Warning New Bibles Coming Out

[pwg_jonathan]

I'm no scholar, but I've bounced between a few versions over the years and reading them side by side has helped me catch things I'd skim past in just one. Translation arguments get heated fast, yet the heart of the message comes through in all of them for me. What keeps me grounded is "Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path" (Psalm 119:105), whichever version is in my hands.

 

[GodsGrace]

I'm no scholar, but I've bounced between a few versions over the years and reading them side by side has helped me catch things I'd skim past in just one. Translation arguments get heated fast, yet the heart of the message comes through in all of them for me. What keeps me grounded is "Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path" (Psalm 119:105), whichever version is in my hands.

Amen to that!
You are 100% correct.
I even use a bible in a different language...
even THAT helps without having to run to the greek...
which none of us really understand anyway.

It seems we understand what we want to understand
and do not understand what we do not want to understand.

No matter the version.

 

[JustMe]

Good question.
I thought he meant the LDS, but that would be the version that the Mormons use, as you've stated.
However, no other translations are derived from that one...so yes, good question.

Most probably he meant, the LSB - refers to the Legacy Standard Bible, a translation released in 2021 that is a revision of the New American Standard Bible (NASB). So if it is the LSB that he meant, his statement is false, as the modern version predate this Bible.

• The NIV (1978) and ESV (2001) are independent translations that draw directly from ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek manuscripts.
• The NET (New English Translation, 2005) is also an independent translation focused on accuracy and readability.
• The LSB itself is derived from the NASB (1995 edition), not the other way around.

 

[David1701]

I didn't know where to post this video but Bible versions have usually been debated so put it here for you to see what is coming out.

I'm not KJO; but, that change in Rev. 21:6 is horrendous (omitting Rev. 20:5 is bad too); and, entrusting textual criticism to A.I. is the epitome of unbelief!

 

[doctrox]

.

The gold standard for the woke LGBT+ movement is the "Queen James" version. All references to homosexuality being sin have been removed....true story

Rather, it's the new (and copyrighted) versions that have removed those references.

 

[David1701]

What IS the truth?

Wow! Pontius Pilate has been resurrected!

 

[Jay Ross]

You mean that God has written a Brand-New Bible so that we can just toss the old bibles into the WPB.

Or are you simply suggesting that there will soon be another translation for us to be mislead by.

 

[markalan]

Looking at different translations can be helpful ... but it should be remembered that the manuscripts modern versions are primarily based on (Sinaiticus & Vaticanus) omit the story of the woman caught in adultery, and the longer ending of Mark's Gospel.
For me, this means I have some reservations about the reliability of those manuscripts and modern versions of the Bible.

 

[GodsGrace]

You mean that God has written a Brand-New Bible so that we can just toss the old bibles into the WPB.

Or are you simply suggesting that there will soon be another translation for us to be mislead by.

If we cannot trust our bibles...
what should we trust?

The Holy Spirit?
Then we should all agree on everything.

 

[GodsGrace]

Looking at different translations can be helpful ... but it should be remembered that the manuscripts modern versions are primarily based on (Sinaiticus & Vaticanus) omit the story of the woman caught in adultery, and the longer ending of Mark's Gospel.
For me, this means I have some reservations about the reliability of those manuscripts and modern versions of the Bible.

I agree.
If a parable or story is removed from the NT bible or an entire paragraph rejected...
it means that the particular version is taking the responsibility of deciding which manuscripts are correct and which are wrong.

Some have the passage and some do not.
How could we ever be assured that it either was in some manuscript or was not.

I like the versions that state the information but leaves it in.

Unless, of course, textual scholars have determined the truth and it is 100% certain.
I'm not aware of this.

The end of John 7 and the beginning of John 8 is in a couple of my bibles that I just checked.
NASB and a very recent version of a bible commented on by a Catholic Theologian/scholar...
My NIV has an explanation....

Wes Huff, a popular Textual scholar making the rounds right now...
believes John 7:53- 8:1-11 has been added and is not scripture.

My thoughts may not be clear here.
It's interesting but I don't think it should matter very much.

Some seem to think that God wrote the bible with His own hand...
men wrote it by inspiraton - not by dictation.

 

[Jay Ross]

If we cannot trust our bibles...
what should we trust?

The Holy Spirit?
Then we should all agree on everything.

I have trouble trusting all of our present translations.

My Grandson suggested to me that I find a translation that I like and just use that translation only.

 

[GodsGrace]

I have trouble trusting all of our present translations.

My Grandson suggested to me that I find a translation that I like and just use that translation only.

I agree with your grandson to some extent.
I've been using the NASB, purchased in the 80's.
I remember the location of verses and it's very helpful for these Forums...
of course, now, with AI,,,you just write in a sentence or two and it give you the verse.

However, I have found that the following is true:

1. Any version that is understood is good for use since the message of the gospel will always be understood and be clear.

2. For study purposes, it's good to use different versions.
For instance,,,I find that the New Living Translation,,,NLT, if very good for making some verses clear when the NASB is not so clear because it is close to a word for word translation.
The same could be said for the Common English Version, CEV, or the Amplified Version.

Also, I am not speaking against the KJV,,,however, I have noticed that some will post a verse and have an incorrect understanding of its meaning due to the language.

A version must be understood or doctrine can be affected.

Your grandson is attempting to make life easy for you,,,
and I cannot diagree with him.
I think our study days come to an end at some point.

 

[Cyd]

I happen to think people not using KJV plus digging when led miss a lot. The best example to that, that comes to me is when God said this about us. Jeremiah 29:11 (KJV) For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, saith the LORD, thoughts of peace, and not of evil, to give you an expected end. I went to my concordance and looked up the meaning of "peace" I was shocked and in awe the meaning:

well, happy, friendly; also (abstractly) welfare, i.e. health, prosperity, peace:—× do, familiar, × fare, favour, friend, × great, (good) health, (× perfect, such as be at) peace(-able, -ably), prosper(-ity, -ous), rest, safe(-ty), salute, welfare, (× all is, be) well, × wholly.

Tell me a bible version that covers all that?

 

[Jay Ross]

Your grandson is attempting to make life easy for you,,,
and I cannot diagree with him.
I think our study days come to an end at some point.

No, he was presenting a cop out where the cop out cannot be justified.

Let me give an example: -

This is how the NKJV treats these verses: -

Gen 13:14-17: - 14 And the Lord said to Abram, after Lot had separated from him: “Lift your eyes now and look from the place where you are — northward, southward, eastward, and westward; 15 for all the land which you see I give to you and your descendants forever. 16 And I will make your descendants as the dust of the earth; so that if a man could number the dust of the earth, then your descendants also could be numbered. 17 Arise, walk in the land through its length and its width, for I give it to you.”​

This is how I understand these verses now after much consideration of the Hebrew text: -

Genesis 13:14-17: - 14 And the Lord said to Abram, after Lot had separated from him: "Lift your eyes now and look from the place where you are - northward, southward, eastward, and westward; 15 for the entity portion of the earth which you see I give this entity to your descendants for a period of time where the end point of this period will be beyond their ability to comprehend. 16 And I will make your descendants as the dust of the earth; so that if a man could number the dust of the earth, then your descendants also could be numbered. 17 Arise, walk throughout this entity portion of the earth, its length and its width, in order for Me to give this entity."​

You will notice that there is a big difference between the NKJV and how I have paraphrased my understand in English to reflect the original contextual storyline in the Hebrew text.

My version of Genesis 13:14-17 is in keeping with Stephen's discourse in Acts 7.

I would be prepared to die on the hill of my paraphrase for these verses.

The pastor of the church that I attend states that he has more faith in a translation that was compiled by a committee rather than a translation compiled by a single person.

Sadly, his attitude towards the translations based upon his belief that a committee will make less translation errors than a single person, means that the existing Bible Translation will lag far behind in making corrections in our favourite Bible Translations and we will languish in our misunderstanding if we do not take the time verify the translations themselves for ourselves.

Shalom​

 

[Ronald Nolette]

All modern versions of the bible, the NIV, the ESB, the NET derive from the LSD.

Don't know what the LSD is.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

I didn't know where to post this video but Bible versions have usually been debated so put it here for you to see what is coming out.

Any translation from one language to another will suffer simply because one cannot translate perfectly. New Versions should be examined in light of Greek and Hebrew linguistics to see its faithfulness.

 

[David1701]

Looking at different translations can be helpful ... but it should be remembered that the manuscripts modern versions are primarily based on (Sinaiticus & Vaticanus) omit the story of the woman caught in adultery, and the longer ending of Mark's Gospel.
For me, this means I have some reservations about the reliability of those manuscripts and modern versions of the Bible.

And I would add that to say only "some reservations" is being very generous...

 

[David1701]

If we cannot trust our bibles...
what should we trust?

The Holy Spirit?
Then we should all agree on everything.

If we believe in God's providence, then we'll trust that what God provided the Reformers (the manuscripts used to translate the Bibles into the local languages), at a time of epochal return to God and his word, was highly trustworthy, which, in turn, will mean that we do not trust the text underlying most modern translations.

 

[GodsGrace]

If we believe in God's providence, then we'll trust that what God provided the Reformers (the manuscripts used to translate the Bibles into the local languages), at a time of epochal return to God and his word, was highly trustworthy, which, in turn, will mean that we do not trust the text underlying most modern translations.

Manuscripts were provided to translate into modern languages?
I don't understand what you just said.

 

[Moontan13]

He says "changes" are being made; what he means is changes from the KJV. But before you can say changes from the KJV are bad, you have to establish that the KJV is the gold standard that all others are compared to. The KJV is the gold standard for some people, but it's never been established by any objective criteria to be the gold standard.

The problem with the KJV is that the English language has changed. Some words no longer mean what they used to mean.