Worst. Version. Ever!

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by John of Japan, Apr 13, 2015.

  1. John of Japan

    John of Japan
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    12,212
    Likes Received:
    192
    This has to be the worst version of the Bible ever. It is a KJV with the Hebrew words for God inserted instead of the usual English, making it a "Hebrew Names Version," but there is a lot more to it than that. Check it out: www.cepher.net.

    A friend at our church asked my son and me to evaluate it and we came up with 4 pages of notes about the errors without even trying. Here are just a few thoughts:

    1. They believe the Bible has errors, since they list not only Hebrews but six of Paul's letters as "pseudepigrapha," or fake. This out liberals the liberals, since even liberal scholars accept most of these as genuine! Their article explaining this is so absurd it would take a whole 'nother thread to debunk.

    2. They have no knowledge of Greek or Hebrew. For example, they make a big deal of the "aleph tav," saying it was left out of all Bibles, so their's will have it all 9837 times. However, the "aleph tav" is simply a marker for the direct object in Hebrew. It has no independent meaning that needs to be translated.

    3. They show no knowledge of the difference between a divine name and simply a title. They lump all such together. For example, Elohim is not a personal name, but simply a word for God which the Hebrew OT uses for false Gods as well as the true God.

    4. They want $95 for their Bible. Looks like a hefty profit margin to me. Save the money and just use the KJV, looking up the names of God on your Bible software as they come up in the text, and you're good to go.

    5. It includes the Acts 29 forgery, a transparent attempt to produce Biblical support for British-Israelism for which there is no Greek text. They say, “Chapter 29 (in reliance on the Suninni (sic; Soninni) Manuscript and the Muratorian fragment).” However, the Muratorian fragment specifically says that Acts omits Paul’s trip to Spain.

    6. They say on the website, “Matthew 23:1-2 has been another continuing error, using the word “they” where the word ‘he’ belongs.” I looked at the Greek and there is nothing there remotely resembling this.

    7. There is a vast ignorance on the site about textual criticism. For example, the website says that the four oldest manuscripts of the New Testament are Alexandrius, Ephraemi Rescriptus, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. But we have various much earlier manuscripts, such as p22, p37, p45 and p53 from the 3rd century, and even some from the 2nd century such as p52 and p64.

    And on and on.
     
  2. annsni

    annsni
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,186
    Likes Received:
    371
    Thank you SO much for the heads' up on this!!! This is excellent information to know!
     
  3. John of Japan

    John of Japan
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    12,212
    Likes Received:
    192
    Happy to help. :wavey:

    This is a brand new development, but the editor appears to want to start some kind of following, which has negative potential, if you know what I mean.
     
  4. annsni

    annsni
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,186
    Likes Received:
    371
    Oh trust me, I know what you mean!! It's so crazy the things people buy into and don't use discernment at all to STUDY to see if this is right or not. But it's good to be familiar with the false to be able to steer people to the true!
     
  5. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    17,064
    Likes Received:
    48
    This "bible version" looks to rate right up there with likes of the Watchtower version, the Mormon, and the Queen james one!
     
  6. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    "Worst. Version. Ever!" Those are strong words, John. There are some other very bad versions out there! The 'Sacred Name' versions are notoriously bad.
     
    #6 franklinmonroe, Apr 13, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 13, 2015
  7. John of Japan

    John of Japan
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    12,212
    Likes Received:
    192
    What makes this one worse is that it both adds to Scripture (Acts 9 and the Apocrypha) and takes from Scripture (calls six books pseudepigrapha). Even the JW Bible doesn't do that.
     
  8. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    17,064
    Likes Received:
    48
    Those additions would indeed make a strong case for this one to be the worst one yet!
     
  9. John of Japan

    John of Japan
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    12,212
    Likes Received:
    192
    This should have said "Acts 29."
     
  10. Van

    Van
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,516
    Likes Received:
    49
    The Best Ever English translations are:

    1) NASB95
    2) WEB
    3) NET
    4) HCSB
    5) NKJV
    6) KJV
     
  11. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    17,064
    Likes Received:
    48
    Would replace the Net and Web versions with 1984 Niv and EsV!
     

Share This Page

Loading...