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!

Which Bible versions are NOT the Word of God?

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by IveyLeaguer, May 19, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Top Posters
Page 1 of 3
  1. IveyLeaguer

    IveyLeaguer New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2004
    Messages:
    666
    Likes Received:
    0
    Which Bible versions are so flawed they should not be regarded as the Word of God?

    By version I mean translation, paraphrase, or something in between. For example, I might be able to consider the Moffatt translation as God's Word but not The Message.


    [If you are KJVO please say so, if you like, but please don't argue that position. This can be a very useful thread for all should the discussion maintain an academic flavor - clean, considerate, and thoughtful - so please control your emotions.]
     
    #1 IveyLeaguer, May 19, 2006
  2. william s. correa

    william s. correa New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2006
    Messages:
    677
    Likes Received:
    0
    off topic post snipped

    [ May 19, 2006, 05:35 PM: Message edited by: C4K ]
     
    #2 william s. correa, May 19, 2006
  3. TCassidy

    TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,080
    Likes Received:
    3,490
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I believe commentaries such as TLB and the Message should not be considered God's word for the purposes of formulating doctrine. However, they are God's word in that they are "scripture . . . able to make thee wise unto salvation." They are a poor example of the translator's art, but I would hesitate to consign them and their users to fires of hell. [​IMG]
     
    #3 TCassidy, May 19, 2006
  4. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Some "bibles" I would not use or recommend:

    "Good As New"(We have a thread about that one)

    "New World Translation"( is an altered version,made to follow JW doctrines, does not follow any known Scriptural manuscripts in many key doctrines, full of poor and false renderings, I.E. "the word was *A* god", John 1:1

    Cotton Patch Bible(The name says it all)

    TNIV (Sacrifices mucho translation accuracy for "political correctness")

    "People's Bible" (Close to "Good As New" in worthlessness)

    There are some others such as the RV or "Message" that are barely better than no Bible at all, but these are so inaccurate that I seriously doubt if they've led very many, if any at all, to the Lord.
     
    #4 robycop3, May 19, 2006
  5. kubel

    kubel New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2005
    Messages:
    526
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't know if I can say this how I'm thinking it but here it goes:

    I look at all translations as mans best attempt at bringing the scriptures to his tongue. Man is not perfect. Many translations reflect this, some more than others. Man can also be corrupt. Many translations reflect this, some more than others.

    With that said, my vote goes to "The Message" as being one of those "more than others". It's the only one of that group that I actually picked up and tried to read. I'm not sure I would even consider it a translation.
     
    #5 kubel, May 19, 2006
  6. Bro Tony

    Bro Tony New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2004
    Messages:
    2,398
    Likes Received:
    0
    My list would be the same as Roby's.

    Bro Tony
     
    #6 Bro Tony, May 19, 2006
  7. DesiderioDomini

    DesiderioDomini New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Messages:
    836
    Likes Received:
    0
    The Message is not a translation.

    Its author stated as such.

    Ignore the marketing, it should be expected. Read what the author wrote.
     
    #7 DesiderioDomini, May 19, 2006
  8. Keith M

    Keith M New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    The New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Clear Word Translation of the Seventh Day Adventists would have to top my list of Bibles to avoid.

    My list would also have to include "special versions" like the Cotton Patch Version, the People's Bible and Good As New Cranston mentioned before, not to mention the Klingon Version.

    Also on my list would be paraphrases such as The Message, the Living Bible and the Good News Translation.

    And to complete the list I would have to include the "politically correct" versions like the TNIV and the NRSV.

    But cheer up! There are good translations out there like the KJV, the NKJV, the CSB, the ASV, the NASB and the ESV. [​IMG]
     
    #8 Keith M, May 19, 2006
  9. william s. correa

    william s. correa New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2006
    Messages:
    677
    Likes Received:
    0
    off topic post snipped

    [ May 20, 2006, 01:10 AM: Message edited by: C4K ]
     
    #9 william s. correa, May 19, 2006
  10. EdSutton

    EdSutton New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    Roby, I'm somewhat familiar with exactly two of these versions, the New World Translation, and The "Message". I've heard of the "Cotton Patch Epistles", in the past (I assume that is to what you were referring, or is there now a 'complete' Bible version with this appelation?), and just became aware of the "Good As New", one recently after reading something about it on the BB.

    Could I assume the the TNIV and RV are two with which I should be familiar? What exactly do these initials stand for, in these two?

    Thanks,
    Ed
     
    #10 EdSutton, May 20, 2006
  11. IveyLeaguer

    IveyLeaguer New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2004
    Messages:
    666
    Likes Received:
    0
    Agreed.

    I agree they contain much scripture, TLB more than The Message, and the scripture they contain is sufficient, many times over, for the Holy Spirit to use in order to effect salvation.

    I was about to go on a diatribe about how we don't judge people and how that is not the point of the question until I saw your smiley. [​IMG]

    But the idea got me to thinking .... we don't judge people but we are surely called to judge what others write (or say) in the Name of The LORD. What about the motives of men who translate (or paraphrase) the Word of Almighty God? I would say the motives of some translators are/were pure. That is to say, their motive was to translate, as precisely as humanly possible, the manuscripts in which they were entrusted. Others were either so bad at what they were doing, were deceived to the point of prejudice, or had a personal agenda.

    For example, I can't question the motives of the King James translators (though I would admit the possibility of a rare, unknown exception). Everything I've read points to their meticulous dedication. I feel confident about the translators of the NASB, ESV, HCSB, and a few others. I'm somewhat less confident about the NIV translators. On the whole, I would guess their motives were pure. Nevertheless, when considering the translation, I suspect there were a few exceptions, prejudiced toward the liberal side. On the other hand, it is undeniable that there are interpretations of verses throughout the NIV that express the Word of God better than other translations, IMHO, an advantage of the thought for thought basis. On the whole, I would have to say that the NIV is the Word of God, even though I cannot place it on the same level as the KJV, ESV, & NASB.

    TLB, I don't know enough about the translators to comment. As far as The Message, I am convinced that Eugene Petersen had, and still has, an agenda other than offering the accurate Word of God to his readers. Sad, but I think it would take Jesus Christ Himself to convince me otherwise.
     
    #11 IveyLeaguer, May 20, 2006
  12. Keith M

    Keith M New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ed, the TNIV is Today's New International Version, a more recent rendering of the NIV in which most masculine references are made gender neutral unless the text is talking about a specific person.

    I can think of only two versions where the designation RV applies - the Revised Version of 1881-1885, an English version which is the basis of the ASV (American Standard Version) of 1901, and the Reina Valera (sp?), a Spanish translation which I have heard is based on the Textus Receptus, the same Greek text that is the basis for the KJV.
     
    #12 Keith M, May 20, 2006
  13. IveyLeaguer

    IveyLeaguer New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2004
    Messages:
    666
    Likes Received:
    0
    The R.V., Revised Version, is a pretty good translation, is it not? I know the classical theologians, people like F.B.Meyer and Oswald Chambers, referred to it quite often.

    BTW, the R.V. is now available as an e-Sword module, found here: click on View Recent Addtions and Updates
     
    #13 IveyLeaguer, May 20, 2006
  14. Keith M

    Keith M New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    The R.V., Revised Version, is a pretty good translation, is it not? I know the classical theologians, people like F.B.Meyer and Oswald Chambers, referred to it quite often.

    BTW, the R.V. is now available as an e-Sword module, found here: click on View Recent Addtions and Updates     </font>[/QUOTE]I believe the Revised Version as well as the American Standard Version were based on the Wescott-Hort Greek Text. Someone correct me if I'm wrong. There are some minor differences between the W-H Text and the Textus Receptus, as I understand it, but nothing major enough to lose a night's sleep over.

    There is also an English Revised Version which I have seen online, but it is not the same version as the Revised Version of 1881-1885. Confusing, isn't it?

    And thanks for the info that the RV is available on E-sword!
     
    #14 Keith M, May 20, 2006
  15. gb93433

    gb93433 Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,549
    Likes Received:
    15
    If any are that flawed they cannot be called a Bible.
     
    #15 gb93433, May 20, 2006
  16. william s. correa

    william s. correa New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2006
    Messages:
    677
    Likes Received:
    0
    [SLANDER AND ATTACK ON GOD'S WORD DELETED] [​IMG]

    [ May 21, 2006, 02:40 AM: Message edited by: Phillip ]
     
    #16 william s. correa, May 20, 2006
  17. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Why not?

    Just saying "It aint da KJV" won't do.
     
    #17 robycop3, May 20, 2006
  18. IveyLeaguer

    IveyLeaguer New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2004
    Messages:
    666
    Likes Received:
    0
    Point well taken. Which ones are they, in your judgment?
     
    #18 IveyLeaguer, May 20, 2006
  19. mcdirector

    mcdirector Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2005
    Messages:
    8,292
    Likes Received:
    11
    One on my shelf that I'd put in the same category as the Message is The New Testament in Modern English translated by Phillips. (ok, I've had it longer than I've been married!) I have enjoyed it though over the years.
     
    #19 mcdirector, May 20, 2006
  20. Bro Tony

    Bro Tony New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2004
    Messages:
    2,398
    Likes Received:
    0
    William are you saying these translations of the Bible lie and tell lies? If you are you are guilty once again of blasheming the Word of God!
    I warn you with fear and trembling.

    Bro Tony
     
    #20 Bro Tony, May 21, 2006
Page 1 of 3
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...