My responses

Actually I think it would be helpful to read and study at least three different Bible translations to bring home the truth more clearly.It's nice to have a primary translation;but one can get blindsided by not seeing a different form of words expressing the same truth.

That's for sure.

 

This is a double.

 

And this is a triple.But these computer glitches do not hit a homerun for me.

 

One thing many KJVOs lose sight of is the fact the 1611 KJV was based on "modern scholarship." The 1769 KJV was also based on "modern scholarship." If the modern scholarship of today can't be trusted, then why should we trust the modern scholarshipf of the past?

I don't think the majority of people here at BB will condemn anyone for preferring one of the KJVs. When that preference becomes a problem is when some folks take it upon themselves to declare that only one particular translation is the word of God in English while blaspheming and denigrating other Bible translations.

Are there modern translations we should avoid? Yes, I believe so. We should avoid the New World Translation, the Joseph Smith Translation (aka the Inspired Version) and the Clear Word Translation. These were "translated" so errant groups can have "scripture" that agrees with their false teachings. I believe we should also avoid novelty "bibles" like the Cotton Patch Version and the Klingon Version since I believe they were nothing more than attempts to publish something that would be noticed and sell a few books, and not legitimate attempts to convey the message God intended. I believe we should also avoid paraphrases like the Living Bible because most paraphrases are not the work of committees who seek to deliver God's message accurately and as such they allow for too much interpretation, opinion and bias of the writer(s) to creep in. And although dynamic equivalence translations like the NIV are not my favorites, I wouldn't advise anyone to avoid them completely. I believe they are the word of God just as much as the KJVs, the NKJV, the NASB and other legitimate Bible translations.

 

Again, well said.

And I'll add, I've also seen more than one case where it is, in essence, argued that even shown and demonstrated differences, in KJV editions, do not actually exist, as well.

It is also extremely inconsistent, when those of this position effectively accept without question, changes afforded the KJV we most generally have, that were mostly made by two individuals, namely Drs. Thomas Paris (1762 - Cambridge) and Benjamin Blayney (1769 - Oxford), yet proclaim to reject any further 'editing", in any manner. (FTR, I fully agree with every 'needed change' I have seen, that were made by Drs. Paris and Blayney, and I would even go so far as to say, that had these two extremely conscientious scholars, along with Dr. F. H. A. Scrivener, been around and on the committee in 1611, these 'changes' that were needed in the 1760s would likely have never been there, in the first place. The presence of that triumvirate, and their textual abilities alone, would likely have been enough to have "prevented" this from ever happening. And I'll add, agreeing with Dr. Scrivener, that the actual contributions of Dr. Paris are often overlooked by most, today, but were fully accepted and incorporated in his own edition, by his friendly rival, Dr. Blayney.)

May I also here add, that I find it somewhat bemusing, that many of the KJVO position, regularly appeal to the Dictionary of Dr. Noah Webster, as well as cite the TR1894 compiled by Dr. Scrivener (which was incidentally compiled from the 1873 Cambridge, yet refuse to accept, in any manner, either the Webster Bible, or the !873 Cambridge edition of the KJV, likely because Dr. Scrivener also served on the RV Committee of the 1881 RV.

And, as I mentioned before, effectively agreeing with you, the hypocrisy in this position, that is shown here, is deafening.

Ed

 

annsni, if you will "shorten" the pan, I'll offer to make the 'brownies'! Brownies - Yum!! :thumbs:

Ed

 

Keep trying. You'll get there. :thumbs:

I got ours to do a 'four-bagger' one time. :laugh:

Ed

 

I fully agree, here, for exactly the reasons you gave, at least on the NWT. I agree, in principle, based on what I have seen from others about the JST and CWT, although I fully admit to actually having seen neither.

I agree as to the so-called 'Klingon' version.

However, I do not agree with your assessment of the intentions of Clarence Jordan, with the 'Cotton-Patch' Epistles. Dr. Jordan attempted to 'translate' the message of the Scripturea into a 'homey' phraseology for the area, people, and times he was writing in. He was a Preacher and also a legitimate Greek scholar, who actually could and did translate his sermons into the 'colloquial idiom' familiar to those around him, especially those of the inter-racial community, in the "Black-dirt" farming area, that he was instrumental in establishing, known as 'Koinonia Farms'. He never called the 'Cotton-Patch' version, a trandslation, but a 'version', and although the publishers, 'S&H', now call this as "A colloquial translation with a Southern accent", I think Dr, Jordan might phrase this as "A version with a Southern accent."

Is this to be regarded as a legitimate "translation"? Of course not, and I believe Dr. Jordan would fully agree. But I also deem this as little different from any preacher today, who attempts "to put legs onto a message" for his own local church, in 'application', which is exactly what Dr. Jordan was doing.

The LIV is certainly a paraphrase. However, I suggest that it is a 'legitimate' paraphrase, and is actually, overall, "more 'literal'" than are some other "contemporary translations".

The Liv, and NIV are also not my favorites, by any stretch, of the imagination. However, that still doesn't mean I go out of my way to avoid them like the plague.

Ed

 

Ed, I'm about as aiti-KJVO as it gets. But I'd probably agree with most of the KJVO accusations against translations that "tamper with" Scripture, especially when these accusations are against the Cotton Patch Version.

The Cotton Patch Version is a fine example of where different words = different meanings.

Jesus was an IT??? The ESV, one of the later Bible translations which receives a lot of denigration from KJVOs did a lot better job with the last part of this verse...

Gainesville? Georgia? Governor? Atlanta? Talk about changing meanings!

What does a real Bible say? Let's look at the ESV again...

Well, the ESV sure did a better job in these verses, too.

And the total omission of Matt 1:1-17 is not necessary. We're not talking about one manuscript having a verse that another manuscript doesn't have here. Nope - we're talking about the deliberate omission of a whole block of verses. Matthew put Jesus' ancestry record in his Gospel for a reason, and this reason is ignored by the CPV. A footnote replaces these verses with...

Ed, I just can't agree with your assessment that the CPV was an attempt to bring the word of God to anyone, whether residents of the rural southern US or anywhere else for that matter. Colloquiaisml is one thing, but this is another matter entirely.

KJVOs, if you want to go to town on the CPV I certainly won't defend it. Have at it, fellas!

 

There were a number of changes or renderings that were introduced in the 1762 Cambridge KJV edition and in the 1769 Oxford KJV edition that are not found in most present KJV editions. Changes in the Oxford editions such as the Oxford KJV edition in the old Scofield Reference Bible seem to have been made after 1885. Changes in the Cambridge editions accepted by some KJV-only advocates were made after 1900.

The 1762 Cambridge edition does have some distinctive renderings. Scrivener noted that the 1762 Cambridge had “killedst” for “diddest” at Acts 7:28 (Authorized Edition, p. 32). Scrivener indicated that this 1762 edition also introduced “brakedst” (Deut. 10:2) that was kept in the 1769 Oxford. The 1762 Cambridge has a second ye at James 2:16 [“be ye warmed and be ye filled”] (Ibid.). An edition printed in Oxford in 1782 has this same Cambridge rendering at James 2:16. This 1762 edition has “merchant ships” (Prov. 31:14) instead of the 1611’s “merchants ships.“ At Philippians 4:2, it has a second “I” [“and I beseech Syntyche”]. The 1762 Cambridge has “and he cried out” at Luke 4:33 instead of “and cried out.” At Psalm 83:14, it has “the wood” instead of “a wood.” It has “the widow’s raiment” (Deut. 22:5) instead of “a widow’s raiment.” It has “Archite” (1 Chron. 1:15) instead of “Arkite.” At Galatians 2:6, it has the rendering “those, who” from the 1683 edition’s rendering “those who.” At Jeremiah 31:15, it has “Rachel” instead of “Rahel.”

Scrivener noted that the 1769 Oxford KJV edition had "the earth" instead of "the world" at 1 Corinthians 4:13 (Authorized Edition, p. 33). The 1769 Oxford edition had “coast“ instead of “coasts“ at Judges 19:29, “priest‘s custom“ instead of “priests‘ custom“ at 1 Samuel 2:13, “on the pillars” instead of “on the top of the pillars“ at the end of 2 Chronicles 4:12, “unto me” instead of “under me” at Psalm 18:47, “feared” instead of “fear” at Psalm 60:4, and “part“ instead of “parts“ at Psalm 78:66. It has “about” for “above” at 2 Corinthians 12:2 and “our joy“ for “your joy“ at 1 John 1:4. Scrivener also noted that the 1769 edition had “Heman“ at Genesis 36:22 instead of “Hemam“ (p. 156, footnote 2), “brakedst” at Deuteronomy 10:2 instead of “brakest” (p. 32), and "thy companions" at Job 41:6 instead of "the companions" (p. 223). The 1762 Cambridge edition had “Heman” at Genesis 36:22 and may be the source of the 1769 Oxford rendering. Eadie asserted that the 1769 edition had “thy progenitors” for “my progenitors’ at Genesis 49:26 (English Bible, II, p. 366).Norton pointed out that the 1769 had “you were inferior“ instead of “ye were inferior“ at 2 Corinthians 12:13 and “the mighty is spoiled” instead of “the mighty are spoiled” at Zechariah 11:2 (Textual History, pp. 113, 298). McClintock maintained that the 1769 edition had “children of Gilead” for “elders of Gilead” at Judges 11:7 and “gates of iron” for “bars of iron” at Psalm 107:16 (Cyclopaedia, I, p. 563). McClintock also claimed that the 1769 edition omitted the following words at Revelation 18:22: “at all in thee, and no craftsman, of whatsoever craft he be, shall be found any more” (Ibid.). Several of the above renderings in the 1769 Oxford edition remained in Oxford editions over 70 years since they can still be found in a 1840 Oxford edition, and one remained over 100 years.

 

One might note that I, under no circumstances defended the Cotton-Patch Version, as any "good version", per se, then or now. And I certainly do not recommend it for textual purposes, nor do I believe did Dr. Jordan.

I have never cited the CPV the first time in over 7800 posts on the BB. (Yeah, I've lost about 300 in various 'renovatings' of one form of another, on the BB, such as when whole threads have been removed, etc..)

And the "assessment" was not my personal assessment, either. FTR, I was mainly repeating historical facts about the Cotton Patch version and Dr. Clarence Jordan, after another poster cast aspersions on the motives of Dr. Jordan.

All that said, is there something particularly wrong with it, as 'reading' or 'example' during exposition? What is the difference between what Dr. Jordan has done here, and what you me or our preachers might do, when usng an illustration? And I personally know of a version of Scripture which is referred to as "God's Carving". simply because the indigenous people did not even have any concept of writing, at all, nor even have a written language, prior to the same individuals who were missionaries, working with them to produce such. To them anything we might refer to as 'written', was a picrture 'carved' in a tree, for some instruction or record.

Somehow, I just cannot conceive of this of thing being wrong.
Literal? No.
Dynamic or a paraphrase? Definitely.
Spreading God's message to another? Absolutely.

Ed

 

Once again I will have to step in and correct this constantly repeated idea.The NIV is not a dynamic-equivalent translation.It uses dynamic equivalency somewhat;but it is essentially in the formally-equivalent category.The NIV/TNIV is balanced between the more dynamic and more formally-equivalent camps.(And by the way,those camps do not have clearly delineated demarcations.)

The other mediating versions are the HCSB,ISV,and NET Bible. The phrase "although dynamic equivalence {sic} translations like the NIV are not my favorites" specifically targets the HCSB,ISV and NET Bible.Those versions may not be among your favorites,but to label them simply as dynamic-equivalent translations evidences sloppy thinking.

The NET Bible uses more dynamic-equivalence than the TNIV;but it would be wrong in the extreme to simply lump it in with the CEV,GNTand NCV.

 

Could'nt we just use the NKJV? I think they did a very good job.

 

I can't remember ever not saying that the inspired scriptures were only in the original autographs........Baptists have been saying this for centuries.

Cheers,

Jim

 

The English language was not uniform all over England in 1611 and it still isn't uniform, I can tell you. Try talking with and understanding a Cockney in East London, or a Scouser in Liverpool, or someone in northern England.

A reasonable job has been done to keep the KJV up-to-date so far as language goes........now we have the other areas to consider. This is where hermeneutics plays a vital role, more than just English words that have changed meaning.

We often argue as Shakespeare said, "Much ado about nothing".

Cheers,

Jim

 

Can you provide documented evidence that supports your above statements or assumptions? How many actual statements by different "Bible believing Christians" made before the 1800's have you actually read so it can be evaluated whether you can speak for "every one" of them?