The Best Bible Versions (and Worst)

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Jason Gastrich, Jul 9, 2004.

  1. Jason Gastrich

    Jason Gastrich
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2004
    Messages:
    187
    Likes Received:
    0
  2. skanwmatos

    skanwmatos
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,314
    Likes Received:
    0
    Jason, your web page says you are located in San Diego. So am I. What church do you attend, and where did you attend Seminary? I just finished my Th. M. at San Diego Baptist Theological Seminary.
     
  3. LarryN

    LarryN
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2003
    Messages:
    958
    Likes Received:
    0
    Interesting disclaimer at the bottom of both websites. Although you clearly favor the KJV, your disclaimer indicates that you believe it's best to examine the oldest manuscripts to determine the correct rendering of God's Word:

    "Note: God's Word is inerrant in it's original form. This means that the copies of manuscripts and the English translations cannot be as accurate or perfect as the original texts. Even before the King James Version or any other English version, it would be wise to examine the oldest, original manuscripts available (even if they are written in another language)."

    How can you seemingly so strongly favor the KJV; while at the same time champion the oldest original manuscripts? Most KJVO's would find such a position to be a contradiction, since the Textus Receptus is derived from relatively newer manuscripts.
     
  4. JonC

    JonC
    Expand Collapse
    Lifelong Disciple
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    6,909
    Likes Received:
    363
    I prefer the KJV, or the New American Standard. I like the NAS because of it’s references and explanations of terms that often read different from the KJV, i.e., many time “the grave, or “Sheol” is translated by the KJV as “Hell”. Some readers may confuse “Hell” in many OT passages as “Hell” in NT passages, while the terms used were not the same. In this case (and I suppose depending on the reader) the NIV is more accurate.

    Micah 5:2, NIV also offers notes “from days of eternity”. NAS: “His goings forth are from long ago, From the days of eternity”. I don’t read either, as implying that Jesus isn’t eternal.

    I don’t really like the NIV translation. I think the writers tried to make it more “readable”, though.
     
  5. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Hi, Jason!

    First of all, we've seen these comparison lists almost from their conception, and we've come to the conclusion that they prove only one thing, which was proven centuries ago: that every English BV is different from any other one.

    Now, to answer the points from your 2nd URL:

    1.) "Hell" as used in the KJV is often a generic term. Sheol, Hades, tartarus, & gehenna are different places. While none of them are exactly attractive, it's best to identify each one of them in Scripture. We generally think of gehenna-the lake of fire-as hell.

    2.) We've just had a discussion on the "morning star" thing. In the AV 1611, there's a marginal note for Isaiah 14:12 which reads, "or, O day starre". And in Rev.2:28,speaking of believers, Jesus says, "and I will give him the morning star." The whole morning star argument is useless, and is but another desperate KJVO argument, just another futile KJVO attempt to find something...ANYTHING...to sustain their KJVO myth.

    3.) In Micah 5:2, the Hebrew word translated "goings forth" is mowtsa'ah, which can mean "origin". Just ask anyone proficient in Hebrew.

    4.) The NIV was made from different mss than the KJV was, but the fact that Jesus was Mary's firstborn Son is evident from the context of the Gospels.

    5.) There has been a debate lasting for over a hundred years whether the verses KJVOs say were omitted were actually ADDED to the KJV. The most-discussed verse in this vein is 1 John 5:7.

    6.) We've also recently concluded a discussion about the NIV's calling Joseph Jesus' father. IMO, this is one of the most STUPID arguments any KJVO ever pulled out of his rabbit cage. yes, I've seen where the KJVOs claim Jesus corrected Mary in Luke 2:49, and the Luke 2:33 argument. Now, here are two reasons why this argument is TOTALLY STUPID:
    A.) The ignoramus who originated this argument simply did NOT read his/her KJV too closely, or he'she would've seen-Luke 2:27 "And he came by the Spirit into the temple: and when ***the parents*** brought in the child Jesus, to do for him after the custom of the law,"
    Luke 2:41 Now ***his parents*** went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover.
    I see no meaningful KJVO spin concerning these verses.
    B.) Joseph WAS Jesus' earthly father in every legal and practical sense, by both Roman and Jewish law and custom. Joseph was Mary's husband when jesus was born, and Joseph provided Jesus' food, clothes, & shelter during His earthly childhood. Plainly, Joseph was Jesus' earthly de-facto father!

    Jason, please notice that I said the person who ORIGINATED this argument was obviously an ignoramus, and in no way am I implying that YOU are. However, since you're posting all these old arguments that were shot down 30 years ago, I realize you're quite new and "amateur" in the versions issue. Please bear with me if I treat the above, and some other KJVO arguments with scorn, because many of them are mere inventions of KJVO "spin doctors", devoid of any meaningful FACTS.
    7.) The Greek here rendered "son" in the KJV is 'pais', which also means servant or slave. Just ask anyone proficient in Greek. In most places in the NT, the greek word 'huios' is used for "son", as that word specifically means son, or male descendant. Again, just ask anyone proficient in Greek.
    8.) See answer 5.
    9.) See answer 4.
    10.) See answer 5.
    11.) See answer 4.
    12.) See answer 5.
    13& 14) See answers 4 & 5.

    Jason, all these argumants are decades old, and have all been proven wrong. I believe that if you take the time to closely explore them, you'll prolly seriously consider revising your site.

    For YOUR consideration:

    If Psalms 12:5-7 are about the preservation of God's word, then how can one believe the KJVO myth in the face of the fact that no two English BVs are alike?

    Where is the SCRIPTURAL support for KJVO, or for that matter, any One-Versionism whatsoever?
     
  6. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Nothing new on the aforementioned site. Same ole' KJVO false doctrine propaganda, and the same inaccuracies and falsehoods that are simply repeated.

    Version-onlyism is false doctrine.
     
  7. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    robycop3, are "parents" and "mother & father" same meaning?
     
  8. Orvie

    Orvie
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2001
    Messages:
    649
    Likes Received:
    0
    2+2=
    4-0=
    3+1=
    0+4=
     
  9. Lacy Evans

    Lacy Evans
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2003
    Messages:
    2,364
    Likes Received:
    0
    Please show scriptural support for this statement.

    Lacy
     
  10. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Askjo:robycop3, are "parents" and "mother & father" same meaning?

    Yes, unless you have someone else in mind for your parents besides your mom & dad.
     
  11. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Lacy Evans:
    quote:
    Originally posted by Johnv:
    Version-onlyism is false doctrine.
    ____________________________________
    Please show scriptural support for this statement.

    Lacy

    He doesn't need to, Lacy, although all he'd hafta do is refer to Luke 4:16-21 compared to isaiah 42:7 & Isaiah 61:1-3.

    The ORIGINAL statement from the KJVOs is: "The KJV is the ONLY valid English-language Bible translation". The onus thus has always been upon the KJVO to prove this statement. They've failed miserably to do so, thus we reject KJVO as a false doctrine, since its advocates cannot meet their burden of proof.
     
  12. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Sorry, Askjo, I should've elaborated a little more about "parents".

    Here's the merriam-Webster online definition of "parent' as applicable here:

    1 a : one that begets or brings forth offspring

    This certainly applies to Mary, as she gave earthly birth to Jesus. That makes her one parent.


    b : a person who brings up and cares for another

    And this applies to Joseph, His other earthly parent.

    By every legal and practical tenet & application of the day, Joseph was Jesus' earthly father.
     
  13. Ben W

    Ben W
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2002
    Messages:
    8,868
    Likes Received:
    0
    The main [snipped] in the KJVO movment is the denial of the Trinity. The teaching that the 1611 KJV is "The Word" when in fact Jesus is "The Word". The KJV is a translation of "the word".

    The Perfect Word is Jesus Christ. Who is equal to God the Father and God the Holy Spirit, a version of the Bible does not have a part in the Trinity.

    [ July 10, 2004, 12:02 PM: Message edited by: Dr. Bob Griffin ]
     
  14. Charles Meadows

    Charles Meadows
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    2,276
    Likes Received:
    0
    Lacy,

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Originally posted by Johnv:
    Version-onlyism is false doctrine.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Please show scriptural support for this statement.

    Lacy

    I'll add a different twist...

    To say a version is better than another is fine. I have my own opinions too. False doctrine would be to say that in order to be saved one must use this or that version. See Rom 10:9 and Acts 16:30,31 for the qualifications for salvation - nothing about versions, only faith.

    To say that only one version is truly the bible is legalistic and Pharisaical. It depends on what degree of misguided emphasis is placed on this as to whether it would be false doctrine (adding to the gospel).
     
  15. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    To attack Bibliology is false doctrine.
     
  16. Lacy Evans

    Lacy Evans
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2003
    Messages:
    2,364
    Likes Received:
    0
    I've never met a KJVO who believed that one couldn't be saved by "using that version". We go witnessing to young people with colored construction paper.
    Please show scriptural support for this statement.

    Lacy
     
  17. Lacy Evans

    Lacy Evans
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2003
    Messages:
    2,364
    Likes Received:
    0
    I've heard some doozies but this takes the cake. You win the prize Brother Ben. I am a heretic because I am KJVO, and I deny the trinity because I believe God restored his Word. "Heretic" is stronger than "Bible corrector" and I'm forbidden by the BB rules to use that derrogatory term.


    Brother Heretic Lacy (Where do I wear my new badge?}
     
  18. StefanM

    StefanM
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    6,408
    Likes Received:
    70
    The authors of the biblical text didn't have the many, many different translations that we have, so "scriptural" support is impossible. This issue would have never been brought up.

    At best, we can take texts and exegete them, but such a process will not convince anyone, as has been shown ad nauseam in the KJVO debate.
     
  19. amixedupmom

    amixedupmom
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    The best Bible version is the one that speaks to you. The one that makes you think, the one that convicts you, the one that helps you understand yourself, your world, and your breathern better. If your Bible dosen't do this, you might want to try another version. The Bible should speak to you, in many ways. It should comfort and convict you, love and teach you, and everything inbetween. You might attack the versions, but The Bible needs to do these things in order to bring you closer to the LORD.

    -lea butts out-
     
  20. Lacy Evans

    Lacy Evans
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2003
    Messages:
    2,364
    Likes Received:
    0
    I assume you base your doctrine on scripture? It seems to me that unless you can show some scriptural principal that is being violated in my trusting God to preserve his word, then the onus falls back on you.

    If you have a Biblical precept for "preservation by atrophy" or "multiple choice exegesis", if "well I think . . ." is the beginning of holiness, then preach on. If my basing my choice on examination of fruit (holiness, effect on society, revival of truth, etc.) is unscriptural, then by all means, set me straight. But whatever you do DON'T CALL ME, "'BROTHER'"!!!! (Oh wait, that was the other thread, :confused: sorry.


    Love Lacy
     

Share This Page

Loading...