The Best Bible Versions (and Worst)

Thank You! This, to me, is a very reasonable conclusion for a MVer to reach.

Lacy

 

He didn't give us any English version. He gave us the ability to translate what He gaves us into English. There's no reason it can't be done again.

 

Lacy
"Let me guess you were too busy studying Kirkawhatshisname in high school to study Alexander Hislop."
''
That's why I read The Two babylons during my university years instead.
Alexander Hislop was a charlatan as bad as G. A. Riplinger and has absolutely 0 credibility.

How do I know that? I took a course in 19th century anti-Roman Catholic propaganda in my second year. Very interesting, earned me 6 credits and I got to see little Alexander's work get demolished by 3 archeologists wellinformed about Babylon and ancient Egypt.

 

"Thank You! This, to me, is a very reasonable conclusion for a MVer to reach."
''
I am humble enough to admit I might be wrong about a lot of things. So allthough I believe us baptists have the right Christian canon, I won't fall of my chair if it turns out we were wrong.

 

Good point. Thankfully, God cares more about the condition of our hearts than the direction of our canons.

 

Thank You! This, to me, is a very reasonable conclusion for a MVer to reach.

Lacy </font>[/QUOTE]Why because it allows you to lump us all together and demonize us?

I disagree with mioque for the same reason I disagree with you. The proof weighs heavily against her proposal.

 

Scott?

When have I demonized you my brother, created in the image of God, and re-created in the image of his only begotten son, by grace, through faith in his blood? For goodness sake, we disagree about the KJV issue. Don't go all dramatic on me.

Love Lacy

 

Confession of one's sins is
good for one's soul.

I still consider your statement the
main point crucifying the KJVO position.
Integrity and honesty requires the
inclusion of the book's pedigree.
Why did people print a dishonest Bible?

 

To be honest, Jim has a point, but probably not the one he thought.

If God is so specific about the individual words of His Word.

God is very specific about the words He used to convey His word.

and those verses surely seem to indicate that they are important.

Yes, they are very important, but not as a proof text. They stand as a testimony to the truth of God's word, period. Not a single translation.

how can several differing versions all be the Word of God, yet use different words in the same language at the same time?

Hebrew (the language David used) is a very imprecise language, whereas English can be extremely precise. Most Hebrew words convey entire ideas, almost whole paragraphs of thought. So, as you can guess, narrowing the choices is the most taxing job of a translaor. Hence, different translators make different choices.

Now, what is the solution to all of this? Simple, really..

EVERYBODY THROW AWAY ALL OF YOUR BIBLES AND START USING THE HEBREW, ARAMAIC, AND GREEK MANUSCRIPTS!

But, then, which manuscripts ??? Gee, another idea down the crapper...

In Christ,
Trotter

 

Anybody got a time machine laying around handy?

Lacy

 

Last I knew it was used
in 1830. John Darby, who postribs say
invinted pretrib ex nilo, used it to go
back to the 1607-1611 time frame to get the
King James Version translators to
use "fall away" instead of "apostasy" in
2 Thessalonians 2:3. I mean, "apostasy"
is a perfectly good English word used
in the KJV other places where the Greek
"apostaso" is to be translated, why didn't
the KJV translators use "apostasy"?
It must have been cause that John Darby
used the time machine.

I haven't seen that time machine since
then. Sorry

 

[joke]Who knows? Perhaps Darby's time machine was the seventh furnace-purification.[/joke]

Lacy

 

I respect the rights of others like mioque to disagree with me. I am not accusing her of actually believing what she wrote or even believing it to be possible but I take offense to being lumped in with anyone who would make a statement like the one she made.

Further it is absolutely not a reasonable statement for an "MVer" to make. It might be a statement reasonably expected from a theological liberal but many if not most MV users are theologically conservative or fundamentalists... and in fact, the more they actually use and study a faithful MV, the less liberal they are apt to be.

One version is about as authoritative as another to liberals. They don't think any of them actually mean what they say.

 

At least you don't get lumped with the Stone-Mountain-Singers, Adventists, David Koersh, Ghanna Kool-aid, and Pecker-wood southern racists. Gotta be tough to hang out here!

As to the statement Mioque made, why is it not reasonable? If the actual words are still open to debate (and you or I can rummage around in an ocean of manuscripts, translations, versions, etc. and change the words according to our whims), then why not question the books that contain those words.

No MVer wants to talk about this because they know that the "closedness" of the Canon is a subjective thing. (Just like the KJV issue) In other words there is no verse of scripture that says "These are the official 66 books".

Why not include the Apocrypha? Or at least debate it? What is it about our precious God-ordained 66 books, that cause us ALL to know that there are no more? Could it be their fruit? Could it be their internally consistent witness?


ScottJ are you or are you not a staunch 66-book onlyist?

Lacy

 

Yep. And it isn't all that subjective. I believe in God. I believe that God revealed Himself and His plan in writing as the Bible declares. Those are matters of faith but also based in fact.

The Bible declares its own inspiration. I believe it.

Early Christians recognized certain of the apostolic writings as scripture- evidenced by Peter's affirmation of Paul's writings. There were some disputes but by and large the NT canon was accepted based on the ties of the individual books back to apostolic authority and 1st century church acceptance.

This is a short version. The long version reveals more objectivity in the recognition of the canon by the early church.

There is also the providence of God to consider. I believe the history of those 66 books reveal that God purposed them and not others. While this cannot be conclusively proven, it is also not in contradiction with scripture or history... KJVOnlyism is.

 

That usually comes as a rebuttal to prove how wrong KJVO's are for associating MV's with the New Age, JW's, et al. Interesting that you should think yourself the victim...

For the same reason it is not reasonable to question the sacrificial death of Christ in a debate over Calvinism vs Arminianism- although linked to the subject, it is not a point of contention between people who actually believe the doctrines of the Bible.

You don't have to argue over your favorite vegetable just because someone suggests that we should eat dirt.

We don't. No rummaging. No whims. Just good solid evidence, scholarship, scriptural doctrine, and reason.

It is the KJVO that operates on "whims". You have decided in your own minds that the KJV is the only Bible for no real reason other than your willful desire to believe it.

You personally have worked at it harder than most KJVO's who just accept their "whims" as fact and refuse to consider proofs against it. You have built up a fairly sophisticated "proof" relying on scripture taken out of context and contorted to fit your predetermined result.

Nope. I am sure it makes you feel better to say so but you're wrong.

The "KJV issue" is not subjective. The case against KJVOnlyism is built on concrete proofs- scriptural, historical, and logical.

The closing of the canon has subjective elements but I believe is primarily objective in its proofs.

No. But there are verses that qualify those who can yield authority to scriptural writings. There is also Bible verses that support the notion that the Apostles endorsed NT books as scripture and that the Apostles themselves conveyed some of their writings to congregations as authoritatively from God.

The writers did not qualify. The books were not validated by Christ or the Apostles.

It was debated.

Partly... in whichever faithful version(s) you happen to be using.

 

Scott J
"the proof weighs heavily against her proposal."
"
Yes it does. Mind you, the case for KJVO is a little weaker than the case for a larger OT.
The 'official' earthly definition of our OT originates at the synod of Jamnia that was held by the Farisees.
They had very sound reasons for their choiches, but that doesn't change the fact that one could argue that our listing of the OT was basically compiled by a group that saw itself as enemies of Christianity.

"I respect the rights of others like mioque to disagree with me."
''
You better do I'm a dangerous woman when crossed.

"I am not accusing her of actually believing what she wrote or even believing it to be possible"
''
You are absolutely right in the first part of this statement, I am after all a IFB and not a Koptic Christian. And you are wrong about the 2nd part because I see it as a distinct (but extremely unlikely) possibility.

"Further it is absolutely not a reasonable statement for an "MVer" to make. It might be a statement reasonably expected from a theological liberal"
"
I once again agree completely with Scott here.
My reason for admitting that certain apocrypha theoretically might be intended by God as Canonical is purely an expression of the notion that I no doubt am wrong on certain theological issues. We all are. If someone asks me:"What aspect of your Christian faith could you be wrong about?" I like to give practical examples, the alternative being: "I have never actually thought about that in concrete terms."

 

Thanks for the nice response mioque.

Actually, I would say it is alot weaker. Weaker by galactic proportions.

The rejected books at least had some ties back to some authority that existed at the same time as the biblical saints. KJVO has no sound basis of any kind.