#2 Valid Versions for 'Others'

I do not have the 1611 version and the other KJV's you mentioned.

I do not have the Geneva.

I own the NWT which I do not consider to be a valid version.But,parts of it are very orthodox.Yet in its entirety it does not qualify as a valid version.

I appreciate the Message in some select spots.However,it's not really what one needs to get a good "read" on the Word of God.

As far as the RDCV goes -- I do not own one,and I've never even seen one.But there are are number of language groups which might have something similiar.They do not have all 66 books of the Canon in their hands -- they have only some of the books of the Bible .God has used that to further His purposes.

I think that those who have a few books of the Bible in their language may be in a more advantageous position in some ways vs. the rest of us who have many versions in their totality.They probably read,study and meditate more on their Bibles than the average Western Christian does.

 

As per usual, I did not vote in the poll, since the options would force me to make a series of "picking from false alternatives."

I believe that any and all version(s) is/are (a) "valid version(s)", in and when it/they accurately reflect,present, and convey the sense of the Biblical languages, from the most "literal", word-for-word, overall, in this case, the NASB- 1995, to the most "non-literal", overall, which in this case, I would believe to be "The Message". And yes, I would even included the extremely flawed, due to the 'translator' bias, NWT, in this.

I will not consider the RDCV as a 'valid version," in that it has too much of the text "chopped out", but it may well be valid, where the knife has not yet entered. I have never looked at this one, due to my own 'bias' against less than full versions.

Incidentally, I just noticed, that I was asked "not to vote" (Glad I complied, here!)
unless I had studied a particular version for at least a year or more. The only one of these that I think (but do not know, absolutely) was anywhere close to any of those version(s)/edition(s) was a 'cheapest of the cheap' Scofield KJV that I bought in 1969, and used only for a couple of years, or so, during my Bible College years, before it literally fell apart, and became unusable, generally speaking.

Following that I bought a 1967 KJV, which had one of the best quality binding and paper that one could acquire, and which I used, almost exclusively for almost 30 years (even having it rebound once, at a cost that almost equalled the original purchase price), until it was taken from me, from my cab, one evening, and without my knowledge. Not being able to replace that particular edition, at that time, from anywhere, at any price, I still wanted the particular edition, but it was simply not to be found, in my pre-computer days.

However, I think/thought enough of the KJV, that I still went out and bought me a new one.

Ed

 

Following that I bought a 1967 KJV, which had one of the best quality binding and paper that one could acquire, and which I used, almost exclusively for almost 30 years (even having it rebound once, at a cost that almost equalled the original purchase price), until it was taken from me, from my cab, one evening, and without my knowledge. Not being able to replace that particular edition, at that time, from anywhere, at any price, I still wanted the particular edition, but it was simply not to be found, in my pre-computer days.
[/quote]

Ed,put a cap on that cab story! Do you know how many times you've mentioned that tale in the last few years? I'm half-joking.There are worse things in the world.

Do you like the Mills Brothers?They had a hit in 1968 with Cab Driver.

 

O.K., but I never mention it unless the subject of what Bible(s) one has used, or is currently using, comes up.

Anyway, as you request:



Or maybe you meant one for the vehicle :





Ed

 

Ed,put a cap on that cab story! Do you know how many times you've mentioned that tale in the last few years? I'm half-joking.There are worse things in the world.

Do you like the Mills Brothers?They had a hit in 1968 with Cab Driver.[/quote]

GE:
Ed Sutton, Also about thirty years ago a jersey my mother had knit for me was stolen from my 'bakkie' ('cab'). How must you feel about that KJV of yours if I feel so over my jersey till this hour!

 

I would gladly work for a week as an ordinary 'day laborer' unloading garbage, at the local dump, right alongside the 'jailbirds' out on work release, were I physically able, for not a cent, just to get that Bible back. That Bible's true value, is not the version, particularly, but the 27+ years worth of my notes, written in it.

[ quote ] Please learn how to use the "quote" function, Gerhard Ebersoehn and Rippon, as it makes it much easier for us peons to deal with. [ / quote ]

If you take exactly what I have printed here, above 'bolded' and remove the spaces in the brackets it happens like so.

Incidentally, I do not recall ever hearing the song by the Mills Brothers.
Ed

 

I'm going to try: I 'pulled over' ('highlighted', 'dragged over', left clicker held down),then 'copied', now am going to 'paste':

[ quote ] Please learn how to use the "quote" function, Gerhard Ebersoehn and Rippon, as it makes it much easier for us peons to deal with. [ / quote ]

remove the spaces ...

 

I see it doesn't say whom I was 'quoting'.

Now I see why my children have so little respect for me.

 

Thanks, Ed Sutoon.

There's just a small resultant problem. When you open an archived thread, this method of quoting fails to show who said what. That's why I (always) put GE: before what I say myself after having quoted someone else.

 

No problem. Just follow the format annsni gave. That should take care of it.

Ed

 

Hey! I resemble that remark.