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!

The Best Bible Versions (and Worst)

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

  1. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Lacy Evans:Please prove to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that Christ was quoting the same writings of Isaiah that we have extant.

    Did you mean, "NOT quoting"?

    The proof is in the KJV itself, and in the sources from which it was translated. Either those sources and the translation is wrong, or Jesus actually read from another version-or the Hebrew version of Isaiah translated into the KJV was made AFTER Jesus read, and is different from what He read. Not any other valid possibilities, Sir.


    The ONE TIME a New Testament writer gives the actual reference, (Acts 13:33) the quote is exact.

    While the Ethiopian to whom Philip was sent also read from Isaiah within the realm of the above possibilities. Evidently this is also an exact quote of what he read.

    What you never see a New Testament preacher do is say things like:

    "Well, in the original Hebrew, this Greek word blah blah means blah blah blah and it is an 'unhappy translation' that should really read blah blah blah. Now a better rendering of the original Hebrew would be. . ."


    If any such given preacher who KNOWS better doesn't explain it to his audience, shame on him...

    It was the scribes, lawyers and pharasies who preached like that. If you don't believe it just study the Mishna.vans:

    I believe it. And it was the RCC who sought to hide the TRUE words of the Scriptures from the laymen, keeping the Scriptures in a language(Latin) most laymen(regardless of nationality) didn't understand.
     
  2. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Lacy Evans:Your presumption is false. There's no such thing as an "KJVO-position".

    Yes there is, whenever someone says the KJV is the ONLY valid English BV.


    There is the "Multiple Choice exegesis" position, and the opposition to it. Since scripture does not in any way support Multiple-Choice-ism, that assertion must be fought when it is presented as a doctrinal requirment.

    Then, which gospel do you support and which ones fo you fight? They're all different. If you accept them all, then it's pretty silly to pick-n-choose only one BV as being valid.

    BTW - to make myself clear, "Multiple Choice exegesis" is the belief that nearly any translation, version, manuscript, etc. can be considered the authoritative bible for all of God's people. (I get to pick!)
    We often refer to it as MV-ism.


    This was the position taken by the AV translators, according to their very own words in their preface to the reader.
     
  3. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,536
    Faith:
    Baptist
    There you go again confusing us with facts.

    BTW, besides that fact being presented in the preface, they actually put the different choices in the margins of the pages of the AV 1611 First Edition (and several others to follow).

    I guess we can call this KJV-ism.

    Another KJVOism could be applied here that because the original KJV First Edition was flawed by MV-ism, (as well as by the inclusion of the heretical Apocrypha) the well was poisoned and therefore all the other editions should be rejected (according to KJVO logic)

    HankD
     
  4. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Ed: My requirement is that you specify which KJV you quote from.

    Jim508:I do not have a 1611 KJV to reference, and my online copies of the KJV do not specify a year. Judging from your response, it appears that I quoted from the 1611 KJV, Proverbs 30:5, first variant.

    robycop: Ed quoted from the AV 1611. Note the spelling in his quote. You quoted from a later edition, prolly the 1769 Blayney's Edition.

    My point is to logically defend the OVO (One Version Only) concept; or if a defense is impossible or absurd, to refute it. I appreciate your identifying flaws in my arguments, because I need solid logic to be convinced either way, and in order to communicate effectively with others.

    The KJV didn't come w/the OVO position gift-wrapped within it. OVO is strictly a man-made thing.

    Ed: The real KJB shows that God does vary His word selection even in the Hebrew. Why can't God be big enough to vary His words in English? Sorry, bud, the real KJB blows your theory right out of the water.

    As you said, the KJ translators had different wordings in the source texts available to them; i.e. they were dealing with different versions of the source text. Either God chose to vary the words, or somewhere in history a scribe chose (accidentally or on-purpose) to vary the words.

    robycop:Then the OVO position is false, isn't it?

    The real KJB shows that the KJ translators either thought that God varied the words, or that He did not but they did not know for certain which words were right, so they left both in for safety's sake.

    robycop:Actually, it's the differences in languages that caused this. When a Greek or Hebrew word or phrase has several possible meanings in English(much as the English word "fly" has many possible meanings to a Japanese translator) and the context doesn't indicate a specific meaning, the translators included every possible meaning, as you said, "for safety's sake".


    Perhaps the preface or translators' notes reveal their opinion. But their opinion, while learned and certainly instructive, is not my judge or supreme authority. What I need is God's viewpoint on this, preferably as expressed in scripture.

    robycop:God made, and is in control, of all languages. None of these problems have "snuck up" on Him. He knows that just one version of His word cannot mean the same things to all men, so He causes it to appear in several versions in the major languages.

    Your contention that God varied the words in Hebrew, and that this is demonstrated in the KJB, depends upon the KJ translators knowing that the differing words in the various source texts were each given by God, i.e. that He intentionally varied the words in Hebrew. This is presupposing the conclusion.

    God can fashion His own word as He chooses.

    Your comment that God is "big enough" to vary the words in English, casts the OVO position in a negative light. Now God is "smaller" (petty? stubborn? both are related to the concept of small-mindedness) if He does not vary His words. What is the scriptural basis for this?

    Notice the difference in the accounts of the same events between Samuel, Kings, & Chronicles. Did Jehoiachin begin to reign at age 8 or age 18?
     
  5. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Lacy Evans:I can't provide scripture and neither can you! We disagree on how God preserves things. We disagree on how to tell if something is the word of God. There are Biblical principles we hold to and we base our decision on those principles.

    Not really. The KJVO GUESSES, while WE have PROOF.

    Your (MVers) asking me (KJVOs) for a scripture is just as STUPID as me asking you. THAT WAS MY POINT!!!!! Now you know! Subtle as a slege-hammer.

    Another sledge-hammer is the fact that KJVOism is a totally man-made doctrine. The burden of proof lies with those who first conjured it up, as well as those who believed their myth. Those old-timers couldn't justify their myth, so it falls to the current KJVOs to try to prove it. All we HAVE to do is reject it for lack of evidence, but we go ahead and disprove it anyway for the sake of newbies or those not very strong in faith.


    [sarcasm]No one needs to "provide scriptural support" to state that MV-position isn't doctrinal. The very fact that it's unsupported/not specified in Scripture makes it a false doctrine. [/sarcasm]

    [Not sarcasm]Sorry, Sir, it IS supported in Scripture, in the oft-quoted differences in Samuel, Kings, & Chronicles & the differences in Isaiah with Luke 4 & Acts 8.[Not sarcasm]

    [I'm Cranston P. Roby & I approve this message!]
     
  6. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Hank D:There you go again confusing us with facts.

    Perhaps I should start guessing, as the KJVOs do?

    BTW, besides that fact being presented in the preface, they actually put the different choices in the margins of the pages of the AV 1611 First Edition (and several others to follow).

    I guess we can call this KJV-ism.


    Funny, the later editions ignore much of the AV translators' work.

    Another KJVOism could be applied here that because the original KJV First Edition was flawed by MV-ism, (as well as by the inclusion of the heretical Apocrypha) the well was poisoned and therefore all the other editions should be rejected (according to KJVO logic)

    And they changes the SPELLING!(GASP!!)
     
  7. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Lacy Evans:I am KJVO because of deep convictions.

    Based upon guesswork & fishing stories, not any real, tangible EVIDENCE.


    I don't care what you believe. We can discus our differences.

    Seems that's what we're doing.


    I can defend my position.

    Then you'd be the first KJVO to ever do so.


    But What you do is between you and God. Your liberty is left quite intact by my position.

    And yours by mine. There are some KJVOs and some multiversionists who don't advertise their choices, but when they do, that's what fuels these discussions.

    The KJV is not my "preference". It is a conviction. Perhaps you can't understand that.

    I understand perfectly. A false doctrine can be quite persuasive.

    MY multiversion position is also a conviction, based upon clear, empirical evidence that both bolsters that position and debunks one-version-onlyism. When push comes to shove, KJVO is merely a personal preference because it has no evidence to support it. You might say it's because of its "fruits", but some of these fruits are definitely sour! For example, those paragons of wisdom, David Koresh & Jungle Jimmy Jones, were KJVO. Therefore the "fruits" argument is pointless.


    Perhaps we speak two different languages and there is no-one to interpret. I have found relatively few who can get past the "you-have-to-show-me-a-scripture-but-I-don't-have-to-show-you-one" stage of this "debate".

    I, and several others, have shown clear Scriptural proof that Jesus was NOT limited to only one version of the Scriptures already canonized in His earthly days.

    The issue is "How does God preserve things?" The issue is, "How does God say to judge what is holy and right?"

    Clearly, God has preserved His word in English AS HE HAS CHOSEN, given the fact that no 2 English BVs are alike. And He says, "Test the spirits". Plainly, the spirit of KJVO is that it's a man-made myth, started by a known cult official.

    All the evidence I examine brings me back to that book.

    Good.

    But if you wanna know the TRUTH about the issue, you need to examine the evidence more closely.

    While I wholly support your choice, I expect the same for mine. And long as someone speaks out in support of KJVO, I'm gonna speak out against it, God Willing.
     
  8. Lacy Evans

    Lacy Evans New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2003
    Messages:
    2,364
    Likes Received:
    0
    Roby,

    As I implied earlier, I support your choice. I would die for your right to choose. But I believe with all my heart you are wrong.

    Lacy
     
  9. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Lacy Evans:Roby,

    As I implied earlier, I support your choice. I would die for your right to choose. But I believe with all my heart you are wrong.

    Lacy


    Then, with all due respect, Sir, can you *PROVE* me wrong? Belief must be based upon FACT.
     
  10. Jim508

    Jim508 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2004
    Messages:
    25
    Likes Received:
    0
    I stand corrected. My online KJV does not have a year marked on it, so I do not know for sure which one I am using. That is not the main point here anyway.

    Please read the statement before responding to it. Nowhere did I say the KJV came with the OVO position, or that the KJ translators invented the idea, or any such thing. I am looking for solid logic, not unsupported axiom.

    On what basis? There is no conclusion here yet.

    No, see the discussion on page 5 that led to this. According to Ed, the KJ translators had "two different wordings in the source texts available to them"; it was not multiple meanings of the same word in this case.

    This is a continuation of the effort to determine the source of variations in the source texts, not variations in the translation.

    Because you are non-KVJO and non-OVO, I assume that you mean "several versions in each of the major languages." I do believe that the KJV will not serve a non-English speaking person as well as a native English speaker. Additionally I think that translation directly from the KJV to foreign languages is a bad idea, as was demonstrated on the Corn/Grain thread also on this forum. But this provides no proof for or against the OVO position.

    God will never contradict Himself; you might say He has voluntarily limited His methods.

    The whole discussion is whether God varied the words in the Hebrew source texts. Ed said that He had, and used the alternate renderings in the KJB as proof. I demonstrated that this proof can be reduced to assuming the conclusion:
    1. God must have varied the source texts, because
    2. The KJB contains alternate renderings for the same verse, because
    3. The KJ translators knew that both source readings were correct, because
    4. God varied the source texts.

    #1 and #2 are what Ed wrote, restated in my words.

    #3 is required to support #1 and #2.

    #4 is required to support #3.

    #1 says the same thing as #4.

    To use the desired conclusion as the initial basis for the proof is CIRCULAR REASONING.

    This logic is not very complicated. Please read and understand it before attempting to refute it.

    This is an old question. Google provides pointers to several common answers. Here is a question for you: If God could not decide between 8 and 18, why do you think He is sure about the rest of His Word?
     
  11. Jim508

    Jim508 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2004
    Messages:
    25
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sorry for the (preceding) huge post.

    robycop3 made an excellent point above (basically put, different versions in different languages) which does distinguish among some of the KJVO styles, and which highlights an ambiguity with a term I started using: OVO or One Version Only.

    I am not KJVO when discussing God's Word for the entire world. It seems beyond reason to suggest that the English-speaking populace has the right to read the Bible in their language (as any KJVO will gladly assert), yet to deny that same right to anyone speaking a language other than English.

    I apologize if I have introduced confusion when writing OVO -- which could be interpreted as KJV for everyone, Hebrew, Greek, Chinese, Mexican, or even 1611-English. That was never my intent. Perhaps OLVO - One Language Version Only will be more clear.
     
  12. Lacy Evans

    Lacy Evans New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2003
    Messages:
    2,364
    Likes Received:
    0
    I cannot prove "purple" to a blind man.

    God preserves things by resurrecting them. That I can prove(and have proven.)Luke 21:17,18, with Acts 7:59, 60 also Isaiah49:6

    God promises to preserve his "words". That I can prove. (Perhaps not to you.) Psalms 12: 6,7

    God says you will know them by their fruit. that I can prove. Matt 11:4-5

    I can prove that the term "scripture" never once refers exclusively to autographs. 2Tim 3

    I can prove that God restored the closed 66 Book perfect canon in the late 17th century and all of us without exception are devout 66-book onlyists.

    I can prove that restoration/preservation is often a process. Eze 37. John 20:17


    Lacy
     
  13. Anti-Alexandrian

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    0
    No,based upon Scripture(John 16:13).All of your hot air has been proven false before;why keep repeating yourself when no one pays attention to you?? or cares???
     
  14. Charles Meadows

    Charles Meadows New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    2,276
    Likes Received:
    1
    Why AA,

    How Christ-like of you!
     
  15. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    quote:
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Originally posted by robycop3:
    robycop: Ed quoted from the AV 1611. Note the spelling
    in his quote. You quoted from a later edition,
    prolly the 1769 Blayney's Edition.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Jim508: "I stand corrected. My online KJV does not have a year
    marked on it, so I do not know for sure which one
    I am using. That is not the main point here anyway."

    For me that is EXACTLY the main point here.
    The KJV makers have without explanation settled on
    what i belive to be the Worse of the King James Versions
    the KJV1769. Then the KJV vendors deliberately mislead their
    blind followers by never telling them what KJV they are
    reading.

    Jim508: "The real KJB shows that the KJ translators either thought that God varied the words, or that He did not but they did not know for certain which words were right, so they left both in for safety's sake. Perhaps the preface or translators' notes reveal their opinion. But their opinion, while learned and certainly instructive, is not my judge or supreme authority. What I need is God's viewpoint on this, preferably as expressed in scripture."

    IMHO the translator margin notes are Holy Scripture,
    the written word of God preserved for our generation
    in many faithful English version each individually the
    written word of God and all all collectively the written
    word of God.

    Jim508: "Your comment that God is "big enough" to vary the words in English, casts the OVO position in a negative light. Now God is "smaller" (petty? stubborn? both are related to the concept of small-mindedness) if He does not vary His words. What is the scriptural basis for this?"

    You betcha.
    The OVO is illogical and ammounts to
    TYING GOD'S HANDS. Please don't do it.
    Thank you. I do not need a scripture to report the
    practices of humans. Sorry, it is probably a sin
    to tie God's hands IN ONE'S MIND -- but i don't have a verse.

    Acts 17:10-11 (HCSB):

    As soon as it was night, the brothers sent Paul
    and Silas off to Beroea. On arrival,
    they went into the synagogue of the Jews.
    11 The people here were more open-minded than those
    in Thessalonica, since they welcomed
    the message with eagerness and examined the Scriptures
    daily to see if these things were so.


    But i do have scriptural requirement to check what other folks
    say is the written word of God. On my computer desk I have
    5 Bibles that say they are the "King James Version". They
    appear to be in three flavors, each different from the
    others -- IMHO significantly different from each other.

    [​IMG]
     
  16. Askjo

    Askjo New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Click here: The Bible For Today
    I heard that many times. Why are you interested in OLDER manuscripts that modern versions are based? B and Aleph MSS disagreed each other in the Gospel alone 3,000 times! The readings from 5,000+ manuscripts favored the traditional texts/KJV over the W/H & MVs -- ratio of 3:2!!!!
    I heard that many times. No, it was not 2% but 7%.
     
  17. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    30,285
    Likes Received:
    507
    Faith:
    Baptist
    If you would, please. And don't use Ps 12 which has been proven (even by staunch defenders of the KJV) to NOT be a "proof text" for this teaching.

    Please do. Each time (53 of them) it is used. And please show where ONE of them refers to the KJV.

    If "Scripture" in the Bible refers to originals, copies and translations, how can one make a Kirkegaardian leap that it must refer now to ONLY ONE translation?

    Am I missing something here? You claim inspiration for 66 books, yet the AV1611 and many many subsequent revisions/editions contain HOW MANY books?

    Please do so as relates to the AV1611. Giving scripture to support it, of course.

    Thanks.
     
  18. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    80
    Wecolme to Jim508 above and the OVO/OLVO theory.

    I suppose with OLVO'ism I can choose any one good, solid translation and call it my OLVO?

    Can I choose the NKJV, NASB, NIV, etc as long as I only choose one?
     
  19. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Actually, Jim, many books of the Bible are accounts written by men whom He inspired, whose writings He chose to become Scripture. For example, both Kings & Chronicles suggest there were other accounts written which didn't become Scripture.

    And, of course, there are those books written by men to whom God said, "Write this".

    Each of the Gospels is different from the others.

    Jim508:This is an old question. Google provides pointers to several common answers. Here is a question for you: If God could not decide between 8 and 18, why do you think He is sure about the rest of His Word?

    As I said, some books of the Bible are the writings of inspired men, some of whose writings God chose to become Scripture. The "8-18" question has been around for over 2500 years, and the general answer is that these are different accounts written by different men in different times & places, drawing from different sources of info. Plainly, no one writer lived throughout the entire history of the kings of Israel and Judah.

    Same for the Gospels. Each writer of a Gospel had a unique perspective of the events about which he wrote. For example, only Luke mentions the repentant thief on the cross beside that of Jesus. the answer? Prolly, Luke was the only apostle close enough to the crosses to have heard the conversation. During the time Jesus was on the cross, the various observers weren't present the whole time as they had their own bodily needs to attend to, or were shooed away by the soldiers.

    If God uses various accounts within one version, what's to prevent Him from using various versions?
     
  20. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sure, feel free within Jesus to do so.

    I choose the Holman Christian Standard Bible
    [HCSB] (Holman, 2003) as God's inerrant
    written word for the 21st century (which
    started in 2001) which God has preserved
    for 1,000s of years just for us English
    readers just for now.

    "This is presupposing the conclusion."

    Get over it :D I presuppose a lot
    of stuff; so do you. Here is my version
    presupposion (also known as assumption,
    axiom, etc.)

    God's written word is God's written word
    no matter where it appears and is the
    ionerrant, errorless, inspired written word
    of God.

    Thus with my presupposition I find
    that my READER'S DIGEST BIBLE is still
    God's written word. My AMPLIFIED BIBLE
    is God's written word.

    Jim508: "My point is to logically defend the OVO (One Version Only) concept; or if a defense is impossible or absurd, to refute it. I appreciate your identifying flaws in my arguments, because I need solid logic to be convinced either way, and in order to communicate effectively with others."

    So what is your basic starting axiom
    (self evident truth) or assumption (that
    which is assumed to be true because
    you can't prove it is true).

    Ephesians 4:1-6 (HCSB):

    I, therefore, the prisoner in the Lord,
    urge you to walk worthy of the calling
    you have received,
    2 with all humility and gentleness, with
    patience, accepting one another in love,
    3 diligently keeping the unity of
    the Spirit with the peace that binds us.
    4 There is one body
    and one Spirit,
    just as you were called to one hope
    at your calling;
    5 one Lord,
    one faith,
    one baptism,
    6 one God and Father of all,
    who is above all and through all and in all.

    Sorry, no "one version of God's holy
    written word".

    Please note that most OVOs assume
    (construe as axiomatic) that God can
    have one and only one written word
    (in English). tee hee!
    Some OVOs even assume God's living Word,
    our precious Lord and Savior: Messiah
    Yeshua, is one and the same as God's
    written word, the Holy Scripture.

    [​IMG]
     
Loading...