Question For KJVO'ers

I very respectfully submit that your question would fall under the following catagory:
But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes. 2 Timothy 2:23

Not true. We have claimed that the KJV is the preserved Word of God for English-speaking people. There are most certainly other translations that can claim the same distiction in their respective languages. The issue is not the translation; this issue is the text.

Not at all. The "bookster" would be guilty of smuggling in a translation of the Bible, albeit an inferior translation IMHO.

 

In my opinion, the NLT is a translation of inferior texts. It is only preserved to the degree that it contains readings which agree with what I consider to be the preserved text. The NLT is a Bible; I would not go so far as to say that it is the Word of God as is the KJV.

 

It is the Word of God in as much as it agrees with the preserved text. Seeing that it's New Testament is translated from "the two standard editions of the Greek New Testament: the Greek New Testament, published by the United Bible Societies (fourth revised edition, 1993), and Novum Testamentum Graece, edited by Nestle and Aland (twenty- seventh edition, 1993)," the agreements are not enough to say any more than this translation "contains" the Word of God.

They are to the same degree that the non-preserved text English versions are in possession of the Word of God.

I assume you mean "eclectic" here. If so, I have to disagree that over 95% agreement in extant mss is eclectic.

 

But nonetheless an accurate description of my opinion of the MVs.

I do not own a physical copy. I have access to the text via the internet. I understand the translation method used in this translation, and am familiar with the two texts from which the New Testament is translated. Again, the issue is the text.

 

Your question was regarding any MV, not the NLTse specifically. I do own versions other than the KJV, but fail to see how owning them could help my argument on this issue.

 

Not really. The MV are as diverse as the manuscript evidence upon which they are based.

You give me far too much credit. Every modern version, with the exception of those based upon the preserved text, is in the "basic category" of being a translation of the inferior UBS and/or NA texts.

To the degree that they agree with the preserved Majority text.

You're going to have to back up your assertion with more than a blanket statement. I'm open-minded; give me some substance to disprove my opinion.

 

nice...

:applause:

Please gentlemen, I enjoy this scholarly debate!

Keep this thread alive!

Amen!

 

Every modern version, every English version, every foreign translation is a "version" of the Bible. The only "true versions" are those which accurately represent the originals.

I have four children. At times I would hear four different versions of the same story. Only one was the true version; the others may have been close and contained partial truth, but only one was the actual truth.

The NLTse is a Bible and so is the King James Version. But only one of them is a true version of the Word of God, IMO.

There is a world of difference in these two terms. The word "Bible" appears no where in the Word of God. It is derived from the Latin word "biblia," which simply means, "book." The term "ta biblia" was used to refer to many sacred writings before the time of Christ, many of which were not included in the canon of Scripture.

The Word of God, on the other hand, is the "God-breathed" Scripture that Paul mentions in II Timothy 3:16. To say that the NLTse is "a Bible" is not at all equating it with the preserved Word of God.

 

This thread has the potential to degenerate. So far our brethren have kept it clean and above board - lets all keep it that way so the thread can remain open.

 

Yeah, a moderator says my Bible only "contains the word of God". :tear:

I might be accused of promoting post-modernist values but I disagree.
We have four GOSPELS too. Which one is the true version???
Clearly the Scriptures reveal that we can have different versions of the same story, different view points, different perspectives, different emphasis; all pointing to one truth.

I think that when you say that YOUR favorite version is the only version that is the word of God you have gone further than Jesus, further than the apostles and further than the early church in defining what is Scripture.

Rob

 

I would not be so presumptious as to assume I know much about most of these individuals, you have cited, here. But I have some rudimentary knowledge about three of them (Bock, Silva, and Hoehner), and a bit of tangental info about four more (Blomberg, Carson, Mounce, and Wenham), and have heard the names of three others, about which I really know nothing.

The one thing I do know, is there are no "liberals", in the bunch there, that I am familiar with, especially the "Dallas" crowd.

So please, let's not move into any "guilt by association" trap.

And I basically agree with Rippon, here.

Ed

 

I'm leaving this one alone. Mom always said, "If you can't say something nice..."

 

You surely could say something nice to Language Cop, being as he hasn't 'busted' you, don't you think? :laugh: :laugh:

Ed

 

Fair enough! Does this street run both ways? I believe I have seen some "blanket statements" on, or from, "both sides", here, but that could just be me. And how does one come to the knowledge that the "Majority text" is superior, in the first place? (FTR, I too, am Majority text, preferred.) But consistent with this would seem to be that a translation from the "MT" such as the English Majority Text Version (although I tend to be extremely suspicious of any "one-man" translation, simply because one cannot keep from being influenced by one's own biases) would be the "best" available. Let's make sure that this wording of "preserved Majority text" is not really 'code' for the Textus Receptus, especially TR1894, namely Scrivner's "reverse translation" from an edition of the KJV, valuable though that work is. There are simply some significant variances between the 'MT' and the 'TR', all of which are 'eclectic' in some degree.

This statement is very troubling, to me, at best. Especially from a Moderator, albeit not one on this forum. The NLT raises some question, of its own, I would also assume, not owning one, but possessing its "daddy", the "Living Bible". 'Nuff said! About both!

That is some of the 'code', to which I previously referred. And I submit that, at best, it violates at least the 'spirit' of one of the BB rules, for this forum, even couched behind "IMO". That is my opinion, on that.

One thing I would like to address, is why there seems to be little question about the OT, but only the NT. There are virtually as many 'variances' as to actual and accurate wording in the Hebrew, as there are in the Greek. Yet somehow the focus in about 90% of instances seem to focus on the NT? What's wrong with this picture?

Ed