Versions that are Invalid:

Not any group of Christians, but this particular group.

There is nothing wrong with the Reader's Digest Bible. It got a lot of people reading the Bible...even though in Digest mode.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Reader's Digest Bible...just the thought of it sounds offensive. And i have seen one, and looked through it, and quickly returned it to where i found it before i found a garbage can.
As for tne NWT...i keep a couple of them on hand for when i teach on the JW heresies during cult studies.

 

Bobby

Just the thought of keeping a book that tries to make the Word of God into a heresy is offensive. . .

IMHO.

 

IN THE BEGINNING was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God; all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made. In him was life and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.
John 1:1-5 Reader’s Digest Version

What part of the Reader's Digest Version is heresy?

This whole thread walks a fine line between what is acceptable on the BB and what is "Invalid".

Rob

 

Ed Edwards,

Perhaps you should create a poll (like the inerrancy one) about how people define "valid". I think the definition varies amongst us.

 

I too would be interested to see what people's definition of "valid" v "invalid" is. I find it particularly curious to see that so many find the NWT to be invalid but the NIV to be valid when they are so similar. Great poll.

 

The non-validity of the NWT is easily shown...It does NOT follow any known source manuscripts in many places. A glaring example is John 1:1, where the NWT ends it with "and the Word was **A** god."

If a translation closely follows its sources, it's valid. Please remember there are many Hebrew or Greek words/phrases that have multiple correct meanings in English, and, when the context offers no help, a translator must make an "educated guess" based upon his overview of Scripture. This is why we have versions that read differently, as different translators make different guesses. Case in point...the definition of the Hebrew 'tachash'. in Exodus. Is it badgers? Seals? Rams? Antelopes? Could it be any or all of these?

The subject of which manuscripts are or are not "correct" is food for another discussion.

 

Actually, that's not a problem with the manuscripts. AFAIK, there is not a single manuscript with the definite article there. However, the rule of thumb is that if there is a definite article, it should always be used, but there are times when no definite article is used that it's still specific. For example, around here, if I say "I'm going to town", I don't have to specify a definite town, unless it's one up the road a ways. By the same token, just a few verses later, even the NWT includes the article where none is present, so their own version contradicts itself in short order. (This should not be construed in any way as an endorsement of their product, but an observation that the faults need to be placed where they belong.)

 

KJV 1611 AV Bible thats ther Book for me!!!

 

Oops, I totally screwed up. I thought it said valid and not invalid. Needless to say, I believe that all versions are invalid but the KJV.

 

You believe incorrectly.

 

Amen - :thumbs:

 

Well you cerainly have the right to believe that. Are all the editions and publications of the KJV equally valid?

 

Since there are differences between the various KJV editions, exactly which one of them is it that you think is the only valide English Bible?

 

You also believe incorrectly.

As usual, Keith, they won't answer.