E
elijah23
Guest
What are the differences among the different Bibles?
-
-
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join Hidden in Him and For His Glory for discussions on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/become-a-vessel-of-honor-part-2.112306/
PouringRain
Member
- May 9, 2010
- 1,139
- 1
The short answer..... different translations (and some are paraphrases). The long answer would get into the specifics on how each was translated, and off of which ancient text it was translated, and how word choices were decided upon, etc.
Or did you want the long answer in specifics?
Or did you want the long answer in specifics?
Danus
Member
- Jan 17, 2010
- 3,674
- 142
I sort of collect bibles. My family bibles mostly. I have also walked out of a few churches with a bible. (not intending to steal it) I own several bible versions. I generally use the NIV study bible, but I have the NAS, KJ, NLT, ESV and a few others.
I keep them out and usually open to what ever I study just to get a different read on verses and such. I've done that for several years and so far have not found enough of a variance to say one is nay more complete than another or that one has omitted anything.
I have one KJ bible that is over 100 years old. It says the same thing as all of my other bibles. It is a family bible. It's leather. The spine is in bad shape and it's thoroughly read. It has the finger prints of many people in my family who are no longer with us. That bible was new before cars where common place. It has old news paper clippings of births and obituaries inserted in pages.
I keep them out and usually open to what ever I study just to get a different read on verses and such. I've done that for several years and so far have not found enough of a variance to say one is nay more complete than another or that one has omitted anything.
I have one KJ bible that is over 100 years old. It says the same thing as all of my other bibles. It is a family bible. It's leather. The spine is in bad shape and it's thoroughly read. It has the finger prints of many people in my family who are no longer with us. That bible was new before cars where common place. It has old news paper clippings of births and obituaries inserted in pages.
.
Danus
That you have such a sense of history in collecting Bibles from your family is commendable. Many Americans are losing the sense of history today. But I am astounded that you have spent "years" studying the Bible and have not seen the differences. That is remarkable.
Elijah23
If there is a KJV only person present, I will let him give you some of the differences. Such a person would know a great deal about the differences due to their emphasis on the matter. Especially on the differences between the KJV and the modern versions.
JamesG
Danus
That you have such a sense of history in collecting Bibles from your family is commendable. Many Americans are losing the sense of history today. But I am astounded that you have spent "years" studying the Bible and have not seen the differences. That is remarkable.
Elijah23
If there is a KJV only person present, I will let him give you some of the differences. Such a person would know a great deal about the differences due to their emphasis on the matter. Especially on the differences between the KJV and the modern versions.
JamesG
E
elijah23
Guest
- Thread starter
- #5
I confess I don’t have the patience to read long answers. It there something in between?PouringRain said:The short answer..... different translations (and some are paraphrases). The long answer would get into the specifics on how each was translated, and off of which ancient text it was translated, and how word choices were decided upon, etc.
Or did you want the long answer in specifics?
E
elijah23
Guest
- Thread starter
- #6
When I was a boy my church gave me a Revised Standard Version of the Bible. I have always been satisfied with RSV. My understanding was that RSV was a revision of the King James Version. The problem with the King James Version is that the language is somewhat antiquated, in opinion. However, I would be comfortable with a New Kings James Version.Danus said:
I am aware of two criticisms of Bibles. One is that expressions have changed so that a word-by-word translation does not always convey an intended meaning. The other would be that translators sometimes substitute their own understanding of a phrase for the one intended by the Bible writer.
The best answer I think is to keep studying the differences to personally find out, and don't take the word of others about it. Not everyone will do that study, and I think it shows.
Not many are aware that God's Word uses a set outline structure that doesn't appear in any other known literature. I think the Christian scholar E.W. Bullinger called it 'alternation'. There's a type of perfect order layout for the subjects in God's Word, and it can happen within a set of verses, or within a whole chapter, and even with all the chapters in one Book. There's another name for it that I can't recall.
But what it does is covers subjects in an order at the first part of a chapter, and then repeats in reverse order in the last parts of a chapter, like if a letter were assigned to each subject change, it would be like a, b, c, d, e, e, d, c, b, a. When whole chapter layouts within a Book do that, then that is really something man would have a difficult time writing on his own. When one considers how that structure order often happens within a few verses in a chapter, while still adhering to it for the whole chapter and whole Book, then that's really astounding, and not a sign of man's cleverness.
If one takes that and paraphrases it to create a new translation, like The LIving Bible, it would get away from that original structure outline. The original manuscripts are going to show that structure best.
Not many are aware that God's Word uses a set outline structure that doesn't appear in any other known literature. I think the Christian scholar E.W. Bullinger called it 'alternation'. There's a type of perfect order layout for the subjects in God's Word, and it can happen within a set of verses, or within a whole chapter, and even with all the chapters in one Book. There's another name for it that I can't recall.
But what it does is covers subjects in an order at the first part of a chapter, and then repeats in reverse order in the last parts of a chapter, like if a letter were assigned to each subject change, it would be like a, b, c, d, e, e, d, c, b, a. When whole chapter layouts within a Book do that, then that is really something man would have a difficult time writing on his own. When one considers how that structure order often happens within a few verses in a chapter, while still adhering to it for the whole chapter and whole Book, then that's really astounding, and not a sign of man's cleverness.
If one takes that and paraphrases it to create a new translation, like The LIving Bible, it would get away from that original structure outline. The original manuscripts are going to show that structure best.
ronniechoate34
Member
- Jan 31, 2009
- 845
- 1
Say different things.
Although I consider myself a KJVO I have been told by others I'm more of a KJVP. I think any version of the Bible can lead you to salvation in Christ Jesus, but don't care for the newer version as many of them will leave or attempt to leave many verses and passages out. Try to find Mark 16:9-20; John 7:53-8:11; or the complete passage of the Trinity in I John 5:7. Most newer translation either leave these verses out (along with many others verses), I haven't list or they put a footnote on them and question them.
Mysteryman
Member
- Feb 16, 2010
- 1,988
- 0
Logos57 said:
Hi
There is a very good reason why they put a footnote on them. It is because the many greek texts do not agree, as to whether or not they even should be there. At the very least, it is an eye opener, so that one will not just take things as they are without further study of the texts.
I am basically a KJVO person, but I am not inclined to print long answers on message boards. But the basic differences are, Two corrupt persons by the names of Westcott and Hort, used two corrupt texts, to produce a corrupt Greek New Testament. This lead to the first Grand-Father of all the Bible corruptions , called the Revised Standard Edition, the Standard basis for the rest of the New Version corruptions.
These versions corrupt too many verses for me to even list, a search of the internet will get you started on the road to the answers.
These versions corrupt too many verses for me to even list, a search of the internet will get you started on the road to the answers.
Vic C.
Member
- Mar 16, 2003
- 18,227
- 4
Hi James and E23,JamesG said:
I am not specifically a KJO person, but I do lean towards translations that came from the same general body of manuscripts.
This is a link I find informative.
http://www.biblelife.org/word.htm
Bob Carabbio
Member
- Apr 30, 2010
- 726
- 162
"What are the differences among the different Bibles?"
Mostly "choice of words", and writing "style".
There's really not a penny's worth of real difference among 'em, and every one of 'em tells the same story, so one's as good as another.
Mostly "choice of words", and writing "style".
There's really not a penny's worth of real difference among 'em, and every one of 'em tells the same story, so one's as good as another.
Hi all,
The differences start with the Greek New Testament the translations are based upon. There are interlinears which give the Greek and underneath or on top the translation. This gives an additional sense of what the Greek says and how it has been translated. Not sure if all translations have interlinears though.
Another option is to get mutliple versions - up to eight different translations in one book. Four columns per page and eight columns per double page. Great for comparisons and spotting the differences people have been talking about.
The differences start with the Greek New Testament the translations are based upon. There are interlinears which give the Greek and underneath or on top the translation. This gives an additional sense of what the Greek says and how it has been translated. Not sure if all translations have interlinears though.
Another option is to get mutliple versions - up to eight different translations in one book. Four columns per page and eight columns per double page. Great for comparisons and spotting the differences people have been talking about.
Bob Carabbio
Member
- Apr 30, 2010
- 726
- 162
"I am sorry, but "THEY ARE NOT".
Opinion noted.
All God's Chilluns gots "opinions".
Personally, I use the KJV - mostly since I've been reading it for over 60 years - no sense in changing now. And I know most of the "Work arounds" for the confusing verbiage, and lousy areas of translation that obscure the meanings.
No big deal. One Bible translation's as good as another. Seems like the NIV is the "Comer" these days, though. A while ago it was the OASV.
Opinion noted.
All God's Chilluns gots "opinions".
Personally, I use the KJV - mostly since I've been reading it for over 60 years - no sense in changing now. And I know most of the "Work arounds" for the confusing verbiage, and lousy areas of translation that obscure the meanings.
No big deal. One Bible translation's as good as another. Seems like the NIV is the "Comer" these days, though. A while ago it was the OASV.
Mysteryman said:
Hello Mysteryman, yes I know that some manuscripts are missing these passages. But we must remember that the early church leaders quoted from all of these passages, referring to them as the Word of God, and many of these church leaders quoted these passages some 200 hundred years before the earliest manuscripts we have remaining. Not to mention they are translations which are earlier than any manuscripts we have today, which contains these verses.
Similar threads
[__ Prayer __]
distribution
[__ Prayer __]
protection
