Does It Really Matter What Version You Use?

Yes, I think it does matter. You're right that none of them are perfect, but some are much worse than others.

Also, I see a lot of instances where people quote the KJV but are interpreting it as if it was written in contemporary English. In cases like that, it's not the KJV that is wrong, it's the way they're using it. I would recommend that these people either learn the difference, or use some version that is written in the English they understand.

 

It's very timely that you brought up translations and inspiration.

As I was reading this morning I began thinking that the reason I use the English Standard Version (and before that, the New American Standard Bible), was due to my beliefs regarding verbal, plenary inspiration and inerrancy.

If every single word is important, then of course, I want my translation to be "word perfect" and as close to the original as possible.

But I've been reading a number of books over the past year that focus on these doctrines... and becoming a bit rattled about it all in the process.

If the Apostles could confidently quote from a version (LXX or Vorlage) in their gospels and epistles, why can't we accept some variation within our texts?
Why they even exploited variants between the texts at tmes.

And our canon was developed even in the midst of textual variation.
Could I see Christ and his Apostles using a variety of versions today... yes.

I may be switching to a more dynamic equivlent version in a year or two just to rattle my cage a bit... don't want to get too comfortable.

Rob

 

If you are talking about versions such as the KJV, NKJV, NASB, ESV, NIV, ASV, RSV, HCSB, NLT, ect. it does not matter which one you read. It only matters that you are obediant to the one you read. No Bible will do you any good if you are not willing to apply it to your life.

I do steer clear of versions that have been purposely mistranslated to fit the bias of the group making it - ie the NWT.

 

Good points, TC! All the legitimate MVs I have read accurately and inerrantly reflect God's word, the plan of salvation as God has given it to us. Not one of the legitimate MVs teaches "another gospel." However, there are versions such as the New World Translation (NWT) of the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Clear Word Bible (CWB) of the Seventh Day Adventists and the Joseph Smith Translation (JST) (also known as the Inspired Version) of the Mormons we would all do better to avoid.

 

I firmly believe that some are better than others.

The NIV has some obvious and significant flaws, as do some other versions.

 

INERRANT: meaning containing no errors.
You've qualified the way you applied the term but generally it is a word used only of the autographa, the original documents, since copies contain some deliberate and some unintentional changes.
You'll NEVER find that claim within the introduction of a bible, whether you use a KJV or any other.
The translators know the multitude of difficult textual decisions that have to be made when putting together a version.

While we can fully trust faithful versions to communicate the message of salvation, some of the "jots and tittles" have been scrambled here on earth.
God only knows where they go.

Inerrant, no; faithful, absolutely!

Rob

 

Re: miss-use of the term "inerrancy"

double post

 

I tend to place more emphasis on the MESSAGE more than the exact words. Why? because every language has certain subtleties & nuances all its own that cannot be exactly carried over into another language. And none of that is lost on GOD. As the Creator of every language, He is fully aware of all differences between them. I believe He makes sure the MESSAGE of every Scripture is conveyed from the original languages to the translations.

In Leviticus 11;14, the KJV reads,"and the vulture and the kite" in the list of non-kosher birds. The Hebrew rendered 'vulture' is 'da'ah', while the Hebrew rendered 'kite' is 'ayah'. Each of these terms can be used for different species, as the general meaning od 'da'ah' is "fast-flying bird of prey" while 'ayah's general meaning is "any hawk or falcon". We do NOT know if God was referring to any one species or not. However, the MESSAGE is clear...that all these raptors & scavenger birds covered by those two Hebrew words are non-kosher.

 

I agree with Keith. I think that a lot of KJVO folks are so adamant because their church or their friends hold this position and they don't want to admit that there may be truth in the pro-MV argument. Their faith seems to do intertwined with the KJB.

When I read the negative comments that others say about the MVs, it makes me nervous. However, when I study out of a MV and compare the TR word meanings to the MV text I find that the MV renders them correctly, both in word meaning and English grammar. On the other hand, I find that the KJ text does not always conform to modern English syntax (an issue separate from archaic word meaning) which I find more labor intensive to understand properly given the fact that I have a late 20th century/early twenty-first century mindset.

I'm really beginning to sense that KJVO is more of a doctrinal cause, not a technical translation issue. The advocates of KJVO seem to place less importance in scholarship when it hurts their argument and scream scholarship when it helps. It seems to this observer that KJVO is more an emotional argument as many of the pro MVers state they read the KJB.

Yes, it might be easy for the uninformed to be fooled by the MVs that Keith mentions because they (the mentioned MVs) are biased to conform to a particular theology. However, concern for newbs in the faith disappears when the reader is carefully comparing various modern translations (NASV, NIV, NKJV, etc.) to the Greek MS. At that point the discussion becomes one of fact vs. fiction, scholarship vs. emotion/tradition. I belive that it is reasonable to state that one bad apple doesn't spoil the whole lot.

How can a well-informed Jehovah's Witness and a KJVO win an argument over the merits of their respective translations? It seems to me that it would have to end up being a battle of wills rather than a discussion of fact because neither one would come to a place where they would agree on the underlying scholarship (ie: agreement of which Greek MS, selection of lexicon and grammar books and so forth) as a means to prove their respective points.

 

Pretty good summary, there, TCassidy.

Ed

 

Here are a couple of good links, as relates to 'inerrancy", IMO.

Chicago Statement on Inerrancy (includes full text of the Chicago Statment)

http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago1.html

Chicago Statement on Hermemeutics

http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago2.html

I am in basic agreement with all the Chicago Statement.

Ed

 

Personally, I have never seen anyone, that I know of, teach from any Greek text, although I have heard of some. Usually, they are teaching from some English translation, regardless of whichever one that might be. I pesonally use the NKJV, and have since my 1967 New Scofield was stolen some 10 years ago. The rate was right :thumbs: , the print was large enough, then, double , although my arms have now gotten too short for even it , and I now have to use glasses. :laugh:

Ed

 

'The MESSAGE'?? Somehow, I would have thought you would have used a somewhat more "formal equivalency" version, than an "out and out" paraphrase.

Me? Read it, for the purpose of increasing my own understanding? Certainly!

Teach from it? Not a chance! It is simply too much paraphrase, for that, for me!

Ed

 

Excellent post :thumbs:

May I suggest the HCSB...a "blend" of formal and dynamic equivalence depending on the context? Half way through it, and so far it is becoming my favorite translation (they call it "optimal equivalence, btw

 

Thanks Doc, you sent me running to my OED and sure enough, inerrant was initally used by early astronomers of the stars that didn’t wander; and errant, of the planets that were wonderers.

I came away from Warfield’s works believing he had a much stronger view of inerrancy that you suggest.
But it's been awhile since I looked at them, my initial impressions may be wrong, I’ll have to re-read them sometime soon.
I thought the popularization of the term, “without error in the original autographs” was in response to some of his ideas.

Rob