Bible version

[ArtGuy]

Authorized version: "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!"

New version: "Take a running jump, Holy Joes, humbugs!"

:

 

[Lewis]

"The new version, which Dr. Williams says he hopes will spread 'in epidemic profusion through religious and irreligious alike', turns St. Paul's strictures against fornication on their head," adds the Times.

David I think he needs to be stretched a few feet, and then thrown off the top of the Empire State Building,with a 1000 pound weight tied to him.

 

[antitox]

Just when you think it can't get any worse. :roll: Rocky...I guess Jerimiah would be Jerry and Isaiah would be Izzy in that case. People that do this kind of slandering ought to be confined to the rack and stretched a few inches!! :-?

:smt081 :smt044 :smt037

 

[antitox]

I know of some folks on this board that would LOVE that translation. :o

 

[Lewis]

I know of some folks on this board that would LOVE that translation. :o

I believe you.

 

[D46]

I know of some folks on this board that would LOVE that translation. :o

But wait!!! If you order now, you can get not one, but two more versions absolutely free!!

Can you imagain what they would say about Lot's wife? "Yeah, that old gal was a pilar of salt by day but, a ball of fire by night!!!" :-D

 

[Lewis]

The sad thing is David, that some people will be completly be sold, on this book, I will not call it a Bible, because it is just a book of trash

 

[Steve]

The kJV is about the worst version that could possibly be used today, with its 800+ archaic, misleading, and completely different word meanings for today. It also uses very late and very poor manuscripts that were very hastily put together by Desederius Erasmus. They simply did not have access to the very early manuscripts and papyri that we have today, some dating back to the late first century. Whether some folks like it or not, the KJV is completely out of the running, and they are far behind while the rest of the world moves on.

Fort accuracy one needs a formal equivalent translation, and that would be the NASB and the ESV. The HCSB is a good runner-up. The NRSV is a broadly literal translation, which is great vogue with the academic community. It overdoes the inclusive language. After much study, there IS reason to use inclusive language, so I do not protest it as much as I formerly did. The ESV uses it well, and even could be a bit more inclusive. The ESV Translation Committee is at work on a revision of the ESV, which should be out next year.
The TNIV is a HORRIBLE piece of work, and I do not recommend it to anybody. There is a TNIV 2 coming out shortly, and hopefully, they have rectified a lot of the grossities that are inherent in this awful translation.
The New Jerusalem Bible is an excellent, excellent translation. It includes the Apocrypha, though. I have suggested to Thomas Nelson that they attempt to print the excellent New American Bible without the Apocrypha. They seemed interested. I also suggested to Zondervan that they re-release the Modern language Bible, also an excellent work.
There are Many fine translations available today, and the New Living Translation Second edition of 2004, is one of them. a very professionally done translation and very understandable.
There is NO perfect English translation, because all our copies are in Greek and Hebrew, and you cannot bring over all the idoms and the like into English. we do the best we can, as poor, imperfect human beings.
To those people who TEAR DOWN the modern translations of the Bible:
YOU ARE SPEAKING ILL OF GOD'S WORD AND YOU NEED TO STOP IT.
Even the KJ translators stated that they were not producing a perfect work, and they looked forward to other and better translations, which we now have.

 

[Lewis]

The kJV is about the worst version that could possibly be used today, with its 800+ archaic, misleading, and completely different word meanings for today. It also uses very late and very poor manuscripts that were very hastily put together by Desederius Erasmus. They simply did not have access to the very early manuscripts and papyri that we have today, some dating back to the late first century. Whether some folks like it or not, the KJV is completely out of the running, and they are far behind while the rest of the world moves on.

Fort accuracy one needs a formal equivalent translation, and that would be the NASB and the ESV. The HCSB is a good runner-up. The NRSV is a broadly literal translation, which is great vogue with the academic community. It overdoes the inclusive language. After much study, there IS reason to use inclusive language, so I do not protest it as much as I formerly did. The ESV uses it well, and even could be a bit more inclusive. The ESV Translation Committee is at work on a revision of the ESV, which should be out next year.
The TNIV is a HORRIBLE piece of work, and I do not recommend it to anybody. There is a TNIV 2 coming out shortly, and hopefully, they have rectified a lot of the grossities that are inherent in this awful translation.
The New Jerusalem Bible is an excellent, excellent translation. It includes the Apocrypha, though. I have suggested to Thomas Nelson that they attempt to print the excellent New American Bible without the Apocrypha. They seemed interested. I also suggested to Zondervan that they re-release the Modern language Bible, also an excellent work.
There are Many fine translations available today, and the New Living Translation Second edition of 2004, is one of them. a very professionally done translation and very understandable.
There is NO perfect English translation, because all our copies are in Greek and Hebrew, and you cannot bring over all the idoms and the like into English. we do the best we can, as poor, imperfect human beings.
To those people who TEAR DOWN the modern translations of the Bible:
YOU ARE SPEAKING ILL OF GOD'S WORD AND YOU NEED TO STOP IT.
Even the KJ translators stated that they were not producing a perfect work, and they looked forward to other and better translations, which we now have.

I beg your pardon.

 

[Solo]

The kJV is about the worst version that could possibly be used today, with its 800+ archaic, misleading, and completely different word meanings for today. It also uses very late and very poor manuscripts that were very hastily put together by Desederius Erasmus. They simply did not have access to the very early manuscripts and papyri that we have today, some dating back to the late first century. Whether some folks like it or not, the KJV is completely out of the running, and they are far behind while the rest of the world moves on.

A profound lie. Amazing! :roll:

Fort accuracy one needs a formal equivalent translation, and that would be the NASB and the ESV. The HCSB is a good runner-up. The NRSV is a broadly literal translation, which is great vogue with the academic community. It overdoes the inclusive language. After much study, there IS reason to use inclusive language, so I do not protest it as much as I formerly did. The ESV uses it well, and even could be a bit more inclusive. The ESV Translation Committee is at work on a revision of the ESV, which should be out next year.

Your opinion of Hort and Westcott? Your opinion of the Textus Receptus? Your opinion on the Vulgate?

The TNIV is a HORRIBLE piece of work, and I do not recommend it to anybody.

Agreed! :D

There is a TNIV 2 coming out shortly, and hopefully, they have rectified a lot of the grossities that are inherent in this awful translation.

Don't hold your breath! :wink:

The New Jerusalem Bible is an excellent, excellent translation. It includes the Apocrypha, though. I have suggested to Thomas Nelson that they attempt to print the excellent New American Bible without the Apocrypha. They seemed interested. I also suggested to Zondervan that they re-release the Modern language Bible, also an excellent work.

Then you will make all of the New Agers, Roman Catholics, and Orthodox bunce mad!

There are Many fine translations available today, and the New Living Translation Second edition of 2004, is one of them. a very professionally done translation and very understandable.
There is NO perfect English translation, because all our copies are in Greek and Hebrew, and you cannot bring over all the idoms and the like into English. we do the best we can, as poor, imperfect human beings.

I dunno, the English speaking countries of the world have done more for the spreading of the Word of God, then any other.

To those people who TEAR DOWN the modern translations of the Bible:
YOU ARE SPEAKING ILL OF GOD'S WORD AND YOU NEED TO STOP IT.
Even the KJ translators stated that they were not producing a perfect work, and they looked forward to other and better translations, which we now have.

I find it sad that you will warn those that point out the problems with the modern translations of the Bible, that they are "speaking ill of God's word" and "to stop it", while you speak ill of God's Word in the KJV. :smt017

 

[Soma-Sight]

NASB.

 

[Steve]

No; I do not speak 'ill' of the KJV. It's the Word of God. Granted, I never grew up with it, and I don't understand the fascination for it and the almost 'worship' of it by some people, and I do not use it. I have always said that if someone wants to use the KJV, and study from it, and do whatever else, that's their 'thang'. Just don't tell me that what I am using is 'not of God' or not the Scriptures, or is heretical, or something else.

The KJV was a very good translation for its time, and for some people, it still is.

I have noticed over the years that the modern versions folks will not disallow the KJV.

Wish I could say the same about the KJV people regarding the modern translations.

Regarding Westcott and Hort, todays translators have for years moved beyond them. They aren't even discussed anymore.

 

[Steve]

NASB.

I agree. And ESV, also

 

[D46]

Regarding Westcott and Hort, todays translators have for years moved beyond them. They aren't even discussed anymore.

Ah, but they don't need to be discussed as the damage they've created back in the latter part of the 19th Century is still in full swing today. Anyone who believes that this dynamic demolition duo didn't have anyting to do with the perverted versions of God's word that permeates the bookstores today is woefully deceived. Since you don't know much about these two, obviously, I invite you to do a little research into textual criticism and the two Satanic deceivers that brought you the NIV, NASB, ASV, RSV, etc. W-H are the forefathers that brought it about and nothing has changed but perhaps, the many different revisions of the Nestle/Aland Greek Text which has it's roots in W-H theology which came from corrupt mss-specifically Aleph and B (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus). Do you not know that Nestle's and the UBS's greek text differ from the Textus Receptus in nearly 6,000 places? Do some research and you'll discover just what damage W-H has really done.

http://www.mag-net.com/~maranath/Niv.htm#Beginning

http://watch.pair.com/another.html

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/science.html

 

[friarbob]

There's more than one place where the NIV just blatantly lies. Take for instance another example.

The NIV perverts Mark 1:2,3 into a LIE! The NIV reads "It is written in Isaiah the prophet: I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way-a voice of one calling in the desert, Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him." It is NOT written in Isaiah! "I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way" - is found in Malachi 3:1! The King James correctly reads: "As it is written in the PROPHETS, . . ." A better translation! Easier to read - BUY A LIE THEN!

Another place where distortions are written...

Isaiah 14:14 reveals Satan's grandest desire, "I will be like the most High." And with a little subtil perversion - the NIV in Isaiah 14:12 grants Satan's wish!
Isaiah14:12: The KJB reads, "How art thou fallen from heaven, O LUCIFER, son of the morning!. . ." The NIV PERversion reads, "How you have fallen from heaven, O MORNING STAR, son of the dawn. . ." The NIV change "Lucifer" to "MORNING STAR". Only once is Lucifer mentioned in the bible and the NIV rips it out...why?

BUT WAIT. . . I thought the Lord Jesus Christ was the MORNING STAR?

Doesn't Revelation 22:16 say, "I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and MORNING STAR".

The NIV CLEARY AND BLATANTLY makes LUCIFER -- The Lord Jesus Christ! Is that not blaspheny and corruption?! And Christians claim the NIV is a "better translation"!

Isaiah 14:15: The King James Bible condemns Lucifer to hell: "Yet thou shalt be brought down to HELL . . ." The NIV does NOT condemn Lucifer to HELL! The NIV reads, "But you are brought down to the GRAVE. . ." We all go to the GRAVE! Why doesn't the NIV want Satan in hell?

The NIV "Taketh Away" 64,576 words and over 17 verses. No wonder is so much thinner than the KJB.The NIV removes major portions of at least 147 verses! That more than 8% of God's word. May as well remove 30 books of the bible as that is the equivalent.

Up front I want to say that I am a King James preferred, but I do get really tired of the division this issue has caused . Satan is over in the front doors of our churches just laughing with delight over all our backbiting over bible translations, Here is a challenge for the King James only crowd; In stead of cursing the darkness ie the modern translation ,why dont you turn on a light by getting greek and hebrew scholars to do a modern translation of the TR texts. eventually that will have to be done. If the Lord waits another 5 centuries or lomger to return eventually King James English will be totally incomprehensible to say the 26th century bible reader. I would love to see what a new translation based on the TR would read like. Well so much for my 2 bit opinion

 

[Steve]

Regarding Westcott and Hort, todays translators have for years moved beyond them. They aren't even discussed anymore.

Ah, but they don't need to be discussed as the damage they've created back in the latter part of the 19th Century is still in full swing today. Anyone who believes that this dynamic demolition duo didn't have anyting to do with the perverted versions of God's word that permeates the bookstores today is woefully deceived. Since you don't know much about these two, obviously, I invite you to do a little research into textual criticism and the two Satanic deceivers that brought you the NIV, NASB, ASV, RSV, etc. W-H are the forefathers that brought it about and nothing has changed but perhaps, the many different revisions of the Nestle/Aland Greek Text which has it's roots in W-H theology which came from corrupt mss-specifically Aleph and B (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus). Do you not know that Nestle's and the UBS's greek text differ from the Textus Receptus in nearly 6,000 places? Do some research and you'll discover just what damage W-H has really done.

http://www.mag-net.com/~maranath/Niv.htm#Beginning

http://watch.pair.com/another.html

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/science.html

: : : : : : I've been doing 'research' into textual criticism and English translations for 10+ years. Perhaps you should visit MY personal library!!!!!

 

[Soma-Sight]

What do you all think of the NASB? New American Standard Bible?

I used to only read KJV style until I realized that I couldnt understand half of what I was reading because the style is as smooth as Napolean Dynamite asking a girl out on a date....

In other words... NOT SMOOTH!

 

[D46]

I've been doing 'research' into textual criticism and English translations for 10+ years. Perhaps you should visit MY personal library!!!!!

Well, Steve, I can only surmise you sure didn't learn much for ten years of research. After all that's been touched on in this area on these forums, you still believe in the Alexandrian mss.

What do you all think of the NASB? New American Standard Bible?

I used to only read KJV style until I realized that I couldnt understand half of what I was reading because the style is as smooth as Napolean Dynamite asking a girl out on a date....

In other words... NOT SMOOTH!

I don't think much of it, Soma...info on the NASB has been posted before. I have one and can personally attest that it leaves much to be desired. The one I have is by Broadman and Holman of 1985 and is based on, as is everyone else's, the American Standard Version which was based on the Revised Version (courtesy of Westcott and Hort). The NASB still uses, as does mine, the Kittel's Biblia Hebraica for translation of the Old Testament and the Greek text of Nestle's 23rd-27th edition. Perhaps after Steves's much research, he can tell you about Rudolph Kittel and his backgroun and of Nestle as well as I've already done that before, all to no avail. Suffice it to say, it is not a good translation nor are any of the other modern versions as they all use the above and the Alexandrian mss (Vaticanus, Sinaiticus) known as B and Aleph. Who is behind the modern translations? Go way back to the time of Tatian, Clement, Origen, Eusebius, Jerome and last but not least, Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort who did not revise the Textus Receptus, but rather, did a completely new Greek Text based on the Egyptian mss from whence they gave the world their corrupt bible version and things went down hill after them. They also developed a theory of textual criticism which underlined their Greek NT and several other Greek NT since (such as the Nestle's text and the United Bible Society's text). Greek New Testaments such as these produced the modern English translations of the Bible we have today. So it is important for us to know the theory of Westcott and Hort as well as something about the two men who have so greatly influenced modern textual criticism.

I think if my Granny, who probably had no more than a 5th grade education, could read and understand the King James, it should be just as easy for anyone receptive to being led of the Spirit of God to understand it. It's no a physics book! That is much more difficult than understanding the King James as most who have had physics can attest.

What did Westcott and Hort thinik of the Scriptures?

"I reject the word infallibility of Holy Scriptures overwhelmingly." (Westcott, The Life and Letters of Brook Foss Westcott, Vol. I, p.207).

"Our Bible as well as our Faith is a mere compromise." (Westcott, On the Canon of the New Testament, p.vii).

"Evangelicals seem to me perverted. . .There are, I fear, still more serious differences between us on the subject of authority, especially the authority of the Bible." (Hort, The Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Vol. I, p.400)

Dr. Wilbur Pickering writes that, "Hort did not hold to a high view of inspiration." (The Identity of the New Testament Text, p.212)

What did they think about salvation and of Hell...

"The thought (of John 10:29) is here traced back to its most absolute form as resting on the essential power of God in His relation of Universal Fatherhood." (Westcott, St. John, p. 159).

"I confess I have no repugnance to the primitive doctrine of a ransom paid to Satan. I can see no other possible form in which the doctrine of a ransom is at all tenable; anything is better than the doctrine of a ransom to the father." (Hort, The First Epistle of St. Peter 1:1-2:17, p. 77).

"(Hell is) not the place of punishment of the guilty, (it is) the common abode of departed spirits." (Westcott, Historic Faith, pp.77-78).

"We have no sure knowledge of future punishment, and the word eternal has a far higher meaning." (Hort, Life and Letters, Vol. I, p.149).

Are these guys someone you trust to translate your bible? They did whether they are alive or not as all modern versions are based on their text. You have either the Alexandrian text or the Received (Textus Receptus) text. There is no middle ground.

 

[Steve]

What do you all think of the NASB? New American Standard Bible?

I used to only read KJV style until I realized that I couldnt understand half of what I was reading because the style is as smooth as Napolean Dynamite asking a girl out on a date....

In other words... NOT SMOOTH!

It is said that if every Greek manuscript we have was lost or destroyed, we could reconstruct it just by using the New American Standard Bible. it is a very good metaphrasastic translation. I recommend it highly. If you are purchasing one, try to get an edition from Foundations Publications. The quality is unexcelled.

I agree 100% with what you said about the KJV. Awful, isn't it? Only, WHICH KJV? There have been about 16 of them. The best edition of the KJV is the New Scofield Reference edition of 1967 which has the word changes placed directly into the text. However, the KJV is based on very late, and very poor, manuscripts. Only narrow-minded fundamentalists, a tiny minority, and certainly not scholars by any stretch of the imagination, recommend it.

Here's a link that, hopefully, will alleviate the lies, propaganda, and misinformation spread by KJV-Onlyites. These articles are by folks who have studied and know what they are talking about. Enjoy.

http://www.kjvonly.org

 

[Vic C.]

Oh my goodness. LOL Will the real Steve please stand up? : :

The kJV is about the worst version that could possibly be used today, with its 800+ archaic, misleading, and completely different word meanings for today. It also uses very late and very poor manuscripts that were very hastily put together by Desederius Erasmus. They simply did not have access to the very early manuscripts and papyri that we have today, some dating back to the late first century. Whether some folks like it or not, the KJV is completely out of the running, and they are far behind while the rest of the world moves on.

I see all these version names being tossed around, but hardly anyone ever metions the LITV or YLT. Tsk, tsk. 8-)