1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

What Bible Versions Do You Own/Use? Why?

Discussion in 'Christian Theology Forum' started by HammerStone, May 24, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. HammerStone

    HammerStone Well-Known Member Staff Member

    Messages:
    5,107
    Likes Received:
    211
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    There is nothing whatever abridged about the majority of modern Bibles. The 'dynamic equivalence' method may produce more words for a given verse than the 'literal' method, in fact. It is a method perfectly legitimate technically, is very widely used in secular translation generally, and is indeed desirable for anyone not studying. It has been of inestimable use in both conversion and teaching. For those who do not use original languages, literal and dynamic versions can usefully be used side by side.
    That is, of course, if you look at it from a purely "scholarly" point of view. I've heard a thousand times that the KJV is "outdated", "incorrect" and so forth but the fact remains that it remains in use for a reason. There is quite a difference in paraphrasing and/or summarizing something especially when it comes down to man trying to play around with God's Word. It functions in the same manner that you don't read an abridged version of a classic novel and then claim to be an expert on it.Number two, you make the assumption that I don't have any experience with the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. While I am no scholar of any of the three languages, I know enough and have the assistance of some valuable resources such as the Strong's and I fine the KJV to be a pretty good job of a translation.I have no problems with people who want to cross reference Bibles and use other reasonable versions - of which I include the ASV and a couple others. However, I do have a problem when some modern "scholar" creates a summary as it does the same thing the Catholic church of middle ages was doing by claiming to do the work for you. I have a problem when somehow this modern version is supposed to tell me what to believe and to sum up something as incredibly complex and important as prophecy. I have a major problem with this modern day scholar supposedly knows better than the men commissioned by God who wrote the thing in the first place.
     
  2. pointer

    pointer New Member

    Messages:
    179
    Likes Received:
    0
    (SwampFox;3117)
    That is, of course, if you look at it from a purely "scholarly" point of view. I've heard a thousand times that the KJV is "outdated", "incorrect" and so forth but the fact remains that it remains in use for a reason.
    That reason is not because other versions are abridged, because very few of them are. Neither is it because the KJV has superior translation. The KJV has a reputation with some, particularly in America, that is not based on fact. The only major distinctive feature of the KJV, I submit, is its archaic English, which is perhaps reason enough for some. It may be that such language has a charm of its own; it may be that Americans, who have less history than they would perhaps like, are attracted to the KJV for cultural reasons. There may of course be those who would actually prefer the Bible to be obsured by archaic expression, as one might sensibly expect to occur. One must be on one's guard and make sure that one is not persuaded for that reason.
    There is quite a difference in paraphrasing and/or summarizing something especially when it comes down to man trying to play around with God's Word.
    There is a great difference between paraphrase, which involves exact re-presentation of content, and summary, which implies abridgement and loss of content.
    It functions in the same manner that you don't read an abridged version of a classic novel and then claim to be an expert on it.
    One cannot read a mere translation and claim to be an expert. If I discuss a French novel with a friend of mine, he has an enormous advantage over me if he has read the original and I only an English translation. And French and English are much closer in their structure and idiom than English and Greek koine or Hebrew. Only Greek and Hebrew users can make the smallest realistic claim to expertise. To use any Bible translation in a learned context would be to invite ridicule, tempered only by the ministrations of the Holy Spirit.In any case, abridgements are not relevant, because the NASB and other modern versions use a basic translating technique very similar to that used from Tyndale to the KJV and beyond.
    Number two, you make the assumption that I don't have any experience with the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.
    I make no personal observations whatever. In the USA, where most KJV readers reside, very few of them know any original languages, and they often stoutly maintain the uniquely inspired origin of the KJV without having anything but their own opinion in support. It is true that the KJV survives in some parts of the English-speaking world, but its support is frequently very irrational and indeed strange.
    While I am no scholar of any of the three languages, I know enough and have the assistance of some valuable resources such as the Strong's
    Yes, the true standard is not the KJV, but original languages. That has been the evangelical tradition since the Reformation, as well as the scholarly one.
    and I fine the KJV to be a pretty good job of a translation.
    I don't, and millions agree with me. That is why they buy far more modern versions than KJVs, and leave their 'steam Bible' KJVs in the charity shop. The KJ often seems excessively wordy, even clumsy, a design aim as far as James was concerned, I think. It is quite good in terms of basic accuracy, I agree (there are better lexicons than Strong's, btw). But others are more accurate, having the advantage of scholarly advance and of contemporary expression, which assists accuracy in practice. The prophets and apostles did not speak and write in a special religious language, but in a very natural and colloquial one, and we must do likewise when translating into any target language. The KJV is outmoded simply for that reason; that is before the great advances in scholarship of the last few centuries are taken into account. One must not forget that the KJV translators, in common with all translators until quite recently, did not even know that Greek koine existed.
    However, I do have a problem when some modern "scholar" creates a summary as it does the same thing the Catholic church of middle ages was doing by claiming to do the work for you.
    So do I, but most modern versions do not make summaries, and those that do tend to tell you on the cover.
    I have a problem when somehow this modern version is supposed to tell me what to believe and to sum up something as incredibly complex and important as prophecy. I have a major problem with this modern day scholar supposedly knows better than the men commissioned by God who wrote the thing in the first place.
    Those being the apostles and prophets, and they wrote in Greek and Hebrew. The KJV has no advantage whatever.
     
  3. HammerStone

    HammerStone Well-Known Member Staff Member

    Messages:
    5,107
    Likes Received:
    211
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    There is a great difference between paraphrase, which involves exact re-presentation of content, and summary, which implies abridgement and loss of content.
    Not when it involves something like prophecy where the smallest glitch in an interpretation makes a substantial difference.I have enough of the term "scholarly" to last me a lifetime and when you start arguing that a scholar knows how to interpret the Bible better then a true Christian who is willing to listen and has the assistance of Almighty God through the Holy Spirit you have admittedly lost my attention. I grow very wary of the "we'll do it for you" syndrome that seems to be growing across the world in Christianity - what makes it so ironic is this is line of much of the same group that splintered off over 500 years ago because the Catholic Church said the same thing.We act as if we somehow know better than we did 100, 200, 500 years ago in everything and that's just not the case. We act as if our scholars are more learned and more Holy than another generation's. We listen to the same scholars who go running everytime some manuscript is discovered in the desert of Egypt as if its another Holy Bible. We turn Christianity into a feel good religion with phrases such as "that doesn't really mean that..." and we let the church and/or scholars do the work for us.Those millions who agree with you might get to know the millions who agree with me as well. The logic about Americans wanting to hold on to the KJV is lacking simply because it makes no sense. Society here functions on the contrary, we want everything to be easy, it's the nature of societal beast. If it was entirely about cultural reasons, I think we would have quickly all flocked to the ASV.
     
  4. HammerStone

    HammerStone Well-Known Member Staff Member

    Messages:
    5,107
    Likes Received:
    211
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    Just an idea as to why I don't like the newer translations - the following is the same verse in the various translations:KJV: The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven.ESV: The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven.NIV: The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven.ASV: The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is of heaven.The Message:We follow this sequence in Scripture: The First Adam received life, the Last Adam is a life-giving Spirit. Physical life comes first, then spiritual—a firm base shaped from the earth, a final completion coming out of heaven. The First Man was made out of earth, and people since then are earthy; the Second Man was made out of heaven, and people now can be heavenly. In the same way that we've worked from our earthy origins, let's embrace our heavenly ends.Here's another excellent article on the scholars at work:http://www.netc.com/gok/bible18.htmlI don't typically link to offsite articles, but this one covers what I would want to say pretty well.One more, just for the road:I John 5:7-8KJV: For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.NIV: For there are three that testify: the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.The Message: And all the while the Spirit is confirming the truth, the reality of God's presence at Jesus' baptism and crucifixion, bringing those occasions alive for us. A triple testimony: the Spirit, the Baptism, the Crucifixion. And the three in perfect agreement.You know what's funny? The newer versions make this omission because they claim that the so called "trinity" mentioned in the KJV doesn't exist in the verse. However, statistics seem to suggest otherwise.There are thousands of Latin manuscripts of which only about 29 don't contain those key words. The Sirac version contains the words. All pre-Luther German Bibles have the verse. Martin Luther then omitted it as he based his Bible on Erasmus' corrupt 2nd edition manuscript which does not contain the verse. Two years after that, the German Bibles put it back in. Then in 1956 to the present time it has once again been omitted.The NIV gives this little note:[list type=decimal][*][url="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=I%20John%205:7-8&version=31#en-NIV-30617]1 John 5:8[/url] Late manuscripts of the Vulgate testify in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 8 And there are three that testify on earth: the (not found in any Greek manuscript before the sixteenth century)[/list]Funny thing is, that's not the case.Cyprian died in 258 AD yet he wrote about it and so did Priscillian in the 4th century.Finally, here's another link that makes the argument and saves us time by doing it well[url="http://av1611.com/kjbp/faq/holland_1jo5_7.html]http://av1611.com/kjbp/faq/holland_1jo5_7.html[/url]
     
  5. pointer

    pointer New Member

    Messages:
    179
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not when it involves something like prophecy where the smallest glitch in an interpretation makes a substantial difference.
    It does not occur to me that sentences that deal with prophecy are any different in grammar or vocabulary from those that do not. Could you give an example of what you mean, please?
    I have enough of the term "scholarly" to last me a lifetime and when you start arguing that a scholar knows how to interpret the Bible better then a true Christian who is willing to listen and has the assistance of Almighty God through the Holy Spirit you have admittedly lost my attention.
    Hopefully a person can be both a true Christian and a scholar; but a pagan scholar may well be able to correct an unschooled Christian, which makes it very desirable for Christians to be scholars too. One cannot reprove and correct if one does not know what Scripture actually says. So imv, every mature male Christian should be able where possible to know enough to refute all who gainsay sound teaching. That requires serious study as well as the aid of the Holy Spirit. A reliable source of Scripture is the only basis for that, and the only reliable source is in original languages, no translation being worth serious consideration. That is why people take the trouble to acquaint themselves with those languages, in order to be make sure that they cannot be proven wrong.
    I grow very wary of the "we'll do it for you" syndrome that seems to be growing across the world in Christianity
    There are more and more people who are taking up Greek and Hebrew. It is a trend that I welcome and it needs encouragement, imv. I agree that this dependency syndrome is unhealthy, but it seems to me that KJVOers are part of the problem, not the solution.
    We act as if we somehow know better than we did 100, 200, 500 years ago in everything and that's just not the case.
    We do know better, much better. There has not been an enormous amount of selfless, dedicated research into textual and other related studies for nothing. Christians have much to be thankful for in this matter.There is no doubt that scholarship has grown enormously since the eyes of the world were opened at the Renaissance and Reformation, and knowledge that had been kept in the dark for over a thousand years was at last brought to light. This is still an ongoing process, as it has been since the Renaissance.
    We act as if our scholars are more learned and more Holy than another generation's.
    I don't think that evangelicals do anything like think themselves more holy. The works and example of John Wycliffe and John Bunyan, the hymns of Charles Wesley and John Newton and many others are still greatly valued and respected. Otoh, the claim that the KJV's translators were superior in either spirituality or scholarship has no basis in fact.
    We listen to the same scholars who go running everytime some manuscript is discovered in the desert of Egypt as if its another Holy Bible.
    This is an inappropriate comment to make about conservative evangelicals, who treat all of the new discoveries in a sober, objective and scholarly light, as their writings confirm, and their position has not changed in any important respect.
    We turn Christianity into a feel good religion with phrases such as "that doesn't really mean that..."
    This again is inappropriate to evangelicals. One might make the same comment about KJV followers, with at least as much justification.
    The logic about Americans wanting to hold on to the KJV is lacking simply because it makes no sense. Society here functions on the contrary, we want everything to be easy, it's the nature of societal beast.
    Indeed, and the KJV and its misty presentation might well be a symptom of that desire for ease.
    If it was entirely about cultural reasons, I think we would have quickly all flocked to the ASV.
    I think very few people have even heard of the ASV, which was never popular with the general public. The evangelical standard before WW2 was ostensibly the KJV, due to the momentum of 400 years. The good thing about the KJV was that it was so difficult to understand that the hungry Bible believer had to either learn at least Greek, or go to hear a preacher who would exegete from Greek; and there were plenty who would do that, in those days. So Greek and Hebrew were the standards in practice.After WW2 the KJV gave way to RSV; the KJV was quite quickly abandoned by evangelical scholarship without any significant debate. There was no reaction, no complaint, no KJVO movement at that time. The Good News Bible also caused no significant call to return to the KJV, as it was used largely by the young and housewives (with no disrespect to ether GNB or its readers). There was quite a lively debate among evangelicals over the RSV vs. the NIV, because the NIV was, much of the time, what the more clued up evangelicals had been exegeting all along; and evangelicals soon went over to the NIV in large numbers. But when non-evangelicals realised that the NIV was so potent, they made the now familiar loud call to return to the KJV.
     
  6. pointer

    pointer New Member

    Messages:
    179
    Likes Received:
    0
    KJV: The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven.
    NASB: The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven. 1 Cor 15:46
    Cyprian died in 258 AD yet he wrote about it and so did Priscillian in the 4th century.
    Did they refer to it as Scripture? And if they did, did they tell the truth?Does the KJV actually make sense in this passage?
     
  7. pointer

    pointer New Member

    Messages:
    179
    Likes Received:
    0
    I John 4:3KJV: ...and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
    NIV: This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.
    KJV: And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads.
    NASB: And he causes all, the small and the great, and the rich and the poor, and the free men and the slaves, to be given a mark on [epi] their right hand or on their forehead. Rev 13:16
    Revelation 14:1KJV: And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father's name written in their foreheads.NIV: Then I looked, and there before me was the Lamb, standing on Mount Zion, and with him 144,000 who had his name and his Father's name written on their foreheads.** Most of the other modern versions parallel this as well.
    Why is this important?
    I Corinthians 7:1KJV: Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
    NASB: Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman. (Also RSV and others.)As extra-marital sexual relationships are out of the question, this must mean marriage.
    Luke 4:4KJV: And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.
    RSV: And Jesus answered him, "It is written, 'Man shall not live by bread alone.'"The RSV has the same 'omission' as the NIV; like other similar differences, dating from 1952, but no complaint from KJVOers until after the modern NIV gained popularity decades later.
    And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
    This verse is completely omitted in the NIV, RSV, and is bracketed with a footnote in the NASB saying it's probably not genuine.
    And the NASB may well be correct.
    Deuteronomy 4:2KJV: Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.NIV: Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the LORD your God that I give you.The NIV changes the entire meaning of the verse! It makes two statements out of what is obviously one clear statement. It instructs not to add or take away, but then it goes on to say "keep the..." as in a different context.
    Nothing could be further from the truth. The word 'but' ensures that keeping commandments is the only alternative to adding to or subtracting from God's commands.
    Mark 13:14KJV: But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains:The Message: But be ready to run for it when you see the monster of desecration set up where it should never be.Now I'm pretty sure, as I am working on an English degree, that the meaning of abomination has not changed that much in a few hundred years. The verse out of the Message Bible gives the impression of a "monster" such as a hulking brute with red horns and a red pitchfork
    It just says 'monster'. That can be interpreted in a number of ways, from representing a human being, to figurative, abstract concepts. In view of the fact that not so many young people understand the word 'abomination' these days, it seems like an inspired choice, to me. (That is not my endorsement of the The Message, btw.)
    Then we can go into the Message's handling of Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21 in general. How the phrase "And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet." becomes "This is routine history; this is no sign of the end."There is a HUGE difference in saying this "no sign" and this is "not yet". Very, very dangerous.
    I can see no material difference.
    Matthew 24:27For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.Obviously, this is talking about the sun.
    Matthew is talking about lightning, sheet lightning in this case, unlike the fork lightning that Luke referred to, using the very same word, in Luke 10:18.
     
  8. thelounge

    thelounge New Member

    Messages:
    23
    Likes Received:
    0
    I use the RSV here in the UK, with the NIV study bible. I also have some of the newer paraphrase bibles to hand for youth work that I do.
     
  9. Phronesis

    Phronesis New Member

    Messages:
    5
    Likes Received:
    0
    NIV for daily read. Greek NT for study (with Machen as back up [​IMG]
     
  10. fil3232003

    fil3232003 New Member

    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have the KJV of 1611 because I can see consistency on some truty. Example:In the New Testament for all versions:Mat 11:25 At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. In the Old Testament for KJV of 1611:Isa 28:9 Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts. For many of modern versions:Isa 28:9 does not end with a period (.) but question mark (?)
     
  11. pointer

    pointer New Member

    Messages:
    179
    Likes Received:
    0
    (fil3232003;3833)
    I have the KJV of 1611 because I can see consistency on some truty. Example:In the New Testament for all versions:Mat 11:25 At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. In the Old Testament for KJV of 1611:Isa 28:9 Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts. For many of modern versions:Isa 28:9 does not end with a period (.) but question mark (?)
    Small children are cited in Matthew as having wisdom, but they are also mentioned in Scripture in another connexion:'Fix these words of mine in your hearts and minds; tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads. Teach them to your children, talking about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up.' Deut 11:17-1 NIVObviously, children needed to be taught, despite having a wisdom that the educated may lack. Besides the oracles of God, they needed to be taught many things that are common to all cultures, like keeping hands away from stoves and knives, how to tie laces, to learn to speak and write. It is the matter of this universal requirement for basic human upbringing that provoked the question, for question it truly is, in Isaiah. Here we see it in context:'Priests and prophets stagger from beerand are befuddled with wine;they reel from beer,they stagger when seeing visions,they stumble when rendering decisions. All the tables are covered with vomitand there is not a spot without filth. "Who is it he is trying to teach?To whom is he explaining his message?To children weaned from their milk,to those just taken from the breast? For it is: Do and do, do and do,rule on rule, rule on rule;a little here, a little there."' Isa 28:7-10 NIVSo the prophet is remarking that adults are being treated like small children, with silly little rules- "Do this, do that," as we might say.No translation, however, can bring out the repeated short 'baby words' used in this passage, that mock these drunken teachers. (In ancient culture, drunkenness was supposed to enhance prophecy, and the notion had evidently caught on in Judah.)
     
  12. Jenn4God

    Jenn4God New Member

    Messages:
    54
    Likes Received:
    0
    I strictly use the Authorized 1611 KJV. I believe they are the Bibles that contain the true unperverted Word of God. Other translatios contain way too many errors. The worst Bible for any christian to use is the NIV. If anyone is interested I will post a simple test all can take with their Bibles to determine if they are appropriate for christian use.
     
  13. Broken Crusader

    Broken Crusader New Member

    Messages:
    56
    Likes Received:
    0
    I still have my New American Bible, the only version approved by the Holy See for use in the US and Canada.I'm a bit sentimental about it, I've had it for years. I do want to get a new one though. I don't feel comfortable bringing mine to church or to bible studies. LOL. Mind you I'm pretty sure no one would say much, they'd just ask about.If I were to buy a new one, I would want it to be the right one if there is such thing. I want to make it count, so to speak. Any suggestions?:study:
     
  14. pointer

    pointer New Member

    Messages:
    179
    Likes Received:
    0
    (Jenn4God;4306)
    I strictly use the Authorized KJV
    Authorised by which authority, please?
     
  15. Jenn4God

    Jenn4God New Member

    Messages:
    54
    Likes Received:
    0
    (pointer;4311)
    Authorised by which authority, please?
    King James I authorized the translation in 1604 and it was printed in 1611.
     
  16. pointer

    pointer New Member

    Messages:
    179
    Likes Received:
    0
    (Jenn4God;4312)
    King James I
    Do Americans recognise the authority of the British Crown?
     
  17. Jenn4God

    Jenn4God New Member

    Messages:
    54
    Likes Received:
    0
    (pointer;4314)
    Do Americans recognise the authority of the British Crown?
    Why do you ask childish questions? When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things.1 Corinthians 13:11Good advice!
     
  18. pointer

    pointer New Member

    Messages:
    179
    Likes Received:
    0
    (Jenn4God;4315)
    Why do you ask childish questions?
    There is nothing childish about paying back taxes since the Declaration of Independence.In fact, even the British speak falsely when they refer to the 'King James' as 'Authorised'. James commissioned the translation (or should it be called a compilation), but never authorised it; neither did the English or British Parliament, nor has any other parliament or governing political body. Though they do not realise it, in using this term the British must refer to Henry VIII's Great Bible, which was the last to be authorised in Britain.The only authorisation that a Christian can recognise is that of God, and no-one can claim His imprimatur for any mere translation, let alone for the original language manuscripts which are the only possible acceptable standard. All translations must be inadequate simply because they are translations; but all printed translations so far are materially corrupt, and for study purposes should be used only when in the company of those who do not use original languages, and then with great care.
     
  19. Jenn4God

    Jenn4God New Member

    Messages:
    54
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sorry that you have been so mis-informed. "Authorized" does not refer to the Great Bible,as the actual AKJV is much larger. It was in fact authorized by King James I. I don't know where you have been getting your lies and I request proof of them.
     
  20. pointer

    pointer New Member

    Messages:
    179
    Likes Received:
    0
    (Jenn4God;4319)
    "Authorized" does not refer to the Great Bible,as the actual AKJV is much larger.
    In what way?
    It was in fact authorized by King James I. I don't know where you have been getting your lies and I request proof of them.
    It is not possible to produce a 'non-document'. It falls to those who claim authority to produce a document in support. I have challenged KJVO people for some decades to produce such a document, but have never seen one yet.But in any case, James I had authority only in Britain, and very arguably, only for Anglicans.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...