What Version of the Bible do you read

BERK - 1959- ;
RSV - 1952;
MOF - 1926;
DBY - 1890;
RV (Double First Cousin of the ASV) - 1881;
JBR - 1872;
YLT - 1862, Rev. 1898;
WEB - 1833 -

More like positively ancient, apparently, to have missed all of these "modern" versions. :laugh:

Ed

 

NASB is very much accurate translation based on wrong texts.

I don't know how many RCC people were involved the translation of it, but guess only a few.
The point is that NASB is rooted on WH-NA, on BHS, which are eventually based on Vaticanus B, A, Aleph for NT, and BHS influenced by LXX.

I already pointed out B is the text retained by RCC, A and Aleph are also Alexandrian Texts.

BHS was edited by Rudolph Kittel first( 1906 and 1912), then his son Gerhard finished the edition( in 1936-7), Gerhard Kittel was tried at Nuremberg War criminal tribunal.

We must look at Luke 24:44 which is omitted in Vaticanus B,

Jesus mentioned Torah, Neviim, Ketuviim there, which means the same composition of the Bible as the Ben Chayyim Masoretic Text

Ben Asher, LXX, are in the same order as the current Bibles, from Genesis to Malachi, but Ben Chayyim order is from Genesis, Prophets, Malachi, Psalm, Chronicles 1,2. So, we can tell Jesus read the Hebrew Bible in the order similar to Ben Chayyim MT.

LXX contains Apocrypha which support the sacrifice for the dead and therefore RCC love to bring this LXX.

If you check Isaiah 53:10 ( when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin...) , Daniel 9:26 ( the anointed will be cut off, but not for himself- but for us all) carefully, you can find that there is no reason at all to translate them differently from KJV. But many MV"s seem to have translated from LXX in there. These are not the only places where MV's followed LXX.

LXX always comes with Apocrypha which include the prayer for the dead.

We must see who is behind these, by checking the roots of the texts.

 

The original KJV also included the Apocrypha. Since that is the case, wouldn't the original KJV also include the prayer for the dead?

 

KJV was wrong when they included AP. But we must understand that all the Bibles read by the people contained AP in the Catholic dominated situation, and therefore KJV had to insert them as a reference, but they didn't mean they are the part of the genuine Bible and therefore they separated them even inside the Bible. That's how the reformation has continued, repudiating from RCC leavens.

 

First, Jesus did NOT have an entire Hebrew 'Bible' in any particular sequential order. They had scrolls which were probably kept in clay jars. It would have been common to store and retrieve scrolls in various groupings. Some shorter works, like the Book-of-Twelve (the Latter or 'Minor' Prophets), may have been found together in a single scroll. Almost no ordinary citizens would have owned any scrolls of Holy writ and many synagogue collections would have been incomplete.

Jesus' words recorded in Greek speak of "the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms". These collections actually represent three chronological stages of the Hebrew scriptures leading to canonicity. The Pentateuch was revered from ancient time; however, the 'Writings' (Ketuviim), which are mostly poetical books (like Psalms) but also include the prophetic (Daniel) and some historic (like Ezra-Nehemiah), were accepted much later. In fact, Jesus does not allude to this collection except at this verse (He does not mention it along with the Law & Prophets in Matthew 5:17, 7:1, 11:13, 22:40, Luke 16:16, or John 1:45).

Second, Jewish textual tradition never finalized the order of the Ketuvim. A listing found in the Babylonian Talmud is actually different than what is found in among some extant ancient codices.

Finally, the Ben Chayyim printed text cannot be considerd superior to the Ben Asher edition simply on the basis of the order of contents without casting the same doubt upon virtually every English Bible (which are essentially arranged in the LXX order).

 

Right but I'd rather leave it up. He is unable to defend that statement and this lets everyone see what some KJVO people are like.

 

Preach it! Amen!

 

My Bible has nothing to do with idol worshipers and goddess worshipers.

 

Can a person read? Does he have the ABILITY? If so, difficult reading is no excuse! I had my supervisor who had difficult reading in his office. He had the ability to read. I saw many people with difficult reading read the newspapers, magazines, letters, TV weather news, etc,.

It is nonsense to say the KJV is hard to understand dues to difficult reading.

The lowest is the best on grade level:

The Gospel of John

KJV 4.79
ASV 4.87
NIV 4.92
RSV 4.97
NRSV 5.28
NKJV 5.40
NASV 5.57

Other one is the Book of Genesis

KJV 5.10
ASV 5.13
NIV 5.76
RSV 5.48
NRSV 5.56
NKJV 5.52
NASV 5.93

Is the KJV hard to understand when the grade level is lowest?

 

Was that the grade level for when it was written? I don't think it's for now.

 

The KJV can be difficult to understand correctly, if ONE is not familiar with word-meanings changed over time; the actual historical context, and the terminology used.

From a poetic viewpoint it is no harder than reading Shakespeare or even Milton.

Cheers,

Jim

 

ON the contrary, I once saw an article explaining why the KJV grade level was lower and it had nothing to do with archaic words but word length.

Many words have been joined as compound words since the KJV.
Words like "whoso ever" would now read "whosoever"
To day would be today etc.

Anyone that thinks that the KJV is easier to read and UNDERSTAND than the NIV or the ESV is either ignorant of the facts or is twisting the facts like a politician.
I suspect that there are plenty of cases of both.

 

What is even more funny is that KJVO advocates on the one hand call the MVs "watered down" then they come back with the KJV being easier?
Which is it?

Double standards abound in the KJVO camp.

 

IT is proved right here (2005):

http://www.alldeaf.com/topic-debates/16321-bible-versions.html

And the Internet cannot, of course, be wrong

 

Wrong 'smilie.'

You should have used this one.

Ed

 

Idol worshipers and goddess worshipers produced their modern versions. You purchased it from them and used it.

Suppose, when you are outside anywhere, you see mud and grass on the ground there, then you walked in mud and get dirty? You can SEE how dirty you are. Right? That is visible.

On other hand, Gnostics, Catholicized makers, unbelievers and lax Christians produced their modern versions and sent them to many Christian Bookstores. You went to a bookstore and purchased a bible there. How blind you are! That is invisible.

 

Jesus spoke to Paul in Hebrew who must have been fluent in Greek ( Acts 26:14). Paul delivered the message to people in Jerusalem in Hebrew ( Acts 21:40, 22:2)

Jesus was talking about Torah, Neviim, Ketuviim which rule out LXX ( Luke 24:44)
Jot and Tittle can be found only in Hebrew ( Mt 5:18)

Also, even though there is a little ambiguity I am quite sure Jesus was talking about the first martyr in the Bible, Abel and the last martyr, Zechariah in 2 Chronicles ( Mt 23:35) and 2 Chronicles are the last book of Ben Chayyim Masorah.

Even though Ketuviim might have not been organized in much detail, it would have been almost in the same order as we have in Ben Chayyim MT today.

I think He didn't have to mention 3 books all the time.

I understand the editors like Daniel Bomberg, Jacob Ben Chayyim, Ginsburg are born-again Messianic Jews.

 

What for did you complain concerning the writing, not reading during most people used the KJV since 400 years?

 

And the ANGLICANS produced a version now known as the KJV.

 

I didn't complain about anything.

I understand that people can understand the KJV. I have nothing against it but it is written in archaic English of the 17th century. That is not the current language and it is difficult for some people.

You didn't answer my question.