chance to even get to know us through conversation in these forums.No one is forcing you to read what I post. If you don't like it, don't read it. Pretty simple."Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?" - Galatians 4:16 That is a bold statement to throw out for a newcomer, but such as it is, I am concerned for those who DO read your posts and ARE influenced by what you write. You came on this site and have tried to establish an agenda before anyone had a chance to respond. I logged off Thursday and in no time here we are. My suggestion would be to get to know what we are even here for before trying to slam us with all manor of controversy. Do a search and find we have already discussed at length these topics. Maybe you want fluff, but I want fire!I believe what we need today are people who are full of the Holy Ghost and FIRE and are walking in true holiness free from besettings sins- preaching the Gospel until. OVERWHELMING CONVICTION comes upon the people and they turn their life to Christ. You could preach from the Greek and if you have sin in your life you will be powerless to see conviction of sin upon the people. I propose we let God tend to keeping His word pure and we tend to keeping our hearts pure.

That is a bold statement to throw out for a newcomerAre you against newcomers? You sure sound like it. Well, 28 posts in a little over 24 hours is quite a progression. At that pace you will overtake the administrator in less than 7 months.Is this kindness? What is it to you how much I have posted? I have received many responses to my posts. This is a forum. You should stop attack me personally and use your energy trying to refute what I write (if you can). I am concerned for those who DO read your posts and ARE influenced by what you write.What is wrong with ANYTHING I have posted? Again, I urge you to calm down. Deal with the substance of what I have written. You are making your spirit evident to all. Do you normally attack people you disagree with???As for me, I refuse to attack you. Much love in Christ,TR

RT,You should stop attack me personally and use your energy trying to refute what I write (if you can). What is this? a challenge?I know you are new here, but many of us on SI have been here for ever a year or more and are more like a family. we have grown and been broken and wept for each other. we have encouraged and exhorted (when need be).This forum belongs to Greg Gordon- but ultimately to God. It has been God's since the beginning- which is what has made it different from other forums. It is not men's but God's.At SI we like to encourage members to post prayerfully (meaning: praying, considering before posting.) that the posts be spirit led especially in cases involving debates.In Christ, Chanin

Did the Kings translators have a pure translation in their day?Of course they did. The Anglo-Saxon (pre-English) and Gothic (pre-German) people have had translations almost since Pentecost. In her book "In Awe of Thy Word", Gail Riplinger traces the history of the English Bible from Pentecost to today. Remember that by 500 A.D., the Bible had been translated into over 500 languages. But also around that time, the Catholic church tried to reduce it to one: Latin. But you would probably not have asked this question if you had read the book. Have you read it? I would like to ask everyone to please use this thread to discuss the contents of the book. You may paste the portions of the book you are discussing. Thank you all for your consideration. I don't want us to miss the point here.Blessings,TR

Of course they did. The Anglo-Saxon (pre-English) and Gothic (pre-German) people have had translations almost since Pentecost. In her book "In Awe of Thy Word", Gail Riplinger traces the history of the English Bible from Pentecost to today. You misunderstand me. My question is was there a "pure word of God in English" in the days immediatly prior to the KJV. If God has promised to preserve his word in every generation, did the translators parents, for instance, have access to the word of God in their vernacular?Also, just out of curiosity, what drew you to Sermonindex?

Please use this thread to discuss the book. If you have a question about something you read or couldn't find in the book, then ask. Thank you so much. I don't want to type the whole book. I hope you understand this.But to answer your question, yes of course there were many pure Bibles in English. English as we know it today really came about around the time of John Wycliffe in the 1300's. But in every early form of English you had a Bible (i.e. Bede 600's, King Alfred AD 849-899). After Wycliffe's Bible came Tyndale's (first printed English Bible since the printing press was just recently invented). This came to England under the alias of the Matthew's Bible. Then there was the Great Bible, Bishop's Bible, Geneva Bible. Then this evolving language unified in the KJV. Just go and try to read the Geneva or Wycliffe Bible. This will become evident to you. Up until the KJV, there were so many different words from different influences to the English you speak today like Latin, Norman, Anlo-Saxon, Celtic, etc. One in that day, one would speak of lamb, another would speak of mutton. This is evident to all who study the history of the English language.It was the KJV that unified the language to what it is today how you speak it. England was much more godly then than it was today. People in Wycliffe's day paid one month's salary to purchase a single page of his hand written Bible! (He made hundreds if not thousands) People today think it is a big deal that they tithe! They had such a hunger for the word that it was their highest priority. Is it ours?Do you ever wonder why our "respected" leaders don't teach us this precious history??? It is our heritage.Now, please, everyone go read the book and let's discuss it. Please use this thread how it is intended.Blessings,TR

TR,Please take heed to what others are saying here. You have not responded to the issues others have raised, namely that there has been previous discussion on this as well as this penchant toward pushing across what you want to discuss without that consideration.You are not in the midst of an anything goes mindset and as Chanin well stated:I know you are new here, but many of us on SI have been here for ever a year or more and are more like a family. we have grown and been broken and wept for each other. we have encouraged and exhorted (when need be).This forum belongs to Greg Gordon- but ultimately to God. It has been God's since the beginning- which is what has made it different from other forums. It is not men's but God's.At SI we like to encourage members to post prayerfully (meaning: praying, considering before posting.) that the posts be spirit led especially in cases involving debates.Don't lose the effect of that, we are protective of our 'own' here and that is not in the sense of exclusivity. In such a short time it is impossible to get a feel for all that has gone on before without taking some time to get to know the brethren. It is conduct not content necessarily that will bring about this type of response every time. We have had some come barging in here in times past and want to rearrange the furniture so to speak or worse destroy the place.Though the attempt is to have some patience an attitude of humility and consideration will go a long way. We have probably to our own chagrin not been quick enough to cut off some who will not understand that they are in effect joining a community of heart seeking after the Lord individuals and we don't need to be educated by someone who hasn't taken the time to find out if topics have been discussed prior. That may not be the intention but it leaves that impression."Members" are welcome, but we do not take kindly to those barging into the family room. Please keep this all in mind here.

How can you have revival without the Bible? If a man doesn't know he has a pure Bible, how can he preach with conviction? I think not having a pure Bible hinders revival. Do you deny this? Can we have revival without a Bible??? Maybe you want fluff, but I want fire!Perhaps revival is possible with God? All the apostles of old were fisherman who didn't have a copy of the holy writs and yet they had a hand in the changing of the word? Is Christ not THE word of God who was with Him in the beginning?The one who was made flesh? It would seem that the word of God is a bit more than just text. Perhaps I am wrong though.

OK, I have no idea why you just wrote what you did. I didn't get it. What was wrong with asking folks to read the book? You have not clarified anything here. It's pretty vague. You have, however, discouraged discussion on this book. To be honest, I am the one who feels hi-jacked on this thread. The heading of the section is Book Review. Well, I posted a book that I think is great and a blessing to the body of Christ. Immediately people want to use this thread to discuss everything about the book without reading it (or even part of it). So far, no one in this thread has referred to the BOOK. Do I need to start a new thread and make this clear.crsschk, I totally respect all of your friendships. But you really need to respect folks that come in here and want to dialogue. I haven't posted ANYTHING here that is over the top. Check me out. I am a born again, Bible believing Christian who loves Jesus with all of my heart. You may want to re-assess whether you want to open this up to new people at all. I am getting things like, "We have already discussed this." Who is we??? I thought new folks were coming in all of the time. I don't mean to rain on anybody's parade. This all smacks of "click." Not good if you are the new-comer. The truth is that new people will come in all the time. Certain topics will cycle. If you see one you are tired of, don't click. Discipleship starts over for every new Christian. As the bishop of our church, I am well aware of this. Love makes us want to bear long with people, even though it is inconvenient.But I am not leaving. I don't hold anything against anyone here. I just think this is all such a HUGE over-reaction by everyone. Man, if we can't deal with controversial topics as adults we have serious problems.If this is not how you want to operate, I suggest nixing the term "forum" and go with "club" or something exclusive like that. If I thought this was a good ol' boys club, I wouldn't have bothered. But a forum? Cool. Let's talk. :-) But as far as this book review section. Can we please review the book? Here's the link again:http://www.bbconfire.com/articles/whichversion/table.aspGod bless you, TR

We have chatted over this subject in Which Version and in other places. Rather that go through the discussion again I thought folks might like to visit here.

Check me out. I am a born again, Bible believing Christian who loves Jesus with all of my heart.Tried to do that yesterday but the profile was all blanks. Not as much as a first name. I took it for granted that your legal name was NOT actually Received Text. Please correct me if I'm wrong here. If this is not how you want to operate, I suggest nixing the term "forum" and go with "club" or something exclusive like that. If I thought this was a good ol' boys club, I wouldn't have bothered. But a forum? Cool. Let's talk.No, this is not a "good ole' boys" club and nor is it a discussion board dedicated to debating "KJV only". We surely have discussed the topic at length and have had the priveledge of having Ron Bailey guiding us through the subject as he is very versed on the topic. Many here have a basic understanding of the issues, but His understanding extends well beyond reading any one book on the subject or any one position. If you will look through the thread he suggests you will find he has actually viewed in person certain of the old manuscripts that pertain to this whole debate. Personally I am KJV also, but as Ron mentioned in one of his first responses to your postings, your posture in this is not helpful to the cause. Moreover, the name of the book in question is a major turn off.

At the risk of falling further on my face...Brother, here is the rub.We have no idea of who you are.Perhaps a little about yourself before jumping into an area that tends towards such controversy.Yes, maybe a bit gun shy around here, but recent event's (over the preceding months) have seen this once not so hostile forum being manipulated and capitulated into all kinds of grievous area's.It has been of such a great matter that many good people have just left over it.Being that you came suddenly out of nowhere and began with primarily two area's, the issues with the Catholic Church and now this coupled with your choice of member name... What might you suspect the members of this site to get a picture of?I am getting things like, "We have already discussed this." Who is we???Precisely! Who is 'we' and who is 'you'! :-) Misunderstandings abound so do forgive us for where we have missed your intent, but at the same time can not the thoughts brought up by us 'we' people be taken into consideration here?As was alluded to there is an awful lot of prior discussion here on any number of topics, have you read any of them? Including this issue here?Again, the perception is one of an agenda and that may be of our own misunderstanding, but it is not without some truth to it. There is an awful lot of this kind of thing going on, where someone's opinion is pushed to the point of being exalted above and without consideration for everyone else around here. In other words it is basically ignored.It also is a jump to assume that being guarded is equal to an idea of being a 'click' or a 'good ol boy's club'. How can one make that assumption in such a short time span? This is what we are driving at, get a feel for the place, that's all. Have you listened to any of the messages?Tell us a little about yourself... really, we are not that hostile, just a little paranoid maybe :-?

After the "textural Critics" Westcott & Hort- who did not even believe in the Divinity of Christ-Please give documentary evidence for this statement. How much Westcott have you read?

Its a deep study, but if you give it a little thought, it is no wonder that the Catholics have so much trouble with Doctrine. Their Text is the same one that the NIV relies on- the corrupt Alexandrian (Egyptian) text.The Catholics got into so much trouble because they allowed the Pagan Greek culture to assimilate into Christian practice. they had done it no matter what text they used. Certainly we cannot fault their manuscripts for their corruption.