1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Splitting Hairs?

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by Thermodynamics, Feb 4, 2009.

  1. Keith M

    Keith M New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    The question isn't so much whether you believe people can be brought to Chrst only by one of the KJVs, stilllearning, but whether you think the NKJV, the NASB, the NIV and the ESV are just as much the word of God as the KJVs.
     
  2. Salamander

    Salamander New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    Isn't the Omniscience of God an attribute established in doctrine?
     
  3. Thermodynamics

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2009
    Messages:
    357
    Likes Received:
    1
    Stilllearning, the question you quoted (and I have re-quoted below) is not mine, it was posted by another member.

    I use both Oxford and Cambridge editions of the AV as well as others. The differences between various so-called editions of the AV are so minor as to not matter at all as I stated above.
     
  4. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    But still, we are back to the fact that there are differences between various so-called editions of the AV.
     
  5. Thermodynamics

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2009
    Messages:
    357
    Likes Received:
    1
    Those differences are in the spelling of words NOT in the words themselves EXCEPT where errors existed in the early editions of the AV.

    It is dishonest to claim that changes that impact meaning have been made.
     
  6. Jim1999

    Jim1999 <img src =/Jim1999.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2002
    Messages:
    15,460
    Likes Received:
    1
    I did all my theological and biblical studies from a 1945 KJV (Cambridge) and I got full marks from the late John Calvin, except he failed me on baptism and ecclessiology..........Guess that makes me a KJVOnlyist, of sorts, maybe, perhaps, possibly.....

    Cheers,

    Jim
     
  7. EdSutton

    EdSutton New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    Nah! If the late John Calvin graded you, the Bible version was most probably in French or Latin! :tongue3: :laugh:

    Ed
     
  8. Keith M

    Keith M New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    Actually, the true dishonesty and inconsistency is in fully accepting the variances in the KJVs yet denigrating the modern translations for being different. There is no difference in the doctrines of the KJVs and the legitimate modern translations, even though there are some modern "translations" I wouldn't categorize as legitimate. The modern "translations" I wouldn't consider legitimate include the Cotton Patch Version (c'mon, Atlanta and Birmingham in the Bible?), the Klingon Version (a version for a fictitious language from outer space) and deliberate mistranslations put together so errant cults could have "scripture" that agrees with their false teachings. Such mistranslations would include the New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Inspired Version (an updated Joseph Smith Translation) of the Mormons, and the Clear Word Translation of the Seventh-Day Adventists.

    With the exceptions of those I've mentioned, every legitimate modern translation I''ve read teaches the virgin birth of Christ, His sinless life, his cruel death, His burial, His glorious and triumphant resurrection, His ascension, His current position in heaven and His eventual return. It is dishonest to claim changes that impact doctrine have been made in modern translations.
     
  9. Keith M

    Keith M New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes it is, Salamander. God's onmiscience is a fact established in Scripture - unlike the non-biblical KJVO position.

    God knew there would be minor differences that don't amount to a hill of beans in various translations, yet He graciously supplied those translations in keeping with His promise to preserve His word.
     
  10. Thermodynamics

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2009
    Messages:
    357
    Likes Received:
    1
    Hi Keith, I have said time and again that there is NO major doctrine missing from any of the valid modern versions, that issue is not in debate. However, the differences between the various MVs are far greater than the differences between the 1611 AV and the 1769 AV. Those who claim the ESV is "the same as" the NIV and then ask "which edition of the AV is the right one" are being dishonest.
     
  11. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,536
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I think you are missing a major and essential point Thermo.

    The degree of difference is not the issue.

    The issue is that God cannot make even the smallest mistake.

    Therefore ALL translations are flawed.

    In addition the original Word of God concerning the Gospel went out unto the gentiles in Koine a common language, a language which was not "ecclesiastic" but the language of life, the language of the common man.

    This was the complaint of the dissenters to the Church of England (some were Baptists and anabaptist). The King's translations was too "ecclesiatic".

    Even the prologue of the 1611 First Edition is not Jacobean but much closer to the language of the people of the 17th century (although it was aimed at the educated).

    The MV's try to recapture the desire of God our Father for the common man to hear the Word of God as if spoken from a friend (for the most part) not a priest or theologian. In Koine Greek spoken all over the world not in the older Attic or Classical Greek of the intellectuals.

    This means that some functional equivalence is necessary:

    2 Corinthians 6
    11 O ye Corinthians, our mouth is open unto you, our heart is enlarged.
    12 Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels.
    13 Now for a recompence in the same, (I speak as unto my children,) be ye also enlarged.

    NIV 2 Corinthians 6
    11 We have spoken freely to you, Corinthians, and opened wide our hearts to you.
    12 We are not withholding our affection from you, but you are withholding yours from us.
    13 As a fair exchange-- I speak as to my children-- open wide your hearts also.​

    HankD
     
    #31 HankD, Feb 8, 2009
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2009
  12. Thermodynamics

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2009
    Messages:
    357
    Likes Received:
    1
    Hello Hank,

    On that level most of the MVs fail for several reasons:

    1. They often rely on only a handfull of faulty manuscripts.

    2. They often do not faithfully translate what is recorded in those manuscripts.

    3. They are often harder to read than the AV because they use longer and more complex sentances and are on a higher grade level than the AV.

    4. They do not lend themselves to being committed to memory because:

    a. They lack the lyrical quality of the AV which serves as a memory aid.
    b. Group memory is impossible when no two people can agree on a version.

    5. The modern versions tend not to withstand the test of time. Of all the currently popular MVs, none is older than I am (and I am not that old). The NASB came out in the 70s, the NKJV in the 80s, the NIV in the 80s (I think) and the ESV in 2001. As of 2009 the NASB and NKJV, both of which were once the "flavor of the month" are in decline, the NIV seems to have peaked and the ESV is the current popular translation.

    6. The motive behind the MVs (on the part of the publishing houses, not the translators) appears to be profits rather than putting God's Word in the hands of the public. When you motive in coming out with a new Bible is to take money out of Christians pocket, I just can't see how God would bless that.

    Having said all of that I do see where some of the MVs do have a place and I think the NASB and ESV are as good as they can be given the manuscripts used in translating them. I have though about getting an ESV to use when I am unsure about a verse in the AV, but a commentary or a good study Bible would be about as useful in that regard.

    At any rate I am not against the MVs being out there (except in cases like The Message which I do not consider a Bible at all and I think does more harm than good) and I think it would be much better to have an NIV that you will read than to have an AV that you will not read.
     
  13. Baptist4life

    Baptist4life Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2007
    Messages:
    1,695
    Likes Received:
    82
    Faith:
    Baptist


    Uh Oh!! Watch out now!
     
  14. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Wrong.

    Wrong.And boy are you in a slandering mode! How would you like it if someone said that about the 1611 revisers?

    That's absurd.You're just repeating nonsense or denying the obvious.

    I'll admit that the renderings of the KJVs have been fine to hold in my memory banks.But you have not spoken the truth regarding many who have memorized swaths of some MVs like the NIV.

    I don't even know what you are trying to communicate here.


    To withstand the test of time you'll have to allow some time to pass before rendering a rash and premature conclusion.

    The NT NIV came out around 1973 or so I think.The whole canon in the early 80's.

    You have no basis for saying that the NIV has peaked.The ESV has not topped the NIV in popularity --ever.


    What an insensitive thing to say.You'll have to account for that on the Day of Judgment.

    You are sinfully wrong.
     
  15. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Par for the course.Naturally you would endorse such ill-founded bunk.
     
  16. Thermodynamics

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2009
    Messages:
    357
    Likes Received:
    1
    Mr. Rippon, Thank you for you reply to my post. It is obvious that you are quite emotional about this subject. While I do not agree with you on some points I do appreciate your feedback and you taking the time to reply. I also respect your passion for this subject.
     
  17. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,929
    Likes Received:
    4
    I appreciate the way in which you have presented your points. I hope we have an opportunity to discuss each one thoroughly.
     
  18. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I am not "quite emotional about this subject".I included only one exclamation mark for instance.I used no emboldened words.I used no colors.

    I think I spoke frankly and with sincerity.
     
  19. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,929
    Likes Received:
    4
    We can only imagine what you mean by "faulty". Are you implying that there are other MSS that are absolutely without error? But clearly this is a large topic in itself that is beyond this confines of this thread.

    Of course, translators don't use "manuscripts"; textual critics examine manuscripts. Translators use the resulting printed critcial texts.

    But more importantly on this point is the false impression that "only a handful" are considered. I think you have made a gross exaggeration here.
     
    #39 franklinmonroe, Feb 8, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 8, 2009
  20. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,536
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I agree with a lot of what you say Thermo.

    I invested the $ in good Bible software, although now there is a quite a bit of Bible freeware on the web.

    You can do the same and perhaps you do. Use the KJV as your base then compare the MV's to see what a verse would look like in modern English. This is what God originally planned for it to look like in any language and what most MV translations try to do.

    I agree that the TR types IMO are the better texts but I can't prove it.

    Hundreds of years from now (if the Lord tarries) English speakers will probably be confused by the way we in the 21st century used the word "heart" and probably ask "why did they confuse the organ of the body which pumps blood with the seat of emotions, everyone knows that happens in the amygdala".

    I disagree with the parts of your debate which say that the MV's are more complex and of a higher degree:

    You know what I mean? "bowels" versus "affections"?
    I gave that illustration to make a point.
    There are many more which could be given.

    Read that passage in 2 Corinthians 6:12 to an "unchurched person" and watch his expression. It was good for the 17th century but not so much for today.

    It is still the Word of God, inspired by derivation from it's source as are many others.

    No one is denying that and most of us cherish it because of it's history and the obvious impact that the AV had upon our culture and way of life.

    Also:
    This is a world of self enterprise and profit, God has always allowed that in His Word both in the Old and New Testaments.

    Even in the 17th century the king's coffers were greatly enriched by the sale of the "Authorised Version". Each local CoE church in the Empire was compelled to purchase one as it then became the "only" one authorised to be read in the churches.

    People down through the ages have profited from the copying (scribes were well paid and from aristocratic families) and later typesetting, printing and publishing the Word of God:

    Psalm 68:11 The Lord gave the word: great was the company of those that published it.​

    It's just the way it is in this greatly imperfect world.​

    Thank the Lord we live in America in the 21st century and have the Word in abundance, like the rain of a summer thunderstorm.​

    Amos 8:11 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD:​


    HankD​
     
    #40 HankD, Feb 8, 2009
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2009
Loading...