The Best Bible Versions (and Worst)

Jason,

According to your web site, you have a B.A., M.A., and Th.D. Why is it that the contents of your web site do not reflect a college education of any kind? Do you have an earned B.A. degree from a nationally accredited college or university? Yes or No?

 

I thought that was what I just did. That is, I looked at your web pages and gave you some feedback. You made some very inaccurate and irresponsible comments about some translations of the Bible that I would think a man with any formal education at all would know better than to make, but I was wrong.

The RV, the ASV, and the RSV are revisions of the KJV, and it is correct to say that they made changes to it. The NIV and the NASB are independent translations and it is NOT correct to say that they made changes to the KJV. They simply did NOT do that! Your comment about the oldest manuscripts betrays the absence of any knowledge at all of textual criticism, and in my personal opinion, you should be studying rather than posting regarding Bible translations. Your comments about copyright laws are nothing but ridiculous nonsense and contrary to fact. I have seen this trash posted to this message board time and again, and it make me sick!

 

Personally, I am not able to read translations of the Bible in most of the languages in which the Bible has been translated, and it would be, therefore, very foolish of me to attempt to evaluate them in any detail. However, since most people in this thread are addressing only the comparatively few translations of the Bible that are English translations, for the rest of this post I will limit my comments to those translations.

Asking which translation of the Bible is the best is something like asking which sport is the best. The question is much too broad for an intelligent response. Not only do the translations vary, so do the readers and the hearers of the translations. A translation of the Bible that can not be understood, regardless of its other qualities, certainly can not be the best translation unless no other translation of the Bible can be understood. But do we dummied-down the Bible, or do we educate the reader?

In a sense, all translations of the Bible are dummied-down versions of the Bible. After all, the Bible was originally written in three languages very different than English (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek) and it is impossible to accurately translate into English many of the concepts represented by the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek words and phrases being translated. But since most people can not read all three of these languages, the Bible has been dummied-down into English and very many other languages.

But how dummied-down should the translation be? The KJV is dummied-down to the 14th grade reading level, the NASB to the 11th grade reading lever, the RSV to the 10th grade reading level, the NIV to the 7th grade reading lever, the New Century Version to the 4th grade reading level, and the so-called New Living Translation has been dummied-down to illiterate barbarism. Are the New Century Version and the New Living Translation Bibles, or are they really Bible story books? Is the NIV suitable for adult readers with normal intelligence, or should its use be limited to 11 and 12-year-olds, and older persons who are intellectually challenged?

My personal belief is that every Christian who is able to read should read the Bible in the most accurate translation that they can read. KJOists will may rightly say the KJV is dummied-down the least (when one considers the 400 years of changes to the English language) of all English translations of the Bible, but there is much more to being accurate than not being dummied-down. Most Bible scholars agree that the NASB is the most accurate translation of the Bible available today in English, and I would heartily agree with that assessment.

What is the worst version of the Bible? Let’s not concern ourselves too much with that question, but rather concern ourselves with reading the Bible, believing the Bible, and living in accord with the Bible.

 

There is no school by that name in the city of San Diego, but I have heard rumors that there is a non-accredited school by that name in a community called Spring Valley near the city of San Diego. The only other thing that I have heard about the school is that they teach a fundamentalist interpretation of the creation accounts in Genesis. So I, too, would like to know more about this mysterious school.

 

quote:
Originally posted by robycop3:
. . .thus we reject KJVO as a false doctrine, since its advocates cannot meet their burden of proof.
Lacy Evans:I assume you base your doctrine on scripture?

Luke 4:16-21 compared to Isaiah 42:7 & Isaiah 61:1-3.
And I don't have a doctrine; I merely reject the KJVO doctrine due to lack of evidence.


It seems to me that unless you can show some scriptural principal that is being violated in my trusting God to preserve his word, then the onus falls back on you.

Trying to sidetrack? This isn't an issue about whether or not God preserved His word, but whether or not in English, He presented it in only one version.

If you have a Biblical precept for "preservation by atrophy" or "multiple choice exegesis", if "well I think . . ." is the beginning of holiness, then preach on.

Easy. No two English BVs are alike.


If my basing my choice on examination of fruit (holiness, effect on society, revival of truth, etc.) is unscriptural, then by all means, set me straight.

I believe your choice is based upon personal preference and not FACT. You KNOW you cannot present any evidence which would sustain the KJVO myth, especially Scriptural support. Therefore, you hope to get us off track by asking us anti-Onlyismists for Scriptural support for OUR position. Actually, the thing needed is scriptural support for YOUR position, which is the "new kid on the block". The KJVO myth has come about only in modern times, as the KJV was around for over 300 years before that myth was conceived. Since this myth is a concept of man about Scripture, it's up to the advocates of that myth to find Scripture to sustain it; otherwise it remains a myth, devoid of truth.


But whatever you do DON'T CALL ME, "'BROTHER'"!!!! (Oh wait, that was the other thread, sorry.

OK, hombre.

 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To say that only one version is truly the bible is legalistic and Pharisaical.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please show scriptural support for this statement.

Lacy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lacy,

"King James", KJB, AV, 1611... none appear in the bible that I have. Neither NASB, NIV, RSV, etc. The onus of proof is on the one who would make versionism doctrinal.

And as far as proof...

Well since the bible is silent on the issue of multiple translations there obviously are not specific incidences. But what did Jesus seem to think about those who valued the law OVER the welfare of people? Whited sepulchres????

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is a corollary, which can be drawn from the Scriptures in Luke 4:14-22

14 And Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit into Galilee: and there went out a fame of him through all the region round about.
15 And he taught in their synagogues, being glorified of all.
16 And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read.
17 And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written,
18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,
19 To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.
20 And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him.
21 And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.
22 And all bare him witness, and wondered at the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth. And they said, Is not this Joseph's son?

Jesus called it “this scripture”. But this scripture cannot be found word for word in the KJV (any revision, any edition) English text of Isaiah. If indeed the AV English translation text is “Inspired” then it stands to reason that we would be able to find this verse word for word somewhere in the English of the KJV OT version of “Esaias” since things which are different are not the same, but such is not the case.

The closest we have is Isaiah 61:1-2

KJV Isaiah 61
1 The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound;
2 To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn;

KJV Luke 4
18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,
19 To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.

In fact this passage which Jesus stood up to read and called “scripture” differs in its wording from the Masoretic Hebrew of Isaiah 61:1-2.

The “inspired” English texts of Luke 4 and Isaiah 61 are in disagreement with words both added and deleted but Jesus called it “scripture” without a complaint concerning that disagreement. If Jesus were Masoretic Text Only (MTO) then surely He of all people would not have called it “scripture”.

So we have two things working here 1) The text Jesus read cannot be found word for word in the KJV OT and 2) the text is even in disagreement with the Masora.

Therefore (at least I can conclude) even a poor (or “mean”) translation of the Scripture is the Word of God, or to quote the KJV translators :

HankD

 

At JCSM: "JCSM is a 501(c)(3), non-profit organization."

Most people who beleive in KJV Onlyism will NOT
accept this. This statement is loosing you clients.

BTW, Jason Gastrich, i have something against you.
I've got friends who are not allowed to post on Baptist
Board areas marked "Baptist Only" because they decline to
put that their denomination is Baptist or that they are
a member of a church with the world "Baptist" in it's name.
You seem to be an exception. I'd like to know why???
Recommend you petition the PTB = powers that be,
to have your threads all moved to
places where non-Baptists are allowed to post.

Jason Gastrich: "I'd be happy if you saw my web pages and gave me some feedback."

I have a sense of Daja Vu about this.
Perchance you did Pastor Gail Riplinger's research for her?

Anyway, my favorite Version is the King James Version,
1611 Edition (KJV1611) - you know the one actually authorized by
King James. I especially like the translator notes, you
know, the ones that show there is more than one way to translate
the Bible and that the multiple sources used from the original
language have variants as well as does the modern English Versions.

My least favorite version of the Bible is the King James Version,
1679 or maybe 1672 or probably a copyrighted version rip-off
(KJV1769). I don't like them because they are a whole family of
King James Versions most of which don't bother to tell the
reader (read DECEIVE the reader) what they are. NOt to mention
most such versions do NOT have the translator notes and
do not mention there is more than one way to translate
and there are source variants.

 

Jason,

You've done some nice compiling work. The short of it (and what you'll likely hear from most nonKJBO people) is although there are small differences there is no way of ascertaining that the KJB or its manuscripts were right to begin with; that is the NASB or NIV wording MIGHT be more authentic even though it appears to have deleted a word here or there. Not that you don't already realize this...

Nice guitar site too. I'm also a guitarophile!

 

Ed, Jason stated he is a member of Shadow Mountain Community Church in El Cajon. SMCC identifies itself as an "Independent Baptist Congregation." Prior to the name change it was known as Scott Memorial Baptist Church. Shadow Mountain is Baptist through and through. The pastor, David Jeremiah, attended Cedarville College, now Cedarville University, in Cedarville, Ohio, and graduated in 1963. Cedarville has been a training school for the General Association of Baptist Churches for decades.

Cedarville College was founded in 1887 by the Reformed Presbyterian Church, and merged with Baptist Bible Institute of Cleveland, Ohio, in 1953. At that time James Jeremiah, David's father, was named President. He remained President until 1978. James Jeremiah is credited with the tremendous growth of Cedarville from under 200 students in the mid-50s to over 1200 when he retired.

 

You too.

Not yet. I am not much of a sports fan, not having been able to participate as a kid due to a disability. I turned into a book worm. Or, according to my wife, just a regular worm.

The Rock has a tremendous outreach to the kids at SDSU. What a great ministry!

First Baptist Church in Spring Valley. Until this week I was on staff, but I am planning on leaving for the mission field next month.

Wow! Westminster in Escondido, I presume? That is getting to be a pretty great school. It now rivals the east coast campus.

I read the other comments before answering you, so, if you don't mind I will reply by private message. It seems the attack dogs are already circling. There is an unfortunate mindset held by some on this forum that if you didn't attend their school or don't attend their church you can't possibly be right with God, or even saved, let alone well educated. I really don't want to get into that with the forum Pharisees.