Is there a bible translation that you will not recommend?

I have heard negatives on the Living Bible "Translation". What is its problem?

I ask in all honesty, I know nothing about its history, nor have I read it.

Does this have something to do with the fact that its father was a paraphrase? or are there really problems with the translation itself?

 

"Does that mean that you would not recommend a German speaker read a Luther Bible or an English speaker read a Tyndale Bible because they were translated by one person instead of a commitee? What about the TR then?"
"
Committee translations usually avoid the sort of excentricities that creep into a translation made by a single person. The fact that Jerome and Luther* both were brilliant men with considerable literary talent does not change that.
I would recommend their work for it's historical and literary value, but I would not recommend unrevised versions of their Bibles for general study.
Later editions of Erasmus Greek NT, generally seem to suffer less from this problem. Apparently objective textual criticism is easier than objective translating. Either that or I am a chauvenistic pig and willing to give fellow cheesehead Desiderius the benefit of the doubt.

*I'm no expert on Tyndale so I'm not saying anything about him, positive or negative.

 

I would not recommend the Jehovah's Witness bible, the New World Translation, because it deletes the following whole verses:

Matthew 17:21
Matthew 18:11
Matthew 23:14
Mark 7:16
Mark 9:44
Mark 9:46
Mark 11:26
Mark 15:28
Luke 17:36
Luke 23:17
John 5:4
Acts 8:37
Acts 15:34
Acts 24:7
Acts 28:29
Romans 16:24
1 John 5:7

Oh, by the way, the NIV deletes these same exact verses, check it out for yourself. I would not recommend the NIV.

 

The New American Standard Bible puts brackets around all of the verses referenced my previous post and it directs the reader to the footnote at the bottom of the page which says "Early mss do not contain this v"

I would not recommend the NASB because it casts doubt upon many verses of holy Scripture, which may cause much damage to the faith of a new believer.

 

This is a blatantly false Statement! The NIV does NOT delete any of these verses! It is NOT even possible to delete what was never there! The editors on the NIV and most other recent translations of the Bible omit these verses because they are omitted in the manuscripts of the New Testament that the large majority of Bible scholars, including many Baptists, believe to be the most accurate.

It is well beyond my comprehension why it is that some Christians absolutely refuse to tell the truth.

 

Psalm145 3 said:

Oh, by the way, the NIV deletes these same exact verses, check it out for yourself. I would not recommend the NIV.

and

The New American Standard Bible puts brackets around all of the verses referenced my previous post and it directs the reader to the footnote at the bottom of the page which says "Early mss do not contain this v"

Put another way, you don't recommend the NIV because it "deletes" certain verses, and you don't recommend the NASB because it retains them.

 

Nobody has said that the NIV did not leave these out. However, they were honest enough to place a notation that "some manuscripts said this "..." and they would quote the verse.

These are areas that through much study of manuscripts, the early church writings and fathers, etc. it was the conclusion of the translators that well-meaning scribes added most of these verses in order to bring them into "harmony" with the other gospels, or other quotations found elsewhere.

Think about it. If a scribe, who is very scared that he will corrupt the Word of God is making copies he is less likely to leave something out (except by accidental oversight--which did occur-but most of these were found by comparing manuscripts), than they were to add a note here and there to clarify something. This was done, not to "add" to the scriptures, but in their minds to try to harmonize what it said in other places. None of these change doctrine, because most are simply found in other locations.

The idea of an intentional "dumbing down" or "removal of scripture -- slowly but surely) is not and will not be proven in the NIV translation. If so, they would not have been honest enough to keep it in the footnotes to let people judge for themselves if it truly belongs or not.

These verses are often used to provide a "shock effect" by KJVO for new Christians who do not understand Biblical scholarship. Yes, it does shock some people to see those verses, but a complete reading of the New Testament "in context" will do away with your doubts.

 

to Phillip: Well said. I struggled for months about the NIV vs KJV. I was always KJV and wouldn't hear of anything else until one day God revealed to me that it also was a translation and I shouldn't be relying on man to interpret His word but the Holy Spirit.

 

JW Bible and NIV followed the W-H text.

 

I agree! Amen!

 

That is misleading and mis-information! I have lists of MSS where MVs and the KJV derived such as Psalm 145:3 listed many verses. MVs deleted many verses because of MSS where MVs derived, but this information is FALSE! Many MSS supported these verses. No excuse!

 

--------------------------------------------------
This is a blatantly false Statement! The NIV does NOT delete any of these verses! It is NOT even possible to delete what was never there! The editors on the NIV and most other recent translations of the Bible omit these verses because they are omitted in the manuscripts of the New Testament that the large majority of Bible scholars, including many Baptists, believe to be the most accurate.
---------------------------------------------------

This is their folly and as a result yours too because you have believed them, and quite different from GENERATIONS of christians from the apostles until this very day who KNOW that those verses ARE SCRIPTURE. You base your belief on ERRONEOUS beliefs that those corrupted manuscripts are the "most accuarate". THE TRUTH and the EVIDENCE shows otherwise. You have been decieved.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

You denied. I have list of MSS supporting many verses that the KJV had and the NIV deleted. Why did the NIV delete important doctrines of the Bible because of 1% manuscript evidence?

I realize 2 sides concerning them because they clashed each other. On left side they favor by picking this phrases or quotations and others. On right side they found the evidences from Church fathers, quotations, manuscript supporting many verses and 3:2 ratio.

Distortions! Is the Christology the doctrine?

Focus on MSS only rather than focusing on HOW GOD PRESERVED HIS WORDS FOR US. This means obviously DOUBT!!!!

 

Three books that I do not recommend them to read: JW's 'New World Translation', Book of Mormon, and Koran too.

NIV, Living Bible, New English Version, Today's English Version, etc... do have doctrines same as in KJV. There is no difference between any Versions with KJV, all have same doctrines. Understand, all of these are 'Christianity' Bibles mentioned about Jesus Christ, Calvary, resurrection, salvation, second coming, judgment day, etc.

Book of Mormon is far much WORST than NIV, Today's English Verison, etc. because, I did looked at them, all are much OFF the point, and all books are made-up by Joseph Smith's own ideas, also, he took LOT of God's Word away.

JW's New World Translation take too many important verses away.

Koran rejects Jesus Christ, it don't mentioned Jesus Christ at all.

I have nothing against any Versions, for good reason, that they do mentioned on Jesus Christ and salvation. All have nearly same doctrine as KJV does.

I do use KJV all the times, because it is more close to Greek than any versions, although, all versions have same doctrines as KJV have.

So, easy to saying that I do not recommend them to read: Book of Mormons, JW's 'New World Translation', and Koran.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

 

You denied. I have list of MSS supporting many verses that the KJV had and the NIV deleted. Why did the NIV delete important doctrines of the Bible because of 1% manuscript evidence? </font>[/QUOTE]Like said many times before, keep saying it and somebody will believe it. Obviously, you already have. How many more converts do you want? I would think that "converting" people to Jesus Christ might be more important, but from what my take is on KJVO, THAT doctrine is more important. Am I wrong?

 

How many manuscripts did they have in 1611 to make a judgment upon? Give us some facts. We understand facts. They cannot be disputed. But opinion and name calling does nothing to convince anyone.

 

Just look at the fruit of their movement--much like jihad. They die for the movement and try to convert others to their way of thinking.

 

Hi, GB, good to see ya. I didn't see you post so I assumed you were not at your computer. Read the AV1611 and Roman Catholic thread. It got quite interesting.

In all seriousness, we got a good history lesson of the Church of England.

 

I've spent most of the day working on a class that I will teach starting Monday.