Versions that are Invalid:

Welcome back, James!

That short list of invalid bibles should also include the Clear Word Translation of the Seventh Day Adventists. These three versions were "translated" so that heretical groups could finally have a "bible" that agrees with their errant teachings.

BTW, did you know the JST is also called the Inspired Version by the Mormons? They also claim their Book of Mormon is on an equal plane with the Bible. Strange folks, those Mormons!

 

Ed, I don't think the CWT is actually online if memory serves me correctly. It could be that the Seventh Day Adventists don't want to publish this "translation" online because they know it will not stand up against the real word of God. The intent is probably that the CWT be used only by the SDAs as that is where it will gain the most acceptance without scrutiny.

 

Valid vs invalid?

Valid verses invalid?
I've got some other ideas.

First off one needs to define and differentiate between translations and paraphrases.
Their purposes differ.

IMO, both can be considered the word of God but they vary in the way they communicate God’s message.

Regarding paraphrases such as the MESSAGE; one does not necessarily need an extensive knowledge of the original languages to create a paraphrase.
The purpose of a paraphrase is to convey basic biblical truths in a language which can be understood by a typical reader without any theological background.
To be sure some things are lost in the process.

A translation on the other hand, is usually developed by consulting the original language. A translation attempts to re-create the original message as relayed by God’s messengers. Even in this process something is lost; there is never a one-to-one correspondence between languages.

As long as God’s message is expressed, it produces results and increases, as seen in the early church; "But the word of God increased and multiplied." (Acts 12:24, ESV)

I would say that we can call something God’s word if we observe the godly effect it has on those who read and follow it.

So can something be considered the “Word of God” if the full meaning is not completely conveyed?
Consider this, for all of the first century up until the third or fourth century the word of God had not been completely collated. They only had part of the word!
How is that different from a paraphrase that conveys only basic truths of God’s word?

Both Jesus and his disciples were probably very familiar with the Greek Septuagint (LXX) and there is strong evidence that many OT quotes in the NT were taken from the Septuagint. Still this early translation is not the best, in some places overly literal, in other places it exhibits a conspicuously poor paraphrase.
But the Septuagint was the Bible of the early Church, it was the word of God to them.

Paul still says this about the early church’s word of God, "…we have something more sure, the prophetic word, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts," (2 Peter 1:19, ESV)

Now if a translation does not convey God’s message, in particular, if the purpose of the translation was to introduce an errant doctrine, there is a great possibility that it could invalidate the gospel message within it and therefore not only make it an invalid version but an anathema to God.

Rob

 

I agree. :thumbsup: As you went on to explain, every translation has some interpretation in it, therefore it is a fine degree between a very dynamic translation (Phillip's, CEV, TEV/GNT?) and a genuine paraphrase.

A translation does imply transfer from one language into another. A 'rewritten' work within the same language is just another version or edition. A paraphrase should not contain words or phrases from the original source (which would constitute plagiarism); the function of a paraphrase is presumed to be that the source material will be clearer to the intended reader than the original text alone. Really, by necessity, a true paraphrase is longer than the original; it is not a summary and should include even minor details.

(BTW Rob, I think you know that Paul didn't write 2 Peter... see, I am paying attention!) :smilewinkgrin:

 

First, let me say this is a bizarre method of coming to a knowledge of truth. Truth is not voted on, truth either is or it is something else. If the Jews had voted on whether or not Jesus was the messiah, I wonder what the outcome would've been.

Having said that, who establishes the baseline for what is valid or invalid according to voting? Ed, you originally set the baseline at 75%, according to that baseline all of the Bibles are now valid. What was the methodology used to determine 65% to be the baseline rendering multiple versions to be invalid that weren't under the previous baseline? May I establish the baseline to be any version that receives greater than 20% of the votes to be invalid?

Were the terms "valid" and "invalid" ever defined?

In our sample, how do I know the voters haven't all attended the same or similar seminaries and received erroneous information through those institutes of higher learning? There has to be some reason to explain how 7+ people consider the Geneva and the KJV Bibles to be invalid so I think it would be necessary to understand the world view of these individuals to understand what is rattling around in their melons to think such a thing.

What do we do when we encounter someone who believes an "invalid version" such as the "Message" to be a "valid" version, even though the poll shows The Message to be the least valid?

Was there a vote to determine whether or not we should vote on which versions are valid? What was the outcome?

Bottom-line, polls do not determine truth, polls determine the views of people or the views of what people believe to be truth.

"Brethren, we have a saying, Great is the truth and will prevail: but this is never so in this age; in this age truth is always with the minority; and so convinced am I of this, that if I find myself agreeing with the majority I make haste and get over to the other side, for I know I am wrong." - A.T. Pierson​

 

The Jews DID vote (in a closed council in the middle of the night). Jesus 'lost' (BUT we won)!

 

In this context it would seem that "invalid" means fallacious, falsely based or reasoned, faulty, and unsound in execution; imperfections do not necessarily make versions "invalid".

"Valid" would mean a genuinely well founded (best accepted practices) translation effort made in good-faith (honest scholarship); "valid" does not mean perfect.

Somewhat subjective, I know.

 

The Merriam-Webster online dictionary says invalid means, being without foundation or force in fact, truth, or law.

How anyone can claim this applies to the KJV is beyond me!

 

And KJVO isn't? :smilewinkgrin:

 

Thought I'd my own response in the thread just to say, I still have not voted, consistent with my own statement of nearly a year ago. But I have read the various votes cast, and note that, IMO, some of the responses posted were, in fact, posted by some who misunderstood the poll, and also noted a few others responses that are just plain confusing. For example, I find it almost incomprehensible that one poster would see (only) the Geneva Bible as "invalid" (and I believe that is the only version that was so deemed by that poster) but not find the Message or the NWT to be "invalid", nor find some other somewhat similar versions to the Geneva as "invalid", so as to indicate a misreading of the poll's intent. Another was one who apparently found all versions "invalid" except for the NIV, NASB, and ESV.

There were a few other 'votes' where these above type of phenomena were similarly manifest.

And, again, I am not talking about the responses where I think the poster misunderstood "valid" and "invalid" as they read the poll. That appeared to be fairly obvious, to me at least, when that was the case, in most instances, from my reading some of their varied posts on the BB over almost 20 months.

Ed

 

OK, I had to choose the KJV-1611 (Because of the spelling changes, etc.), because there was not an option to say "all are valid." My pick: they're all fine.

FA

 

Ed,

My personal view is that I just want to see people in God's Word. Better to see someone using an archaic version or a very free one than another more balanced version but using it very little at all. Later, as they grow in Christ, they will probably seek something more appropriate.

But I did vote for the KJV-1611 since IMO that is the primary issue with the KJV - the English language has evolved so much since then - cannot ignore that. I like the NKJV - I think Art Farstad did a good job there, though I do wish he had followed his Greek majority text instead of the TR. I prefer the Alexandrian Greek family, though I respect both that and the Byzantine, and the Western family as well. I used to be a MT person. I once was involved in the WEB development. (It's based on the majority text.) I took Hodges and Farstad's Greek Majority text, using the apparatuses there, searching for places he (MP Johnson) had missed in converting the ASV-1901 from an eclectic translation into a majority text. Went through the entire NT twice.

And I do respect the history behind both main Greek families. Having gone through the entire NT twice looking for places in which the MT and the CT were significantly in variance has left me with a comfortable feeling regarding both of them.

FA

 

The NWT calls itself a translation however it is very unlikely that there was never any actual translations from the orig. languages by anyone who know those languages and english grammer.

So I contend that the title is a lie and the rest just follows in that tradition.