Which Bible is the best version to use?

This topic and these questions have sparked much debate, confusion, and controversy. There are multitudes of various Bible translations but are they really all necessary? Where do they all come from? Is there one Bible version that is more reliable, stands better and above the rest? Let’s look at this hot topic and answer these questions.

First let us note that God in His Words has said He would persevere His Words and that they are complete truth, authoritative, divinely inspired, infallible (no contradictions), and inerrant (error-free) (Psa. 12:6-7, Psa. 119:89, Isa. 40:8, Matt. 24:35, 2 Tim. 3:16). Knowing this fact, how has God accomplished this truth statement and which Bible translation are the preserved Words of God? Any sincere and honest individual knows that not every Bible translation can be the same. “Things that are different are not the same.” So which Bible is God’s preserved Words?

The Bibles we have today are translated from two main lines of manuscripts. There are no “original manuscripts” existing today but there are copies of the manuscripts which are derived from Antioch, Syria and Alexandria, Egypt. From these two locations also come along two ideologies. To start, what does God say about and how does He view these two locations?

Antioch, Syria is the location where believers in Christ were first called “Christians”; this is where the term Christians came from (Acts 11:26). Antioch, Syria is the location where the Apostle’s Christian headquarters landed; just as the Jewish headquarters was Jerusalem in Israel, Christians’ primary location after Christ’s ministry became Antioch in Syria; Antioch is the spiritual capital of the New Testament “Church” (Acts 11:19-28, 13:1-3, 14:25-28, 15:23-27). Antioch is where one of the first deacons was named from; moreover, this deacon is the only man in this verse whose hometown Antioch was named; interesting that God wanted to put special emphasis on Antioch (Acts 6:5).

Alexandria, Egypt has negative emphasis on its location within the Bible. The first mention of Egypt is found in Genesis 12:10-12 and shows that Abraham was afraid the Egyptians would try to kill him and steal his wife, Sarah. We see in Exodus 1:11-14 that the Jews were slaves in Egypt; the Pharaoh decrees that all Jewish males are to be killed in Egypt (Exo. 1:15-16). God describes Egypt as a house of bondage after bringing the Jews out of the captivity (Exo. 20:2). Moses puts a negative emphasis on Egypt calling it an “iron furnace” (Deut. 4:20). Israel was not to do commercial trade with Egypt (Deut. 17:16). Finally, God denounces Egypt spiritually comparing it with Sodom (Rev. 11:8). Now let’s look specifically at the location of Alexandria. Alexandria is first mentioned in Acts 6:9 and refers to this location as part of the Jewish haters of Stephen (the first Christian martyr) who were involved in his murder. Alexandria is mentioned with bad Bible teaching (doctrine) in Acts 18:24-28, as we find Apollos was lacking in his spiritual knowledge (not knowing the full scope of John’s baptism which was to point to Jesus Christ as Savior emphasizing faith, not water – see Acts 19:1-6) until he was straightened out by Aquila and Priscilla. Lastly, Alexandria, Egypt is the location where the ship went out of to deliver the Apostle Paul to his eventual death (the first ship from Alexandria sinks in a storm - Acts 27:6, and the next ship from Alexandria eventually carries Paul to his death Acts 28:11). All references of Alexandria, Egypt are negative within the Bible. Alexandria, Egypt is also famous for secular education and philosophy from such historical names as Pantaenus, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen who all viewed Scripture with skepticism. These philosophers took a figurative/allegorical view of Scripture rather than a literal interpretation. We are clearly told to reject this type of thinking in the Bible; reject philosophy and rely on validated truth (Col. 2:8, 1 Tim. 1:4, 4:7, 2 Tim. 4:4, Tit. 1:14, 2 Pet. 1:16).

Now that we have an understanding of the two locations where the manuscripts are derived from, we can view the process, quantity, and conditions of existing manuscripts. There are over 5000 manuscripts (in valid conditional fragments) which are in agreement and support the Authorized King James Version (KJV) Bible. Of these 5000, only about five support the various new versions of the Bible.

The various newer translations of the Bible come from two main manuscript texts which are the Vaticanus (the sole property of the Roman Catholic Church), and the Sinaiticus (found among trash paper in St. Cathrine’s monastery at the foot of Mount Sinai). These are both known to be overwhelmed with errors, being altered and corrected by various writers. Both manuscripts contain uninspired, anti-scriptural books which are not found in the accepted Bible (the true canon of Scripture which is 66 books of Old and New Testaments).

The Authorized KJV Bible was derived from Antiochian manuscripts of over 5000 in agreement (such manuscript names known as Antiochian text, Byzantine text, Syrian text, Majority text, Textus Receptus, etc.). Desiderius Erasmus is the primary name responsible for what we know as the Textus Receptus or “received text” by the majority of traditional, fundamental, literal Bible believing Christians who adored and respected the Word of God as authoritative, divinely inspired, infallible (no contradictions), and inerrant (no errors). Erasmus was a very godly man who had access to the corrupted manuscripts (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus) but chose not to use those in formulating and compiling his compilation because he knew those manuscripts had philosophical/Alexandrian influence that had deleted or distorted verses (removals of references to the Deity of Christ, blood of Christ, and the Godhead Trinity).

An argument upon the KJV often made is that newer versions of the Bible are based upon older and more reliable manuscripts. This statement is false. It is true that the corrupted manuscripts Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are older in date. However, one must understand the historical formulation of how copies of manuscripts were produced and preserved. Scribes and scholars over the centuries would copy verbatim (word for word) the manuscripts and if there were any mistakes, they would burn the copies out of respect for God’s Word and start over (hence older is not always better or more accurate). The over 5000 manuscripts which we have (and were used for formulating the KJV) are still readable but heavily worn and used because they were the “accepted” Scriptures from the Apostolic age through the centuries; manuscripts such as the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus which were not thought to be preserved truth of God are in pristine condition because they were not used by the majority of historical Christians through the years.

The Authorized KJV of 1611 was the Bible that succeeded the Protestant Reformation as the sole-source translation for English speaking people. No other Bible dared to challenge it until the late 1800s when two heretics (Westcott and Hort) disputed the “textus receptus” and formed their own “critical text” from the Alexandrian manuscripts distorting God’s Word even more. Once these ungodly men started an avenue for new Bible translations to challenge the KJV, more and more became influenced to capitalize on this money-making business. Even the Apostle Peter warns us about folks making money on God’s spiritual truth (2 Pet. 2:3).

The Authorized KJV uses formal equivalence (translation is verbatim/word for word and not thought for thought). KJV is derived from the received text (textus receptus) which is the majority text (manuscripts) accepted by a majority of historical fundamental Christians for centuries upon centuries.  

Most all newer translations use Alexandrian manuscripts which we have seen are distorted. There are many problems with all newer translations of the Bible. Do you think all Bible translations are the same? Of course not! If they were all saying the same thing, then why would we need so many? God is not the author of confusion, but Satan is (John 8:44, 1 Cor. 14:33). New Bible translations delete various verses, alter meanings of verses, and remove references to the Deity and blood of Christ. To provide a full comprehensive list of these would be too daunting of a task, but here are some: The Holy Trinity verse of 1 John 5:7 is left out of most new versions. The reference “through his blood” speaking of Jesus’ Deity in Colossians 1:14 is left out in many versions. Salvation is emphasized by human works/merit basis which is completely heretical in John 3:36 and 1 John 3:9 in many newer translations. The verse in Acts 8:37 which expresses salvation clearly through the Deity of Christ is left out of most translations. The last section of Mark (Mark 16:9-20) is said to not be in the “oldest” manuscripts (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus) so most Bible translations have a footnote claiming, “the oldest and best manuscripts do not contain these verses.” However, we have seen that those manuscripts are surely not the best but rather corrupt, so why are we being emphasized by modern translators to trust them?

Many newer Bible translations also paraphrase God’s Word and don’t use a verbatim translation. They instead use what is known as “dynamic equivalence” (thought for thought) for translating, which is based upon the “translators” discretion of what they “believe” the manuscripts were attempting to say. If I can speak bluntly, I do not want some translator’s “opinion” on how they think the text should read; I prefer you to simply translate verbatim the text and I will decipher God’s Word with the Holy Spirit that lives inside of me. Newer translations also don’t reveal to you when they add or subtract a word for context clarity. Of course, any linguist knows that when a language is translated from the original language, there are some context or conjunction words which must be changed for clarity. However, the Authorized KJV translators put these added words in italics to let us know when they did it so we can decipher if it needs to be there or not; all newer translations do not advise you with this luxury so one will never know when it was done.

An argument against the Authorized KJV is that it uses words such as “thee”, “thou”, “thy”, “thine”, as well as “ye”, and “you” but this is for good reason. Opposers argue these words are Old Elizabethan English which are outdated and confusing. However, these words that begin with “t” emphasize the speaker is talking to only one person whereas the “y” words reference a plural speaking to more than one person. This helps when you are attempting to understand the context of the dialogue in reading. Furthermore, the Elizabethan English of the Authorized KJV emphasizes a language of prestige, honor, and respect to the Word of God. Don’t you think the Word of God deserves a more eloquent language than simple, water-downed, common dialogue?

God gives stark warning to us not to alter His Words (Deut. 4:2, Prov. 30:5-6, Rev. 22:18-19), so why would anyone want to be reading a Bible that has been tampered with either in its direct translation from modern “scholarship” or from the derived manuscripts it was translated from? Can an individual be saved from hearing the Gospel in a new translation Bible? Yes! Can an individual grow in their Christian faith with a newer translation Bible? Yes! However, if God went to so much trouble to preserve His perfect Words, then wouldn’t you like to read the most genuine and authentic translation available, to which you don’t have to worry about any misleading, confusing, or contradictory text? Look no further than the Authorized King James Version (KJV) Bible. All translations contain the Words of God, but the KJV is the complete Word of God!

**some information taken from Dr. Samuel C. Gipp's books: The Answer Book: A Helpbook for Christians & Gipp's Understandable History of the Bible