The Best Bible Versions (and Worst)

Papyrus Fragments, Uncials, Cursives and Lectionaries agreed with the W/H text that modern versions are based -- 1% manuscript evidences. </font>[/QUOTE]Please give scholarly references of those who have studied the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts that the modern versions are only supported by 1% of manuscript evidence.

Do you know that the manuscripts used for the modern versions are older than the ones for the KJV? I'm just wondering if you know that. Also, do you know that the manuscripts used for the MV's and the ones used for the KJV differ only something like 2%?

 

Sometimes I think you guys go to school and get a degree in missing the point. When I turn your words around on you, you miss the point. I knew it was not doctrinal. That was my point in asking for the same thing I get asked for a million times a day here on the BB, that I can't provide. There is NO scripture that says, "Thou shalt only read the KJV" and likewise, there is also no scripture that says, "You shall read lots of versions and pick and choose."

I can't provide scripture and neither can you! We disagree on how God preserves things. We disagree on how to tell if something is the word of God. There are Biblical principles we hold to and we base our decision on those principles.

Your (MVers) asking me (KJVOs) for a scripture is just as STUPID as me asking you. THAT WAS MY POINT!!!!! Now you know! Subtle as a slege-hammer.


[sarcasm]No one needs to "provide scriptural support" to state that MV-position isn't doctrinal. The very fact that it's unsupported/not specified in Scripture makes it a false doctrine. [/sarcasm]

 

DISCLAIMER IN THE SPIRIT OF ELIHU: I enjoy reading the vitriolic kindness that you learned gentlemen lavish upon each other. I fear that I cannot do justice to the level of education, knowledge, spiritual wisdom, life experience, etc. represented here, but I would like to toss some ideas into the mix.

Personally, I am somewhat KJVO. I purposefully select the KJV for reading, study, memorization, witnessing, teaching, etc. I purposefully do not use the RSV, NIV, Watchtower edition, or Qu'ran.

For those who need some scriptural support for the notion of OVO (One Version Only), consider these verses:
The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Psalm 12:6 (KJV)
and
Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Proverbs 30:5 (KJV)

If God is so specific about the individual words of His Word, and those verses surely seem to indicate that they are important; how can several differing versions all be the Word of God, yet use different words in the same language at the same time? If Christ were here physically, would he quote the same passage of scripture differently at different times, but in the same language? (Hebrews 13:8)

 

Jim508: "Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Proverbs 30:5 (KJV)

My requirement is that you specify which KJV you quote from.

Here is the same verse from the Henderixson copy of
the KJV1611 edition:

Prouerbes XXX:5 (KJV1611):

Euery word of God +is pure : he
is a shield vnto them that put their
trust in him.

Sidenote: +Heb. purified

Prouerbes XXX:5 (KJV1611variant):

Euery word of God is purified : he
is a shield vnto them that put their
trust in him.

BTW "Heb." in the note is the translators
way to show that they had two different wordings
in the source texts available to them.

Jim508: "If God is so specific about the individual words of His Word,
and those verses surely seem to indicate that they are important;
how can several differing versions all be the Word of God,
yet use different words in the same language at the same time?"

The real KJB shows that God does vary His word selection
even in the Hebrew. Why can't God be big enough to
vary His words in English? Sorry, bud, the real KJB
blows your theory right out of the water.

 

The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Psalm 12:6 (KJV)

Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Proverbs 30:5 (KJV)

Indeed, and every one of these words was given in Hebrew which we still have to this day.

HankD

 

Sometimes I think you guys go to school and get a degree in missing the point. When I turn your words around on you, you miss the point. I knew it was not doctrinal. That was my point in asking for the same thing I get asked for a million times a day here on the BB, that I can't provide. There is NO scripture that says, "Thou shalt only read the KJV" and likewise, there is also no scripture that says, "You shall read lots of versions and pick and choose."

I can't provide scripture and neither can you! We disagree on how God preserves things. We disagree on how to tell if something is the word of God. There are Biblical principles we hold to and we base our decision on those principles.

Your (MVers) asking me (KJVOs) for a scripture is just as STUPID as me asking you. THAT WAS MY POINT!!!!! Now you know! Subtle as a slege-hammer.


[sarcasm]No one needs to "provide scriptural support" to state that MV-position isn't doctrinal. The very fact that it's unsupported/not specified in Scripture makes it a false doctrine. [/sarcasm] </font>[/QUOTE]Lacy, the distinction (IMO) that KJVOists fail to make/see in reference to the issue of using the KJV only or using other, valid translations is that of Christian Law vs. Christian Liberty.

You say that nowhere in the Bible does it say that using MV's is acceptable; just as you above seemingly admit that nowhere in the Bible is the KJVO belief proscribed: "I can't provide scripture and neither can you!"

Nevertheless, it is you (and others of the KJVO persuasion) who are the ones making an exclusivity claim. I don't know of anyone (on the BB or elsewhere) who would say that the KJV is not the Word of God. I certainly would never make any such claim. On the other hand, KJVOnlies have & will adamently claim that only the KJV is the Word of God in English.

If, as you have stated above, you believe that there is not a Scriptural basis to point to any one translation, then why insist that there is (and can be) only one? If, as you admit, KJVOism is not doctrinal- then why oppose any other believer's liberty to use the English translation of his or her choosing?

Since 99%+ of English-speaking people are not capable or qualified to study & understand God's Word in the languages in which It was originally provided, translation is clearly necessary and a good thing. And since even the English language has changed dramatically over the centuries, then updates & new translations become necessary. The King James Version translators themselves recognized this- they stated as much in their Preface. They themselves viewed the KJV as being a link in a chain of English translations both before, and looking to the future to follow, their own work. If updates & revisions don't become necessary, then why aren't we all today using Wycliffe's version?

Since we seem to agree (based upon your reply to me above) that the Bible is silent on which translation(s) are valid/correct/acceptable- on what authority or basis can one say that only the KJV fits those descriptions? Each translation should be judged on it's faithfulness to the preponderence of MSS evidence. On this basis, the KJV is arguably neither the best, nor the worst. No, we don't today possess the original autographs- God, for His reasons, has not seen fit to preserve them. Perhaps He knew that whomever possessed them would enshrine them as objects to be worshipped in-and-of themselves; and therefore made idols.

Where the Bible speaks (e.g. "Thou shalt" or "Thou shalt not") we should take notice. In areas in which the Bible is silent we should not attempt to impose any personal preferences or hobby-horses. The question of which version of God's Word is to be used by believers falls into this latter category.

 

Jim508:If God is so specific about the individual words of His Word, and those verses surely seem to indicate that they are important; how can several differing versions all be the Word of God, yet use different words in the same language at the same time?

God has done JUST THAT for hundreds of years.


If Christ were here physically, would he quote the same passage of scripture differently at different times, but in the same language? (Hebrews 13:8)

Please compare Isaiah 42:7 & Isaiah 61:1-3 with Luke 4:16-21 to see where Jesus read aloud from a different text. The language from which He read isn't specified, but seeing as how the scroll from which He read was in a synagogue & was available to all the Jews in the area, go figure.

 

I don't "oppose" you. I just think you are quite wrong. Your liberty is your business. I'm not the one hollering "heresy!", "false doctrine!", etc.

I'm just defending MY position and MY liberty.

That is a principal seemingly based in logic but with no scriptural support.

God never says "Judge the prophets by the "preponderance of evidence." Sometimes in the Bible, "preponderance" is good, sometimes the majority all wrong. If one prophet stands up against 500, will you stand always with the preponderant 500? Or will you try the spirits?

The greatest revivals of holiness, truth, sheer numbers, and influence (salting)in history happened during a time when the KJV reigned supreme. When men didn't doubt the book, when they were not compelled by all the "smart people" to correct it, the Holy Ghost blew through the world almost unfettered. The Bible says (pick a version) to judge the prophets by their fruit. Quality, not preponderance. God didn't leave it questionable. It is VERY obvious which book has true fruit.

I am KJVO because of deep convictions. I don't care what you believe. We can discus our differences. I can defend my position. But What you do is between you and God. Your liberty is left quite intact by my position.

The KJV is not my "preference". It is a conviction. Perhaps you can't understand that. Perhaps we speak two different languages and there is no-one to interpret. I have found relatively few who can get past the "you-have-to-show-me-a-scripture-but-I-don't-have-to-show-you-one" stage of this "debate". The issue is "How does God preserve things?" The issue is, "How does God say to judge what is holy and right?"

All the evidence I examine brings me back to that book.

Brother Lacy

 

Your presumption is false. There's no such thing as an "MV-position". There is the single-translationism position, and the opposition to it. Since scripture does not in any way support single-translationism, that assertion must be fought when it is presented as a doctrinal requirment.

BTW - to make myself clear, single-translationism is the belief that only one translation is to be considered the sole authoritative bible for all of God's people. We often refer to it as version-onlyism.

 

Please prove to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that Christ was quoting the same writings of Isaiah that we have extant. The ONE TIME a New Testament writer gives the actual reference, (Acts 13:33) the quote is exact.

What you never see a New Testament preacher do is say things like:

"Well, in the original Hebrew, this Greek word blah blah means blah blah blah and it is an 'unhappy translation' that should really read blah blah blah. Now a better rendering of the original Hebrew would be. . ."

It was the scribes, lawyers and pharasies who preached like that. If you don't believe it just study the Mishna.

Lacy

 

JohnV,

Your presumption is false. There's no such thing as an "KJVO-position". There is the "Multiple Choice exegesis" position, and the opposition to it. Since scripture does not in any way support Multiple-Choice-ism, that assertion must be fought when it is presented as a doctrinal requirment.

BTW - to make myself clear, "Multiple Choice exegesis" is the belief that nearly any translation, version, manuscript, etc. can be considered the authoritative bible for all of God's people. (I get to pick!)
We often refer to it as MV-ism.

 

Lacy, This may have a certain degree of truth in English speaking nations, but what of the 90% of the world's people for whom English is not their 1st language (if it's understood at all)? Don't discount revival happening today just because it's not occuring to any extent in English-speaking nations.

The great revivals taking place in the world right now aren't occuring in English-speaking areas. I'm thinking of millions of salvations occuring in China, northern India, South America, and elsewhere. I very recently heard firsthand from a missionary currently-based in the Pacific Rim that some estimates put the percentage of believers in China right now at 10% of the population! That would equate to 130,000,000; or more than the number of believers in the U.S.! And these are a severely persecuted, marginalized group of people.

My point: There are great revivals going on right now, although they're not in English-speaking nations. With or without the KJV, people are getting and can get saved.

IMHO, I think you're so enamoured with the KJV that you tend to link it too strongly to the working of the Holy Spirit; as if the Holy Spirit would be hindered in His working without the KJV. People get saved because of the movement & working of the Holy Spirit's conviction- and not because of the particular translation they hear the Word from. It is the Gospel message that convicts and saves; not the version (in any one language) that people hear it through, either historically or today.

 

Lacy, despite the fact that you're mocking me, which I don't appreciate, I will respond.

Actually, Lacy, scripture doesn't support translations of any kind at all, with the exception of the NT referring to OT verses in koine, the common tongue of the people of the region. So to have a reasonable comprehension of scripture, we're left with either having to learn Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic, or have translations in the common tongues of the day.

 

Brother I am not mocking anyone. I am just making a point! You rhetoric is just that. If I turn it aroung it sounds just as hollow to you as it did to me. To have a reasonable comprehension of scripture, we need to believe it, study it, and use it.

Lacy

 

I DO have reasonable comprehension of scripture.

The bottom line is that you're asserting that only the KJV translation is to be the sole translation used by all English speaking peoples as a matter of scriptural authority. I'm asking you to back that claim up with scripture. You cannot.

Kindly tell me why I am scripturally forbidden from having a translation in my common tongue.

 

Ed: My requirement is that you specify which KJV you quote from.

I do not have a 1611 KJV to reference, and my online copies of the KJV do not specify a year. Judging from your response, it appears that I quoted from the 1611 KJV, Proverbs 30:5, first variant.

My point is to logically defend the OVO (One Version Only) concept; or if a defense is impossible or absurd, to refute it. I appreciate your identifying flaws in my arguments, because I need solid logic to be convinced either way, and in order to communicate effectively with others.

Ed: The real KJB shows that God does vary His word selection even in the Hebrew. Why can't God be big enough to vary His words in English? Sorry, bud, the real KJB blows your theory right out of the water.

As you said, the KJ translators had different wordings in the source texts available to them; i.e. they were dealing with different versions of the source text. Either God chose to vary the words, or somewhere in history a scribe chose (accidentally or on-purpose) to vary the words.

The real KJB shows that the KJ translators either thought that God varied the words, or that He did not but they did not know for certain which words were right, so they left both in for safety's sake. Perhaps the preface or translators' notes reveal their opinion. But their opinion, while learned and certainly instructive, is not my judge or supreme authority. What I need is God's viewpoint on this, preferably as expressed in scripture.

Your contention that God varied the words in Hebrew, and that this is demonstrated in the KJB, depends upon the KJ translators knowing that the differing words in the various source texts were each given by God, i.e. that He intentionally varied the words in Hebrew. This is presupposing the conclusion.

Your comment that God is "big enough" to vary the words in English, casts the OVO position in a negative light. Now God is "smaller" (petty? stubborn? both are related to the concept of small-mindedness) if He does not vary His words. What is the scriptural basis for this?

 

The content of the verses is talking about the word of God; assuming that the NT is also the word of God, then the words were given in Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic. If it is generally agreed that we have all of those words today, then why is there such confusion and disagreement over which words are God's? (cf. discussions regarding versions translated from "better" manuscripts)

 

I believe it was the Church of Rome (not sure which Pope) that said "because it makes too many heretics".

HankD

 

Because, in the case of the NT there is dispute concerning the accuracy of about 2% percent of the text (after correcting what everyone would agree to be obvious human errors where there are sufficient historical data).

What constitutes a "better" mss is also debatable.

As more mss are discovered, we will get a more accurate picture.

HankD