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!

Featured Using more than one version to study from

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by The Lamb Rescued Me, Aug 30, 2019.

  1. The Lamb Rescued Me

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2019
    Messages:
    32
    Likes Received:
    22
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I was discussing Bible study methods with a friend of mine and I told him I always use the NKJV and the NASB, and the HCSB to compare with each other when I study.

    My friend told me that he thinks using only one version is necessary, and using more than one version only leads to confusion.

    I always thought using contrasting versions led to a better understanding of the text.

    So am I right or wrong?

    Thanks for your input and opinions.

    My friend uses the KJV (but isn't KJVO).

    Joe
     
    #1 The Lamb Rescued Me, Aug 30, 2019
    Last edited: Aug 30, 2019
  2. Deacon

    Deacon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    9,469
    Likes Received:
    1,228
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I wouldn’t take the advise of someone who gets confused so easily.

    A single version would work if languages could be translated on a 1:1 basis... they can’t.
    There will always be some disagreement, there will always be another viewpoint, another trustworthy translation.

    Comparing versions is a way to dig deeper into the original Biblical languages that we don’t have the time or education to fully know.

    Rob
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 2
  3. McCree79

    McCree79 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2015
    Messages:
    2,232
    Likes Received:
    305
    Faith:
    Baptist
    You are using 3 good translations. Comparing translations is always a good idea. Keep doing what you are doing.

    Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
     
  4. The Lamb Rescued Me

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2019
    Messages:
    32
    Likes Received:
    22
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I wonder if my friend just doesn't like the combination I use.

    Oh well, those 3 give me a good mix of ideas and styles.

    Joe
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. Scarlett O.

    Scarlett O. Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 22, 2002
    Messages:
    11,384
    Likes Received:
    944
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I use ESV, KJV, NIV, and NASB.

    Biblehub.com is also a great tool if you are just looking at a singular verse. It will show you the verse in several versions - about 15 or so.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Dave G

    Dave G Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2018
    Messages:
    5,849
    Likes Received:
    1,332
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I agree with him, especially if one reads:

    "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." ( 1 John 5:7, AV )
    and the other says:
    " For there are three that testify:" ( 1 John 5:7, ESV ).

    Another example of confusion ( to me, but apparently not to very many here ):

    " And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." ( Acts of the Apostles 8:37, AV ).

    " e ( footnote ) " ( Acts of the Apostles 8:37, ESV )
    ...And then the footnote says, " Some manuscripts add all or most of verse 37: And Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” And he replied, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”

    Regardless of which one is correct, I happen to believe that there's automatically confusion generated in the mind of the reader as to what God's words really are, especially comparing these two.
    It's the same with the NKJV and the YLT as the KJV, versus most of the others.

    My advice?
    Educate yourself on the various collated Greek texts that are being used ( CT, TR, and MT ), and then which translations use what.

    it should help to explain the differences when you read one and it doesn't say things the same way that another might.:)
     
    #6 Dave G, Sep 2, 2019
    Last edited: Sep 2, 2019
  7. Dave G

    Dave G Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2018
    Messages:
    5,849
    Likes Received:
    1,332
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Sounds to me like he's giving the OP sound advice.
    As I see it, he's not confused.

    He's decided that one translation in the English ( keeping things simple ) should be all that he needs to study from, whether or not it's the "KJV".
    I say, choose one, and if convinced that it's the word of God, stick with it:Thumbsup.

    To me, there's no sense in complicating things by trying to decide whether or not conflicting translations ( that in some cases don't even say the same thing ) actually are God's words.:)
    It worked pretty good for well over 100 years in England and America.

    The "KJV" was almost the only one used among most "Protestants" ( and especially Baptists ) after roughly 1750, until the ERV came along in 1885-ish.
    With respect, comparing English translations is a better way to get confused as to the actual words of God.

    The only way to dig into the original Biblical languages, is....
    To dig into the Hebrew and Greek.;)

    To me, if a person is going to spend the time to compare differing English translations and expand their "portfolio", then I'd say "save yourself the money, and invest in a good multi-interlinear with Greek, Hebrew and multiple English translations;"...

    So that he or she can actually see where the translators either took liberties or were faithful to the words of the texts.:Cool
     
    #7 Dave G, Sep 2, 2019
    Last edited: Sep 2, 2019
  8. Dave G

    Dave G Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2018
    Messages:
    5,849
    Likes Received:
    1,332
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Hard to say.

    How important is it for you to have the actual words of God ( in your own language ) in your hands, versus what some men think are His words?
    If it isn't, then it's rather easy...
    Pick whatever you like.

    But if it is important, know that there's quite a bit "under the hood" with respect to translations of the Bible, especially within the past 150 years.



    - There are some "Dynamic Equivalency" ( using the CT ) paraphrases out there that have no business even being considered the word of God, at least as far as I'm concerned.:Thumbsup
    - There are Formal Equivalency versions that use the TR ( "Textus Receptus", which was an evolution of Erasmus' work, Beza's work, and others over roughly a 100-200 year period that used about 6-7 major manuscriptus and various other pieces of manuscripts ).
    - Then there are some of today's Formal Equivalency versions that are far closer in accuracy than the "Dynamic" ones, but still utilize the CT ( which constitutes a far narrower sampling of the available texts than even the TR does ) as their foundational manuscripts.
    - Finally, there are only a few that use the Majority Text ( which is said to be built off Hodges and Farstad's collation of some 100 of the over 5,000 available bits and pieces ) as their foundation.



    Granted, the "KJV" uses far older English than what most of today's modern English ones do, but to me, it's eminently more accurate ( to the language of the day ) when compared to the Greek ( that depends on which "Greek" the differing translations used ), than many of today's are.

    Finally and from my perspective, most of those who object to the use of the "KJV", don't care for the 400+ year old English...which there's a part of me that can't blame them...but I have used it for years and don't have trouble with it.;)

    Perhaps the YLT or the KJV2000 would be more to your liking?
     
    #8 Dave G, Sep 2, 2019
    Last edited: Sep 2, 2019
  9. Dave G

    Dave G Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2018
    Messages:
    5,849
    Likes Received:
    1,332
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I agree.

    Biblehub is a really good place to compare what the various translators did with the Greek and Hebrew that they chose to use ( CT / TR / Majority Text in the Greek, and Masoretic versus others in the Hebrew ).:)

    But there's really no way for him to know what they used simply from looking at the English.:Frown
     
  10. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,204
    Likes Received:
    405
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The KJV is not "the actual words of God" directly from God by the miracle of inspiration.

    The KJV would present what one exclusive group of Church of England critics in 1611 think are God's words in the same way that you suggest concerning other English translations, and their Church of England bias sometimes affected their Bible revision and translation decisions. The Church of England makers of the KJV made some changes to the pre-1611 English Bibles that favored Church of England doctrines especially their episcopal church government views and that favored King James' divine right of kings view.

    The KJV is a translation in the same sense as the pre-1611 English Bibles of which it is a revision and as post-1611 English Bibles such as the NKJV.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  11. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Actually, Dave, both the NASV & NKJV are more-accurate than the KJV.

    Seeing as how many Hebrew, Aramaic, & Greek words & phrases have multiple English meanings, it's best to use multiple English Bible translations to cover as many of them as possible. Context often does not help find the best meanings in English.

    After all, the makers of the KJV wrote, "Variety of translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures." (From the preface of the AV 1611, "To The reader")
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,204
    Likes Received:
    405
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Can you provide evidence to back up your assertion?

    Are you aware of the 1842 revision of the KJV by Bible-believers, mostly Baptists, that was reprinted several times? One edition of it was identified as the Baptist version on its binding.

    The John Wesley's English translation (NT first printed in 1755) is said to have been popular in America for awhile so it could have been used among many Protestants including some Baptists during that period.

    The 1866 American Bible Union Version may also have been used by a number of Protestants including Baptists. Baptists were involved in its translating.
     
  13. Salty

    Salty 20,000 Posts Club
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    38,982
    Likes Received:
    2,615
    Faith:
    Baptist
    • Informative Informative x 1
  14. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    52,624
    Likes Received:
    2,742
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I would see there is wisdom in comparing and using different versions!
     
  15. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,204
    Likes Received:
    405
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Are you suggesting that the actual process and method used in the making of the KJV made no sense?

    The Church of England revisers of the pre-1611 English Bibles who made the KJV consulted and used multiple, varying English translations and varying translations in other languages, including some variations that involved textual differences, so does that mean that this process means that they could not decide on which words are actually God's words?

    Do you suggest that the translations used in the making of the KJV which all did not say the same thing were not God's word translated into English?
     
  16. Just_Ahead

    Just_Ahead Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2018
    Messages:
    442
    Likes Received:
    153
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I use four translations for my personal bible study.

    CSB
    NKJV
    NIV
    KJV

    Each of these translations contribute to my understanding of scripture. I also use a few study bibles.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  17. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,204
    Likes Received:
    405
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Have you educated yourself concerning all the actual textually-varying sources used in the making of the KJV?
    Which Greek text would be considered in agreement with the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament, one of the sources for the KJV?

    Ward Allen maintained that "the Rheims New Testament furnished to the Synoptic Gospels and Epistles in the A. V. as many revised readings as any other version" (Translating the N. T. Epistles, p. xxv). Allen and Jacobs claimed that the KJV translators "in revising the text of the synoptic Gospels in the Bishops' Bible, owe about one-fourth of their revisions, each, to the Genevan and Rheims New Testaments" (Coming of the King James Gospels, p. 29). About 1 Peter 1:20, Ward Allen noted: “The A. V. shows most markedly here the influence of the Rheims Bible, from which it adopts the verb in composition, the reference of the adverbial modifier to the predicate, the verb manifest, and the prepositional phrase for you” (Translating for King James, p. 18). Concerning 1 Peter 4:9, Allen suggested that “this translation in the A. V. joins the first part of the sentence from the Rheims Bible to the final phrase of the Protestant translations” (p. 30). Allen also observed: "At Col. 2:18, he [KJV translator John Bois] explains that the [KJV] translators were relying upon the example of the Rheims Bible" (pp. 10, 62-63). The note of John Bois cited a rendering from the 1582 Rheims [“willing in humility”] and then cited the margin of the Rheims [“willfull, or selfwilled in voluntary religion”] (p. 63). Was the KJV’s rendering “voluntary” borrowed from the margin of the 1582 Rheims? The first-hand testimony of a KJV translator clearly acknowledged or confirmed the fact that the KJV was directly influenced by the 1582 Rheims. KJV defender Laurence Vance admitted that the 1582 “Rheims supplies the first half of the reading” in the KJV at Galatians 3:1 and that the “Rheims supplies the last half of the reading” at Galatians 3:16 (Making of the KJV NT, p. 263).

    KJV-only author Doug Stauffer referred to the Douay-Rheims as “the Jesuit English Roman Catholic Bible” (One Book Stands Alone, p. 204). Diarmaid MacCulloch noted that the Roman Catholic English translation “was not for ordinary folks to read, but for priests to use as a polemical weapon—the explicit purpose that the 1582 title-page and preface of the Rheims New Testament proclaimed” (The Reformation, p. 566). In the introductory articles in Hendrickson’s reprint of the 1611, Alfred Pollard maintained that “the exiled Jesuit, Gregory Martin, must be recognized as one of the builders of the [1611] version of the Bible” (p. 28). David Norton affirmed that the words borrowed from the Rheims “make Martin a drafter of the KJB” (KJB: a Short History, p. 32). Norton added: “Since most of them are transliterations of Jerome’s Latin, they also make Jerome an author of the KJB” (Ibid.). Norton pointed out that “the Roman Catholic John Hingham (fl. 1639) was to claim that the KJB in fact supported Roman Catholic, not Protestant views” (History of the English Bible, p. 54). Robert R. Dearden, Jr. observed that “it must be conceded that his [Gregory Martin’s] translations exerted a pronounced influence on the King James Version of 1611, transmitting to it distinctive phrases and style of expression” (Guiding Light, p. 219).

    The sound evidence of the direct influence of the Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament on the KJV is a serious problem for a KJV-only view and its claims. In his book edited by D. A. Waite, H. D. Williams asserted the following as one of his criteria for translating: “Under no circumstances should a version which is not based upon the Received Texts be used as an example” (Word-for-Word Translating, p. 230). Troy Clark claimed that the Douay-Rheims “was translated strictly from the Critical Text Latin Vulgate bible of Rome,” and he listed it in his “Critical text” stream of Bibles (Perfect Bible, pp. 267, 296). Mickey Carter listed the 1582 on his “corrupted tree” of Bibles (Things That Are Different, p. 104). H. D. Williams maintained that “the Douay-Rheims Bible is based upon Jerome’s Latin Vulgate” (Word-for-Word, p. 42). Peter Ruckman acknowledged that “the textual basis of the Douay-Rheims is Jerome’s Latin Vulgate,” but he also claimed in his endnotes that “the Greek text of the Rheims Jesuit bible was the Westcott and Hort Greek text” (Biblical Scholarship, pp. 162, 517). Ruckman referred to “Satan’s interest in reinstituting the Dark Age Jesuit Rheims Bible of 1582” (Alexandrian Cult, Part Eight, p. 2). Jim Taylor asserted that “Jerome’s Latin Vulgate generally agrees with the Westcott and Hort Text” (In Defense of the TR, p. 204).

    Were the KJV translators wrong to consult and make use of any edition of Jerome’s Latin Vulgate and of the 1582 Rheims New Testament that were not based on the Received Texts as an example or as a source for some renderings?
    Should the KJV translators have changed, revised, or corrected the Geneva Bible by borrowing renderings from the 1582 Rheims?
    Would not the fact that the makers of the KJV followed or borrowed renderings from Bibles on the KJV-only view’s corrupt stream/line of Bibles be a problem for KJV-only reasoning?
     
  18. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,536
    Faith:
    Baptist
    By all means use as many translations as you have available to yourself. Especially if you have no formal education in Greek or Hebrew.

    I did not see the website for The Blue Letter Bible which gives more than a dozen English verse translations PLUS many other helps i.e. Lexicons, Commentaries, Cross References...

    Bible Search and Study Tools - Blue Letter Bible
     
    • Useful Useful x 2
    • Informative Informative x 1
  19. 37818

    37818 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2018
    Messages:
    15,886
    Likes Received:
    1,236
    Faith:
    Baptist
    That is a matter of opinion.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  20. 37818

    37818 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2018
    Messages:
    15,886
    Likes Received:
    1,236
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Joe,
    I too use the KJV, and I am not KJV only. I think your choice of those three translations are not a bad choice. There are two main issues. Textual and how a text is translated. The NKJV will help you with the textual. NU and M foot notes.
    Paul.
     
Loading...