Bible revisions - where do you personally draw the line

I don't waste time with paraphrases - just direct translations.

I like Bible's like the NASB that are a little closer to direct-translate than something like the NIV which tries to give the reader the sense or the meaning but not the exact wording. the problem there is that the bias of the translators becomes "the real meaning" more times than we might care to know.

But ask yourself this - there are a number of Bible translator groups - translating the bible into new tribal languages (which they first have to invent an alphabet for and then teach them to read) - what about EACH OF THOSE Bibles - and each dialect in China or India? Is the Farsi Bible better than the Mandarin?

Are you going to argue that the first time a Bible is translated into a given language it is always of divine origin and can not be corrected or improved?

What rule do you use?

In Christ,

Bob

 

Amen, Brother Lagardo -- Preach it! :thumbs:

And here is another reply to Lagardo's statement:

The originater of the topic has conceded the debate.
This topic should be closed, it having no further use.

 

Kinda' sounds like "I'm takin' my own personal favorite eclectic version and goin' home, since no one wants to play by my rules!" to me.

Oh yeah! In response to the OP, I draw the line when someone want to play on an uneven field, with the rules rigged!

Mods? I agree with Ed E. here!

Ed

 

My hearthrob when I was 13 (1956) was 'Sally Goforth'.
This other Ed reminds me of the Scottish ralling call:

Sally Forth to the Fray! :thumbs:

 

In the 1500's and 1600's, Protestants made many accusations related to the accuracy of the Latin Vulgate and the 1582 Rheims N. T. while Roman Catholics made many accusations concerning the accuracy of Protestant translations. In their preface to the 1611, the KJV translators pointed out that Roman Catholics criticized Protestants for "altering and amending our translations so often." Thomas Fuller observed that Roman Catholics asked: "Was their translation good before? Why do they now mend it" (CHURCH HISTORY OF BRITAIN, V, p. 407). William Fulke and William Whitaker wrote long books in defense of the varying Protestant English translations. Fulke asked the Catholics: "Is every alteration with you a correction" (A DEFENCE OF THE SINCERE AND TRUE TRANSLATIONS OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES INTO THE ENGLISH TONGUE, p. 193).

 

Are you sure that King James I's motives for wanting to replace the good and beloved Geneva Bible were all pure? Do you think that King James I did not have an agenda?

 

I want to be the first Geneva Bible Only-ist. :laugh: The 1611 King James Version is the Geneva Bible almost word for word. I have yet to study the differences, but I'm very interested in doing so. Read a facimile (sp?) copy of the 1599 Geneva Bible at church and it's pretty easy if you read fast, the old style lettering snags you sometimes, and for some strange reason, it's harder to read slow, for me at least. From what I understand the Geneva was the layman's bible at the time. It was mainly used in home reading and study, the prominent pulpit bible was the Bishops Bible. I have read some of both and they are pretty readable...if you read fast...

 

The 1611 KJV was officially a revision of the 1568 Bishops' Bible, but it may follow the Geneva Bible almost as much as it follows the Bishops'.
A modern-spelling edition of the 1599 Geneva Bible has recently been
printed by Tolle Lege Press [www.TolleLegePress.com]. At some verses, the Geneva Bible may be clearer, more up-to-date, or more accurate than the KJV. Here are a few word differences between the KJV and Geneva Bible:

Gen. 1:28 fill (Geneva) replenish (Bishops', KJV)
Gen. 9:13 sign (Geneva) token (Bishops', KJV)
Gen. 16:6 dealt roughly (Geneva) dealt hardly (Bishops', KJV)
Gen. 21:26 know (Geneva) wot (Bishops', KJV)
Gen. 22:1 prove (Geneva) tempt (Bishops', KJV)
Gen. 24:5 What if (Geneva) peradventure (Bishops', KJV)
Gen. 22:55 maid (Geneva) damsel (Bishops', KJV)
Gen. 24:57 ask her consent (Geneva) inquire at her mouth (Bishops', KJV)
Gen. 24:63 toward the evening (Geneva) at the eventide (Bishops', KJV)
Gen. 24:64 lighted down from the camel (Geneva) lighted off the camel (Bishops', KJV)
Gen. 25:7 seventy and five (Geneva) threescore and fifteen (Bishops', KJV)
Gen. 27:28 wheat (Geneva) corn (Bishops', KJV)

 

The Geneva wasn't so accurate in Acts 21:15 : " trussed up our fardeles " for -- that which was carried in modern speech .

 

Things change a little after 400 years. :thumbs:

 

Here are some other examples from Geneva Bible:

Matt 6:6 chamber (Geneva) closet (Bishops', KJV)
Matt. 15:26 good (Geneva) meet (Bishops', KJV)
Matt. 20:11 master of the house (Geneva) good man of the house (Bishops', KJV)
Matt. 20:22 know (Geneva) wot (Bishops', KJV)
Matt. 26:27 Drink ye every one of it (Geneva) Drink ye all of it (Bishops', KJV)
Luke 17:6 mulberry (Geneva) sycamine (Bishops', KJV)
Luke 18:24 with what difficulty (Geneva) how hardly (Bishops', KJV)
Acts 1:20 charge (Geneva) bishoprick (Bishops', KJV)
Acts 7:38 congregation (Geneva) church (Bishops', KJV)
Acts 12:4 the Passover (Geneva) Easter (Bishops', KJV)
Acts 12:9 knew (Geneva) wist (Bishops', KJV)
Acts 17:30 God regarded not (Geneva) God winked at (Bishops', KJV)
Acts 28:15 market of Appius (Geneva) Appii forum (Bishops, KJV)

 

Sometimes, maybe, the 'old ways' are better?? Or at least more clear, maybe??
This (Geneva) does seem to make more sense, or is at least more clear, in the case of Matt. 26:27, at least. :thumbsup:

Not to mention, Acts 12:4!

Ed

 

For me personally, when a Bible leaves out 'the blood', it shouldn't even be called a Bible...

No, I have no one particular Bible in mind, but I know that some of them DO leave out the 'blood' and without that, there is no salvation.

 

No English version totally leaves out 'the blood'.

What has been falsely taught is that the
NIV only has 351 verses with the word 'blood' in it
and the KJV1769 Edition has 375; so 'blood' is omittend
in 24 verses.
But, if you go compare the KJV1611 Editon's 378 occurances
with the KJV1769 Edition's 375 you find 3 gone missing.
Where do these bloods go?

Here is the first 'missing' BLOOD from the NIV, compared to the KJV1611 Edition:

Mat 9:20 (KJV1611 Edition):
(And behold, a woman which was diseased
with an issue of blood twelue yeeres,
came behinde him, and touched the hemme of his garment.

Matthew 9:20 (New International Version )
Just then a woman who had been subject
to bleeding for twelve years
came up behind him and touched the edge of his cloak.

The blood is not important blood and neither is it missing,
just the word BLOOD is missing.

You see why I now try to check the original source of every
Biblical claim. There are LIARS out there who would make a
business bilking innocent Christians who don't check out
Bible verses.

 

I don't know, Ed, but I DO know that love grew where the blood fell.