Why the version debate?

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Rubato 1, Apr 4, 2008.

  1. Rubato 1

    Rubato 1
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2006
    Messages:
    1,167
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why can't you use the Bible through which God speaks to you? and let the next member of the spiritual priesthood use the one through which God will speak to him?
    How perverted would God really allow His word to become?
     
  2. Friend of God

    Friend of God
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2005
    Messages:
    2,946
    Likes Received:
    0
    I couldn't agree with you more.


    To me, it is the height of arrogance to think that "your" Bible version is the one and only and every other one is false teaching.


    Who are we to limit God by saying that only one Bible version can speak to us and truly be the Word of God?


    I may not agree with everybody's opinion about the Bible version they use, but I'd never criticize them for using it.


    I seem to remember reading somewhere that we're to build up and edify our brothers and sisters in Christ. I'm sure you can find that Scripture in whatever version you use, as well as whatever I use as well.
     
    #2 Friend of God, Apr 4, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 4, 2008
  3. Mexdeaf

    Mexdeaf
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,051
    Likes Received:
    0
    Let me address the third question- I have personally witnessed people being led to the Lord using a New World Translation. While I would NEVER recommend that particular version to anyone, the truth about salvation is to be found in there although we would probably (maybe? likely? hopefully?) all agree that it is a corrupt translation.

    Even when men have not had a complete version of the Bible, or just a small portion, the Holy Spirit of God is able to make his truth known. His Word is powerful, no matter how it is packaged- Hebrews 4:12.
     
  4. Palatka51

    Palatka51
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2007
    Messages:
    3,724
    Likes Received:
    0
    The test of time and blood will always give clear direction of God's will for His Word. Given that many MV's have yet to rack up the years and devotion unto blood shed that the KJV has but the test remains. God's Word is a living Word and will continue to draw men unto repentance by the cross, blood and the literal resurrection of Christ. There is more that must be met for us as well. Such as God, the Father, Creator and God head of the Holy Trinity; God the Son, completely God manifested as man, born of the virgin and Savior of sinful man, drawing us to The Father; God the Holy Spirit, fully God as Comforter and revealer of Jesus the Son through His Holy Word, drawing us to Christ. Another is a literal eternally burning Hell meant for Satan and his angels and non repentant, rejecting, unbelieving men. If any version rejects those basic tenants then it will be left on the ash heap of failed perverted versions.

    Indeed, God is faithful to preserve His Word.
     
    #4 Palatka51, Apr 4, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 4, 2008
  5. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    While I believe I fully understand the sentiments Palatka51 is attempting to express here, I completely reject at least some of the unstated conclusions.

    There is nothing more intrinsically sacred about the
    KJV in early "Modern English", and Modern English, simply because Modern English is actually fairly new, with its Modern English versions, be it very early, as in the now 500 year old Elizabethian 16th Century wording and the Tyndale Bible (TYN) and Geneva Bible (GB); slightly later 17th Century with the KJV-1611, and Douai-Rheims (D/R); 18th Century with the Challoner revision (D/R), Purver (Quaker Bible - QB), Wesley's Study notes, and the Cambridge-Paris (KJV) and Oxford-Blayney (KJV) revisions; 19th Century with the Webster, YLT, RV, and DARBY; 20th Century with the ASV, RSV, MLB, NEB, TLB, NIV, NKJV, KJ21, et al.; and on into the 21st Century with the ESV, NLT, TNIV, AV7, and HSCB, et al., just to name a few over all these 500 years, than there is with any other version in any other language! What is presented above, by Palatka51, is an extremely parochial view, IMO. Not to mention, extremely arrogant, even if unintended!!

    In fact, I have never even seen a KJV-1611, to my recollection, and am fairly sure that what I did see, still possess multiple copies of, and was saved under was probably a 1769. (Or were then an 'American' 'fake' KJV Edition, probably effectively a 1769, published by whomever, from the "Public Domain". I now do possess two 'genuine' "Scofield" KJV Bibles, that are Oxford published.)(FTR, I have been a Christian for over 40 years, and am a graduate of a Bible college. I have been blessed to have been privileged to see pages from a Gutenberg Bible and from a Luther Bibel, as well as some parts of Greek NT manuscripts.) The point is that English, as we basically know it, and the KJV, have only been around for about 400 years, at best. The NT Scriptures have been around for over 1900 years, and the OT was completed some 400 years earlier. We are all merely "Johnny-come-lately" types, by contrast.

    I'm certain that God had a reason for the languages He used for to give man the Scriptures. And English was not one of the languages He chose to use.

    I have met and know individuals who were and are saved, who never saw any English Scriptures, much less the KJV. They saw the Scriptures is Spanish, Korean, Chinese, for they did not speak English. God said these words, rendered in 'today's' English:
    Indeed, far too many haven't had the Scriptures in their own languages, and literally have been "destroyed for lack of knowledge", even Christians, in times past.

    I am very thankful for all those who have gone before me, and have been used of God, in translating the Scriptures into a language I can understand. And I am thankful for those who continue to translate Scriptures into all languages, even as we speak, including two on the BB, namely John of Japan, and Nigel, both of whom I have conversed with on the BB. I suspect there may well be others, of whom I am not aware, who are doing the same thing. Frankly, they all, both then and now, have done far more than I ever could, and need our prayers and/or thanks.

    FTR, IMO, your "slam" describing any version of Scripture as any "failed perverted version", is entirely uncalled for, regardless of your or my personal preference (of which mine is incidentally, currently the NKJV, although I am more and more finding the HCSB to be a fairly good version, along with the ESV, and some others, at times), and is both unbecoming, and actually contradicts something you earlier wrote that anyone was welcome to their preference! Let's keep it on the merits!

    Back to the gist- Finally let me say this. I do believe that "God is fully faithful to preserve His Word", and in all versions and languages, not merely that of the 5-7% of the world's population who happen to speak English (~480 Million) with the KJV, or the 4-6% of the world's population who speak Espanol (~350 million) with the RVA. I don't, for one minute, think God has forgotten the more than 1 Billion speakers of Mandarin/Chinese at almost 15%, by His allowing the CUV and CUVS, or the speakers of Hindi, Russian, French, Bengali, et al, with their versions. Praise God for the translators of all of those versions, as well.

    And I definitely and sadly suspect that "the ash heap of failed preverted" Christians is gonna' be far larger than any possible "ash heap of failed perverted versions" of Scripture. :tear:

    Unfortunately!

    Ed
     
    #5 EdSutton, Apr 4, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 4, 2008
  6. TCGreek

    TCGreek
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2006
    Messages:
    7,373
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why not let me use my TNIV, to the glory of God?

    I like your proposal. :thumbs:
     
  7. nodak

    nodak
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2008
    Messages:
    1,265
    Likes Received:
    15
    Because, TCGreek, there may be some pet theories or doctrines that do not hold water unless a particular version is used.

    Because when the Bible is readable to the common person, the "learned leader" loses some power and status.

    And most of all because when one loves to "proof text" out of context from a memorized set of texts, changing the wording throws one completely.

    Use your TNIV. I would use mine more but even the large print version I can find is too small and unclear for large chunk reading. I was gonna go back to KJV, which I do love along with the NASB. I also use HCSB, NLT, TLB, NIV, AND ESV a lot. I really get into the Contemporary English Version.

    But I just got ahold of a Reader's Edition of the NET Bible and I am hooked. It speaks my "west Texas Eastern NM with a bit of East Texas/Oklahoma/Wyoming" type of English. It is more understandable to me.

    So while folks fuss about the Bible version used, or who can preach and who cannot, or which systematic theology is best, or heaven help us the music, I think I will focus on spending time with Jesus and trying to introduce as many folks as possible to Him.
     
  8. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    The key word is "living". God's word IS alive, because not only is its AUTHOR alive; He's in charge! He is also in charge of all language, & He is able to make His word understandable in any language. Thus, we have His word today in over 2400 languages now in use.

    Why the versions debate? Because of...MEN!

    Every one-version doctrine we know of is an invention of some MAN OR MEN. There's simply no such idea found in scripture itself. I myself refuse to allow some man-made doctrine to have authority over the word of GOD.

    But the root of all versions debates is the fact of some man or men trying to get others to believe their invented ideas.
     
    #8 robycop3, Apr 4, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 4, 2008
  9. Palatka51

    Palatka51
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2007
    Messages:
    3,724
    Likes Received:
    0
    (Bolding and highlighting mine)
    There is nothing that I stated in my above post that suggest or contradicts anything that I wrote in any other thread. What is wrong with the merits of time and blood? The MVs of God's Word may yet stand that test and I say that they are standing the test for blood if someone is trying to get a MV into a restricted Muslim society. A worthy merit that I honor. Is a printing house add campaign or university degree merit enough? No, Only time and blood will tell if their efforts merited God's blessing on their work.

    Ed this is out of character for you. Hopefully you have had a chance to calm down. I am trying very hard not to take that quote above personally. I've had to pray all day on how to respond to this. Are there any versions out there that are perverted? Yes. The JW bible that removes a literal hell and the Deity of Christ, The Book of Mormon (while not a version but seeks to add to the Holy Scriptures and makes Christ the brother of Satan and a created being). The Gnostic gospels are a great example of versions that have not stood the test of time and blood. Does any MV do any of what these do? I do not know and I sure hope not as they too will go the way of the Gnostics.

    I never meant any disrespect for anyone that is in the business of translating God's Word into a foreign tongue. They have a noble task and anyone that is doing such are in my prayers day and night for the furtherance of the Gospel of Christ.

    Take care my friend.
     
  10. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    At the age of 59, and only using 'reading glasses', as opposed to wearing bi-focals or tri-focals, let me say that I am a definite fan of 'Large Print', myself. Unfortunately, it takes about that size to be clear on the screen, for me, so I usually just go ahead with the spectacles. :BangHead:

    Causes fewer headaches! :laugh: :laugh:

    Ed
     
    #10 EdSutton, Apr 4, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 4, 2008
  11. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    Under no circumstances did I have you in mind, in any way here. I have (and had) no need to calm down, here, for I was not "het up" to begin with. I gotta' get to sleep, but will try to expound on this more in the AM, if I have the time, for I think I have been entirely misread in this sense, but not is the other, as that relates to versions.

    Peace.

    Ed
     

Share This Page

Loading...