How do you rate how good a Bible is?

Flyfree, don't turn this into a personal war against me. I never said I didn't like any of the other versions, nor did I say they are not the word of God. As far as what research I have done to conclude that the 1769 version of the KJV is the best is my studies of the MSS. used to translate my KJV and the MSS. used to translate the MV's. I hold that the Antioch mss. are more pure than the Alexandrian mss. and the reason I hold that it is better than the 1611 is that I have read much of the 1611 and the fonts are quite different than what we use today or even in 1769 and there were many many typo's in the 1611.
Now that being said, I like the ESV (Englih Standard Version). And the NAS95 and realy like the Webster95 as it is very compatible with the KJV on OT prophies concerning Christ as in Gen. 22:8-10, where in many MV's this great prophecy is deminished.

God speed.

 

Well then I appoligize for my getting defensive. It just seemed that you were being sarcastic in your post. But anyhow as I have stated earlier, it is my belief that the Anitoch mms. are more realiable. I don't have time right now, but I would be glad to give some examples of and other reasons why I believe what I do. At the first I will admit it was more that the KJV was the only version I had ever used and when more and more versions came out that didn't read the same, I felt that satan was trying to do away with the real Bible. Note: I do not feel this way anymore and I have put in many hours of study and prayer on this subject and conclude that the MV's are good but are far short of the KJV, with the exception of Webster95 which I have not read it all, but what I have read I like very much.
I'll get back to you on this maybe Saturday.

God speed.

 

that was refreshing and encouraging, Joey. thx for the sharing!

God's Word is good, and although some translations are better than others (we can agree to disagree which are better), they all contain, nay, are the very Word of God. even the "very meanest" of the lot!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Joey M:
But anyhow as I have stated earlier, it is my belief that the Anitoch mms. are more realiable. I don't have time right now, but I would be glad to give some examples of and other reasons why I believe what I do. At the first I will admit it was more that the KJV was the only version I had ever used and when more and more versions came out that didn't read the same, I felt that satan was trying to do away with the real Bible. Note: I do not feel this way anymore and I have put in many hours of study and prayer on this subject and conclude that the MV's are good but are far short of the KJV, with the exception of Webster95 which I have not read it all, but what I have read I like very much.
.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

Well now, I'll tend to disagree that all that say Bible on them are in fact the word of God. I for one would not even put the living bible translation in a category with Bibles. The NLT in my opinion is a good translation. But Mr. Taylor's attempt to degrade the Holy Word of God in the living bible, with his poor paraphrasing, is at best heresy.
Which is exactly why no publisher would print it and he had to start one on his own.

God speed.

[ October 27, 2001: Message edited by: Joey M ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>So where did all of these different manuscripts that you are refering to come from? Why are some more reliable than others? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


The ones that the KJV are written from came from Antioch and the ones that most of the MV's are written from came from Eygpt and Alexandria. The ones found in Antioch are definetly newer than the ones found elsewhere, yet I believe they were preserved in the church. The mss. in which most MV's are written from are older and that is why some, many hold that they are closer to what the originals were. I do not believe that older is always better. Especially when you consider that they were taken out of other countries and not found in the church. The assumtion that there were no older mss. for the translators of the KJV to go by are just lies. They had some of them available to them and through creful study, chose to reject them as there were too many differences in them.
Note: all of my information on this subject is second hand as I am not a scholar, and one could argue that it is a matter of who you talk to. And that is fine, I agree with that, so with agruements from both sides having good points on either side of the fence, I turn to where I started, my personal conviction. I know when I read the KJV I get more of a blessing and God seems to reveal more to me when I read from it than any other version. Now I am not saying that God blesses the KJV over the other versions and someone that reads the KJV will get more out of it than any other version, because this is just not true. That is why we have so many other versions. I get a blessing from most of the versions that I read and God reveals more to me through using them along with my KJV than without them. There are a lot of places especially in the OT where the KJV just seems fogy and the MV's help in those areas for me. But where evry version seems clear is where I find most of the fault with the MV's. The NIV using in John 3:16 the words "one and only Son" as opposed to "only begotten Son". Seems harmless enough, but when we look at closer we see that the Bible says "now are we the sons of God." so now is Jesus still the one and only son? The word begotten means the only one of it's kind, and therefore though we are the sons of God, Jesus is the only one of His kind, He is the only begotten. No other rendering of the word would be right. Then we have the, (here we go angain with the God Himself thing), accout in Gen. 22:8 where God will provide Himself a lamb, looking down through the ages to Christ, seeing that it was a ram that God provided for Abraham there. Yet the other versions do away with this prophcey of the coming Messiah by rendering it God will provide for Himself a lamb.
Then we have many many places where the older mss. don't have certain essensial parts of verses in them. Luke 4:4 is a perfect example of this. Where Jesus says to satan "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God." Most MV's omitt the last part of that verse, because the mss. in which they are written from do not contain the last part of that verse. Which IMO leaves the reader with a false statement because Jesus was not saying that we need more than bread as in meat and potatos and veggies, but rather was saying we need every word of God. Now I know the other gospels contain the rest of the verse, but I do not feel that God left it out of this one either.
Then there is Rev. 5:9,10 where the KJV renders the 24 elders singing a new song, in which they say that Jesus redeemed us and we shall be kings and priests (pointing toward themselves) which I believe to be the church. Most MV's reder these verses as Jesus redeeming them and they shall be kings and priests, pointing toward someone else not themselves therfore they would not be the church. Some would disagree with that and that's ok too.
Then we have many many other places where the diety is IMO watered down such as 1 Tim. 3:16 Where "God was manifest in the flesh" as opposed to " He who was revealed" or "He appeared in a body." The Greek word clearly states that this is the "I Am" "God" I know that most people will get what it's talking about even though it says "He" but why talke away from the points of the Trinity? I could go on and may some time later. Right now I need to get back to my studies. As I have said before, so say I to you again (Kinda felt like Paul there ), I do like the MV's and do use them, but my, (my), my conviction is that the KJV is closer to the orignals.

God speed.

[ October 27, 2001: Message edited by: Joey M ]

 

Adam,

Remember much of that information Joey posted is not true. It can be ... and has been refuted in many places including here. It is a misrepresentation of the facts and Joey has been confronted with it before.

 

but the good news is that Joey's moved away fr an a priori KJBO position n is willing to deal w the brasstacks, so to speak.

u're right that he's misled on this Alexandrian caricature, supposed omissions in MVs, etc. all he needs now is information, information, information--go to it, Pastor Larry!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
Remember much of that information Joey posted is not true. It can be ... and has been refuted in many places including here. It is a misrepresentation of the facts and Joey has been confronted with it before.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

By: Pastor Larry
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Remember much of that information Joey posted is not true. It can be ... and has been refuted in many places including here. It is a misrepresentation of the facts and Joey has been confronted with it before. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What parts of what I said are not true, and where is your proof? You have replied to these statements before, but have never given any reason other than that the older mss. didn't contain those words. Which just goes to prove my point all the more that those mss.'s are corrupt(rather I should say not as reliable). You refuted the account in Gen 22:8 with it is correctly rendered "for himself" with no other evidence than your word. You have not replied to the fact that 1 Tim. 3:16 replaces the obviously correct word "God" for the word "He". You know the old story if in isn't broke don't fix it would apply here.

You say that it has been refuted but give no actual evidence of it.


Forever Settled in Heaven,
Though I am not a KJV onylist, I am a firm believer in the KJV, that it is the authoritive Word of God and though most other version are helpful in study, the tested and tried KJV is the only one anyone ever needs. What I mean is, I could do without any version out there, except the KJV.


God speed.

[ October 27, 2001: Message edited by: Joey M ]

 

I will answer again (repeating much of what has before been said). Look very closely for the absence of my opinion in this:

John 3:16 – the word in question is monogenes. Everywhere it is used it means “only” and is translated that way in the KJV (Luke 7:12; 8:53; 9:38; Heb 11:17 all referencing someone other than Christ). In non Christological references, the KJV translates this word “only” three times (Luke) and “only begotten” in Hebrews. Furthermore “begotten” does not “only one of a kind.” Consider all the genealogies where sons and daughters are begotten. It means to give birth to. The word monogenes means unique, one of a kind. Look it up in a lexicon if you don’t believe me. This is not my opinion. It is testified to by any lexical source.

Gen 22:8 – you say I provided no proof yet I gave you the Hebrew and explained what it means. You don’t believe me; you should at least believe the Hebrew. After all, it is what Moses wrote. Of course, if you can’t read the Hebrew, you are going to have to trust those who can. By the way, you are agreeing with the dreaded RSV if you side with the KJV on this one.

1 Tim 3:16 – the word in question is “Os.” Look it up in any lexicon. It is a relative pronoun. In ancient Greek, occasionally theos would be abbreviated by a sign very similar to “Os.” That is where the confusion comes from. The older manuscripts, whether you like them or not, read “os.” In the context of the passage, there is no doubt as to who is being referred to. There is only one person who meets those qualifications. It is God in human flesh—Jesus Christ. You are trying to make an issue of something that simply is not an issue. It is much more likely that an overzealous scribe added theos to clarify than that a scribe changed it to Os which doesn’t change the meaning.

Luke 4:4 and Rev 5:9 are textual variants that are disputed.

You say that the older manuscripts are corrupted because they don’t agree with the KJV. Did you ever stop to think that the KJV might be corrupted? You have assumed your argument without proof. The fact that the older manuscripts do not read the way you would like them to does not matter. They have been preserved and are a part of the record.

I do not know that I have ever used the “older is better” argument in these discussions directly, at least until this one discussing 1 Tim 3:16. There is much more to textual criticism than that. You have greatly oversimplified it and that is very unfortunate. The reason that the older is more likely to be accurate is the same reason that when you hear a rumor you try to get back to the source. Transmissions inherently degenerate. I will admit that the older manuscripts may not be superior and for the record, the MVs do not always side with the older manuscripts – just like the KJV does not always side with the majority readings or the Majority Text. The canons of textual criticism are well founded in the reality of literary transmission. They can be easily misrepresented though and they often have been. The goal in deciding between a textual variant is to determine which variant best explains the others. The one that best explains the others is the one considered most likely to be accurate.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> John 3:16 – the word in question is monogenes. Everywhere it is used it means “only” and is translated that way in the KJV (Luke 7:12; 8:53; 9:38; Heb 11:17 all referencing someone other than Christ). In non Christological references, the KJV translates this word “only” three times (Luke) and “only begotten” in Hebrews. Furthermore “begotten” does not “only one of a kind.” Consider all the genealogies where sons and daughters are begotten. It means to give birth to. The word monogenes means unique, one of a kind. Look it up in a lexicon if you don’t believe me. This is not my opinion. It is testified to by any lexical source. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes but Jesus is not the only son of God for we too are the sons of God, but Jesus is the only "begotten" Son of God. Therefore much clearer of a reference.


<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Gen 22:8 – you say I provided no proof yet I gave you the Hebrew and explained what it means. You don’t believe me; you should at least believe the Hebrew. After all, it is what Moses wrote. Of course, if you can’t read the Hebrew, you are going to have to trust those who can. By the way, you are agreeing with the dreaded RSV if you side with the KJV on this one. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You provided me with what they translated it as, which is wrong. Though I can't read Hebrew or Greek right off a piece of paper, I do have a Logos program that allows me to read the Hebrew and Greek texts word for word. And they still render God will provide Himself a lamb.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> 1 Tim 3:16 – the word in question is “Os.” Look it up in any lexicon. It is a relative pronoun. In ancient Greek, occasionally theos would be abbreviated by a sign very similar to “Os.” That is where the confusion comes from. The older manuscripts, whether you like them or not, read “os.” In the context of the passage, there is no doubt as to who is being referred to. There is only one person who meets those qualifications. It is God in human flesh—Jesus Christ. You are trying to make an issue of something that simply is not an issue. It is much more likely that an overzealous scribe added theos to clarify than that a scribe changed it to Os which doesn’t change the meaning. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, this depends on which texts you hold to. The texts that the KJV were written from contain "Theos" and not the pronoun. And it may be a small matter to you but it is indeed a big matter. Reading from the MV's you can see that maybe it was Jesus but not necessarily that Jesus is God. Though in the KJV there is no room for doubt about the trinity.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Luke 4:4 and Rev 5:9 are textual variants that are disputed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes I agree, they are textual variants, which is why I'll stick with the KJV.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You say that the older manuscripts are corrupted because they don’t agree with the KJV. Did you ever stop to think that the KJV might be corrupted? You have assumed your argument without proof. The fact that the older manuscripts do not read the way you would like them to does not matter. They have been preserved and are a part of the record. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I never said I thought they were corrupt or less reliable because they don't agree with the KJV but because they don't agree with the Byzantine texts. And because they often undermine alot of what the Bible (Greek and Hebrew texts) is saying.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The goal in deciding between a textual variant is to determine which variant best explains the others. The one that best explains the others is the one considered most likely to be accurate. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Agreed, which is another reason to stay with the KJV because it handles this quite well.
And most MV's do a poor job in this area.

Oh yea, I noticed that you didn't mention anything about Rev.5:9,10. What are your thoughts on that?


God speed.

[ October 28, 2001: Message edited by: Joey M ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Yes but Jesus is not the only son of God for we too are the sons of God, but Jesus is the only "begotten" Son of God. Therefore much clearer of a reference. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Notice the definition of monogenes is “unique, one of a kind.” No one claims that we are the sons of God in the same way Jesus is. That is not the point. The point is what does the word monogenes mean.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You provided me with what they translated it as, which is wrong. Though I can't read Hebrew or Greek right off a piece of paper, I do have a Logos program that allows me to read the Hebrew and Greek texts word for word. And they still render God will provide Himself a lamb. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am not sure what to say here. The text does not say that. I have showed you why and what it does say. You just keep on ignoring it.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Again, this depends on which texts you hold to. The texts that the KJV were written from contain "Theos" and not the pronoun. And it may be a small matter to you but it is indeed a big matter. Reading from the MV's you can see that maybe it was Jesus but not necessarily that Jesus is God. Though in the KJV there is no room for doubt about the trinity. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The text that the MVs were translated from contains the pronoun and not the name. So what is your point. There is no discussion that the two are different. The discussion is “why are they different and which one is right?” As I have said, there is no difference in meaning if you read the context. The point is that Os clearly explains where theos comes from. If theos were original, there is no reasonable explanation for it being changed to “os.” It is a small matter because that verse has a context. The context is clear. That verse is good fodder but it fails to make the point. As I said, when you read v. 16, there is only one person who meets that qualifications. The MVs open no room for doubt whatsoever.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Yes I agree, they are textual variants, which is why I'll stick with the KJV. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But why? What if the KJV followed the wrong variant? You might not have God’s word.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I never said I thought they were corrupt or less reliable because they don't agree with the KJV but because they don't agree with the Byzantine texts. And because they often undermine alot of what the Bible (Greek and Hebrew texts) is saying. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They don’t agree with the Byzantine texts for a reason. No one is quite sure what that reason is – that is why there is a discussion. They NEVER undermine any of what the Bible says. That is an illogical statement. Those texts are the Bible. They do not undermine themselves.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Agreed, which is another reason to stay with the KJV because it handles this quite well. And most MV's do a poor job in this area. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How do you know the MVs do a poor job? You have admitted a lack of knowledge of Greek and Hebrew so you can’t really say whether they are good translations or not. You are forced to take someone else’s word for it. Furthermore, you have not studied the principles of textual criticism so you do not know how the KJV handles the textual variants. In other words, you make a statement here that you have no solid basis for.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Oh yea, I noticed that you didn't mention anything about Rev.5:9,10. What are your thoughts on that?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I haven’t studied it. I am not in the habit of making statements about things I haven’t studied.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Notice the definition of monogenes is “unique, one of a kind.” No one claims that we are the sons of God in the same way Jesus is. That is not the point. The point is what does the word monogenes mean. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes I believe that, but reading the NIV you would not know that unless you done a word study. The NAS and most other MV's rendered it only begotten also. I'm just saying it was a bad choice of words.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I am not sure what to say here. The text does not say that. I have showed you why and what it does say. You just keep on ignoring it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

eJautw'/ (tried to type the Hebrew word in question out, but I don't have Hebrew fonts installed to write with. But it means: to himself,herself,itself
not for himself,herself,itself.


<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The text that the MVs were translated from contains the pronoun and not the name. So what is your point. There is no discussion that the two are different. The discussion is “why are they different and which one is right?” As I have said, there is no difference in meaning if you read the context. The point is that Os clearly explains where theos comes from. If theos were original, there is no reasonable explanation for it being changed to “os.” It is a small matter because that verse has a context. The context is clear. That verse is good fodder but it fails to make the point. As I said, when you read v. 16, there is only one person who meets that qualifications. The MVs open no room for doubt whatsoever.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


16 And by common confession great is the mystery of godliness:

He who was revealed in the flesh,
Was vindicated in the Spirit,
Beheld by angels,
Proclaimed among the nations,
Believed on in the world,
Taken up in glory.
The New American Standard Bible

My point is that this verse in most MV's do Not point to a trinity. He in this verse could be talking about Jesus as some put Him, a prophet or a good man etc. But the KJV clearly states that He is God who was revealed in the flesh.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> But why? What if the KJV followed the wrong variant? You might not have God’s word. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But they didn't follow the wrong variant because Luke 4:4 just verifies Matt. 4:4 in the KJV, while the MV's omitt the last part of the verse in Luke 4:4.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> They don’t agree with the Byzantine texts for a reason. No one is quite sure what that reason is – that is why there is a discussion. They NEVER undermine any of what the Bible says. That is an illogical statement. Those texts are the Bible. They do not undermine themselves. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are right, the MV's don't undermine the mss.'s in which they were written from, but they do undermine what the Byzantine and the KJV says.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> How do you know the MVs do a poor job? You have admitted a lack of knowledge of Greek and Hebrew so you can’t really say whether they are good translations or not. You are forced to take someone else’s word for it. Furthermore, you have not studied the principles of textual criticism so you do not know how the KJV handles the textual variants. In other words, you make a statement here that you have no solid basis for. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Though I have admitted I lack knowledge in the Hebrew and Greek languages, I also said I have a program in which I have 6 mss. of the Hebrew and Greek and I can highlight any verse and any word and find out it's meaning. I can see the differences in the Byzantine texts and that of Nestle Aland 26th edition. So I don't have to take someone else's word for it. And though I have not studied the principles of textual criticism, I think I do just fine at criticizing texts. But really I am able to compare what the different mss. say and the way that the KJV and the MV's translate those words.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I haven’t studied it. I am not in the habit of making statements about things I haven’t studied. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good enough reason for me.

Please do not take this as a hatred toward the MV's because it's not, just emphasizing why I prefer the KJV over the others.

God speed.

[ October 28, 2001: Message edited by: Joey M ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
1 Tim 3:16 – the word in question is “Os.” Look it up in any lexicon. It is a relative pronoun. In ancient Greek, occasionally theos would be abbreviated by a sign very similar to “Os.” That is where the confusion comes from. The older manuscripts, whether you like them or not, read “os.” In the context of the passage, there is no doubt as to who is being referred to. There is only one person who meets those qualifications. It is God in human flesh—Jesus Christ. You are trying to make an issue of something that simply is not an issue. It is much more likely that an overzealous scribe added theos to clarify than that a scribe changed it to Os which doesn’t change the meaning.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The above information is incorrect. Upon closer examination, the MSS all use the abbreviation for Theos. Under magnification or infrared/ultraviolet light every extant MSS was seen to have a cross mark in the O and a line over the s.

 

I don't usually posy on this subject, but have some thoughts on it.
Since I and most christians don't read greek, hebrew, and the 'orignal manuscripts', the argument of this, this, and this in greek means nothing to us. God gave us bibles in our language (for those of us who don't read greek), when we choose which bible we have only the, our language to go by. When I choose my bible I compared several translation(including KJV) and choose the one I felt I could read and understand. I believe God is able to give us His word kept secure as His word. (something like the Living Bible speaks for it's self, as to it not being a bible, it is nothing more then opinion and not a transaltion). I feel secure that I have God's word as my bible. Let each of us choose which translation of God's word we can read and understand, if I can't understand the basic meaning of a word how can I understand the bible. I'll trust in God on this and not peoples opinion who can't read God's word without arguing about which one thay should read. I trust in God to keep a translation as His word, and not men who translated it, after all He has to be a part of even the translating of it.
So if I choose the translation I can understand and God speaks to me through it, why does it mattet to anone else? It doesn't matter to me what translation any of you use, as long as you don't try to tell me I don't have God's word.
Not much of an opinion, but's mine.

 

Adam, they totally loose me, and I have no desire to catch up.
Thank God, the good news is we don't have to understand their conversation on translations. I'm not going to be quized on this when I get to heaven.
I read and study my bible, and know the word of God, and thats all that matters(other then actually living what I learn).