How can you tell...

All of them.
You can be sure by faith.

If you had one million dollars, how could
you know you are rich for a time?
If it were Canadian dollars it would only
be worth about 60% of what that many
US dollars are worth. Even still you
would be rich for awile, wether it is
Canadian Dollars or US Dollars.

God is not limited to one true Bible
but has many Bibles, even in English.
God is not limited to one true denomination
but has many denominations, even in
the USofA.

I usually can determine real quick
(like in under an hour) whether a new
translation i've got is worth further
study or not. The Holy Spirit will impress
upon you in this matter, if one is
attuned to the Holy Spirit. If one is NOT
attuned to the Holy
Spirit, one can find the truth in
any translation of the Bible that one
can halfway understand.

I always check first Romans 10:9
to see if salvation is still the same
as the one I got.
Then I check 2 Thessalonians 2:3
to see if the rapture is before the
revelation of the man of sin (pretrib)
or the apostasy gets worse and worse
until it gets personified in the man
of sin (postrib).

Don't forget that God has two words:

1. the Living Word of God: Messiah Yeshua
2. the Written Word of God: the Holy Bible.

You need both to know "God's Word".

God's Living Word is one Word, yet He
resides in Many hearts.
God's Written Word is one Word, yet He
resides in Many books.

 

Amen, Brother Ed, Preach it!!!!

 

I think you need to be discerning and not just say that "all versions" are the Word of God because there are some that a christian should not use.

Jason

 

while it's important to be discerning, just make sure that one's even-handed as well. some famous accusations made against MVs have been shown to have exactly the same effect on the KJB, rendering it off-limits as well.

 

"With so many versions past and present, how can you be sure you have God's word? "
I think it was Eli Wiesel, who suggested the following answer. Learn the original languages, so you can make your own translation.

 

Over here is a poll I created:

Bible Versions/Translations
Is your Bible Inerrant?
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=001037

The biggest group 46% says "The Bible is inerrant in the original autographs"
which i think is sad, because the original autographs
are NOT avialable for use.

By contrast the second largest group 13%
says: "The Bible is inerrant in all English translations".
This is good, for these bibles are available.

The question here is not
"Are the English translations inerrant?"
but "How can you tell which Bible
is the word of God?"

My answer is all of them, any of them.
I mention the English Bibles because I only
read English and don't read any other language.

Nobody else has bothered to answer the question
Sister Walls proposed.

IMHO (in my humble opinion) it is axiomatic
that the Bible is the inerrant written word of God.

So enjoy this forum and you may find out which
is probably the best translation for you.
Well, of course, i'm assuming not every
thread doesn't get hi-jacked by the King James Version
Onlyists (KJVO) versus the Modern Version Acceptables (MVA)
WWF Slapdown Syndrome

Yes, i do teach that one inerrant translation may
be better than another inerrant version for some
specific purpose. For example, if you are a citizen of
Singapore, perchance the NIV (New International
Version) contains a closer reading
in the English that you speak than the English i use
in Oklahoma.

Jason Refreshed: //"I think you need to be discerning
and not just say that "all versions" are the Word of God
because there are some that a christian should not use.//

The question at hand is "how do you tell which versions
are not to be used by a Christian?". And the answer is ???

Forever settled in heaven: "while it's important to be discerning,
just make sure that one's even-handed as well.
some famous accusations made against MVs have
been shown to have exactly the same effect on the KJB,
rendering it off-limits as well."

Tee Hee. Yep, that tends to show a double standard
held by some KJBOs: the KJV can do it, but the MV's can't.
In fact, most KJVOs use a MV called "the KJV1769 edition".

 

One of the best answers to that question was given by the KJV translators themselves in the preface to the 1611 KJV:

"Now to the latter we answer; that we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the Word of God, nay, is the word of God. As the King's speech, which he uttereth in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King's speech, though it be not interpreted by every Translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, everywhere."

 

I guess the answer to the question, "how are you to tell which versions are not to be used by a Christian," is when a Bible is translated with an agenda to advance one's own belief system. I can think of the Joseph Smith Version, the New World Translation.

Another instance (IMHO) where a Christian can fall short on their choice of "Bibles" is with the paraphrase. It is not even a translation, just an opinion as to what the text meant. Examples of this would be "The Message," "The Living Bible," or "Good News for Modern Man." They are nothing more than commentaries on the text. The Christian should have God's word, not the word of somebody talking about God's word.

We should seek out the best translation, why would we want to settle for second-best?

Jason

 

1. i've never heard of the Joseph Smith Version. when was that done, n for whom?

2. the same approach has been applied for literal versions as has been done against "paraphrases." some have considered literal versions like the Interlinear Bible beneath what might be called translation, for strictly speaking, No translation can happen without paraphrase.

3. the choice of best (or second-best) is predicated on what/whom it's for, or even on which passage. the Interlinear might be best for one thing, n the Good News the best for another. n the second-best for each category can be accessed to counter check on the reading of the best.

rather than cast fear n aspersions, we shd be grateful for the plethora of GOOD choices out there (sans the 1 or 2 u mentioned).

 

So Erasmus got 5-7 documents and developed his Greek text that he felt closest to original. Now we have 5500 and can evaluate in more detail.

Most of which agree with Erasmus against the modern CT. Behold the providential power of God!

 

Joseph Smith Version was produced by the founder of Mormonism.

Paraphrase means a free rendering of something someone says. A translation is conversion of something someone says from one language to another without the free rendering. Yes, there must be some dynamic equivalency in any translation, but equivalency nonetheless. There is no original language equivalency for much of the Living Bible whether it be dynamic or formal.

There is a huge difference between a paraphrase and translation in practical application. I know of no one (with the exception of you) who would say the Living Bible is a translation. Even the author said it was a paraphrase. At least he knew the difference even if you don't.

Jason

 

ed: The biggest group 46% says "The Bible is inerrant in the original autographs" which i think is sad, because the original autographs are NOT avialable for use.

Dr. Bob: And I feel just the opposite Ed. THAT is the historic Baptist position.

London Baptist Confession, 1689

5._____We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the church of God to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scriptures; and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, and the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, and many other incomparable excellencies, and entire perfections thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself (i.e. what they actually had, not the originals - tim) to be the Word of God; yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.

8._____The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentic; so as in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal to them. But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have a right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded in the fear of God to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner, and through patience and comfort of the Scriptures may have hope.

hence, PERFECT PRESERVATION

 

Only those translations that accurately translate the text can be considered the Word of God.

This would rule out the Message and other drivel.

 

Amen! IMO Paraphrases can be nice for seeing what someone thinks the Bible might mean, but should never, ever be one's sole Bible since it's merely someone guy's idea of what the word of God teaches, not the word of God itself. Obviously some are better than others, but why not leave out the middleman?

Mind numbingly literal translations include: Greek/English interlinears, LITV*, ALT*, Young's*.

Essentially literal translations include: KJV*, MKJV*, NKJV*, ESV, NASB and most historical translations, like the Geneva*, Tyndale*, etc.

Light paraphrases include: NIV (more??)

Extreme paraphrases include: NLT, The Message

I recommend the KJV* (big suprise).

* TR/Majority text based translations

[ December 31, 2003, 03:37 PM: Message edited by: timothy 1769 ]

 

Joseph Smith Version was produced by the founder of Mormonism.

Jospeh Smith knew neither Greek nor Hebrew. Through "divine inspiration" he rewrote some English verses in the KJV to fit his pet theories. It's funny, even Mormons relegate his "corrections" to footnotes

 

My next door neighbor became a Christian last year after being raised Mormon. He told us Joseph Smith couldn't read or write. He 'looked into his hat' and his wife wrote down what he told her....

Diane

 

Amen to that!

 

I wonder - Joseph ignored Rev. 22:18-19.