Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by bapterian, Jun 28, 2003.
What translation do you use most frequently?
I chose the King James Version which to me is the only Bible.
I chose the English Standard Version which is to me the only Bible
I chose the New International Version which is not to me the only Bible.
I picked the ESV, which I have found to be valuable.
But I have a quibble with listing Phillips as a paraphrase (though I've treated it as such on another thread.) It is a DE translation, not a paraphrase, and I have a soft spot for it; some of the rendering are truly illuminating.
I also am fond of the NET Bible, largely because of its voluminous translation notes.
I chose the King James Version because of its superiority over to any modern versions.
The King James Version is my favorite.
Love the New KJV as it retains the beauty of the English language without the archaisms.
(Too bad they didn't use the better Greek documents and stuck with the Catholic text of Erasmus. So much has been revealed since those first few manuscripts. Put together, they form a better base for translations.)
Erasmus was a Catholic by denominational affiliation, but the text he compiled was not a "Catholic" text as Griffin claims. The Roman Catholic church has not been much fond of it. Look at what kinds of versions the whore church puts its imprimatur on and you will know what kind of Greek text the pope and his followers endorse.
The TR type of GNT edition is superior to the modern Alexandrian types of GNT. The latter contain clear errors, which makes them bad representations of the originally inspired inerrant Greek NT of the Lord Christ Jesus. The TR with least flaws or no flaws as far as I can judge is Scrivener's 1894 edition. It is superior to Estienne's 1550 Royal Edition TR and to Elzevier's 1624 as well.
The modern Greek texts are produced by manifestly heretical men, among them Romanist Carlo Martini, Bruce Metzger, Westcott and Hort etc. All of these evidently infidels. The ones involved in the TR line of editions were more honourable in their views of God and of Scripture. Also the modern Greek texts are produced by resorting to unbelieving theories of textual criticism. In short, worthless theories behind them, worthless men producing them, and inferior copies used. End result: inferior and perverted Greek editions which poorly reflect the true nature of the original Greek NT which was given by infallible divine inspiration and therefore was absolutely inerrant in every aspect of the word. Scrivener's TR comes closest in such reflection since it has least amount of errors/imperfections/flaws, or maybe none at all. As for me right now I know of no errors at all in this TR. No words I can point that I think should be removed. No words I believe should be added to it. I have more confidence than ever in this one edition of the TR as being the best representative of the original GNT of the Lord Christ.
Any GNT edition which contains numerous errors like as the modern ones do must be discredited on basis of what the Bible says of itself. That is biblical logic only. Modern unbiblical logic trusts knaves and heretics such as Westcott and Hort and their infidel predecessors (Tischendorff et.al.) and their infidel successors (Martini, Metzger et.al.). God is not the author of confusion.
Balderdash! Nothing Erasmus compiled was EVER "used" by the RCC;in fact,everything he did and that came from his work was BANNED by the RCC,fact.They did use the better Greek documents,the ones from the Protestant Reformation;not Papal manuscripts from Rome(Revelation 17).
Me, I can't wait till the next Dutch Bible translation is finished.
My congregation for practical reasons wants a church Bible that one can simply buy in a large bookstore and not some obscure version long out of print.
That currently means, that there are 4 translations available to us.
The Dutch version of "Good News for Modern Man", a beginners version not suitable for church use.
The "Staten Vertaling", the Dutch KJV, brilliant literary prose and also hard to understand if you haven't studied 17th century Dutch, it is also a very Calvinist translation and has some silly mistranslations due to 17th century scholarship.
The "Nieuwe Vertaling" excellent study Bible but dreadfully boring as translations go. This one seems to have lost all the power of the original language.
The "Willibrord Vertaling" the translation used by the RCC.
I like the World English Bible a lot.
"and has some silly mistranslations due to 17th century scholarship."
mioque. I have the Statenvertaling on the harddrive and have checked it out a bit in certain passages. To me it seems like a faithful version much like the KJV. Could you give some examples of "some silly mistranslations due to 17th century scholarship" in the New Testament of it?
FWIW, I agree Harald.
Yes, HankD, I recall you also have confidence in this TR. I did some minor research some days ago and was pleased to learn that Scrivener's TR was superior to Estienne's 1550. One thing which weighed the scale for Scrivener was Luke 2:22. As you know Scrivener has "her purification", while Estienne has the other and errant reading "their purification". I came to think that actually the technical term "variant reading" might be quite deceptive. Such a thing as an inerrant divinely inspired Book knows of and allows for no "variant readings". Its wording in its entirety is fixed and settled in heaven from everlasting. In some cases "variant readings" are so manifestly erroneous that they are better labeled as "things having been perverted", Acts 20:30, i.e. distorted Scriptures. I would thus call the reading "Who was manifested in flesh" in 1Tim. 3:16 of modern Greek editions as distorted Scripture rather than "variant reading". The true reading no doubt being "God was manifested in flesh".
Another passage where Scrivener beat Estienne is 1John 2:23. Estienne's TR has the mutilated reading, while Scrivener has the intact reading, which KJV needlessly italicizes. Elzevier's 1624 TR, which I also have (on harddrive), I recall has these same errors as Estienne's. Because of these things as for now I consider Scrivener's TR the best and superior of all TR editions. Yet in spite of the said misgivings of Estienne's TR it surely beats any of the Alexandrian editions at anytime, and likewise it beats any of the two Majority Text editions.
I cannot but thank God Almighty for the Received Text which Scrivener was granted to compile in His providence.
yes Harald, I agree again with the Scrivener superiority and the passages which you cite. Re: Luke 2:22.
Although I never did see the reasoning that the words their purification attributed some uncleaness to Jesus Christ seeing that He allowed John the Baptist to baptise Him in a "baptism to repentance for the remission of sins" for He "who knew no sin" and had no need of repentance.
This however does not excuse the modification of a single word in the inspired original language text.
The classical silly mistranslation occurs several times, instead of describing spots where a river is so shallow that one can wade throught it as such, ferries are conveniantly placed along the riverbanks.
I did hear about a revision, where this mistake was repaired, don't know if that is true.
There are several other, all having to do with misunderstanding daily live in ancient Israel, all repaired in more modern translations because of archeological discoveries.
As a graduate of Erasmus University, I'm continually amazed, about the misconceptions people have about the poor man.
He did not belong to any side but his own. Mortal enemy of one pope* and friend of another one. Simply trying to get the best Greek version of the New Testament published before his competitors. He never saw any of those Alexandrian manuscripts some on this board bring up from time to time.
*That would be Julius II, the one directly responsible for the reformation.
Interesting results from the POLL. At this writing, only 3 of 23 selected the NIV as their favorite. Either the NIV is falling out of favor or the folks on the BB prefer the formal equivalent ("literal") translations.
Thanks for posting to the POLL.
Hey bapterian what you say about maybe the NIV is no longer as popular may be true .Another could be that some Study Bibles like the Reformation and MacArthurs I don;t think are in NIV .In my Church tons of people use those two Bible's .I have asked some members if they like thee NKJ ?
Some said they like the Bible and thats the Translation its in so they use it .
Just a thought !
Originally posted by Askjo:
>>I chose the King James Version because of its superiority over to any modern versions.
Are you using the AV as I am, or one of the revisions?
If you are using a 1611 Authorised Version, then I would agree with you that it is superior to "any modern versions." If you are using one of the revised versions, then I would disagree.
In addition to the 1611 AV, I love several versions of the True Word of God:
Wiclif, Tyndale, Luther, Geneva, and even the Rheims (although I only have the New Testament). Unfortunately, none of these were in the poll.