Versions that are Invalid:

You guys ever looked at the Cotton Patch Bible? (NT only) It's actually serious. The idea is to have the same impact as in NT times/local, so locals and names are changed, for example, from Jerusalem to Atlanta, Peter is called "Rock," etc.

http://rockhay.tripod.com/cottonpatch/

Here's an example:

Acts 1:1-11 (Called "Happenings")
1. I wrote the first volume, Friend of God, about the many deeds and lessons which Jesus got under way, up to the day when he ascended. Prior to this he had given, through the Holy Spirit, specific orders to his special agents, and had shown himself to them with many positive proofs that he was still alive even after he had been killed. Through forty days he appeared to them and discussed matters concerning the God Movement. And while staying with them, he urged them not to leave Atlanta but to wait for the Father's promised gift about which he had told them. "Yes, John dipped people in water," he said, "but in just a few days you all will be dipped in Holy Spirit." 6. So those about him began asking, "Will that be the occasion on which you will take over the government?" He said to them, "You are not to get all worked up about timetables and events which the Father has under his own control. But as the Holy Spirit comes over you, you will get power and will be my agents in Atlanta and throughout Georgia, in the ghetto and across the land." As he said this, and while they were watching, he was carried away and a cloud kept them from seeing him.
10. As he went away, and while they were still staring into the sky, two men in blue jeans joined them and asked, "Citizens of America, why stand there looking at the sky? This Jesus who was carried away from you into the sky will come just as you saw him going into the sky."


Clarence Jordan was actually serious about this "translation." Of course, it's really paraphrase, and he has an almost cult following. But a good question to ask is about the validity of such translations. His goal is to reach those who would not pick up other Bibles.



FA

 

It's not surprising to continue to witness such liberties being taken with the Word of God, all in the name of reaching those who may not respond otherwise. Once editors began to introduce other versions to begin with, it should be expected such [attack on Bibles snipped] would follow. Seems that the aim to make the scriptures more accessable and understandable have only contributed to confusion and sin.

 

Versions

The only ones that I cannot consider to be a valid translation are those from some of the cults that are running around out there where they have translated their own copy. Such as the Reader's Digest Bible and the NWT of the J.W. There is not any other invalid translation listed in this poll and anyone that disagrees with me disagrees with me.

 

Did this decision to introduce new versions start in 1611 or some time earlier or later?

 

Versions

For those who think like that, it would have to be the introduction of the Great Bible with the invention of the printing press. Those rebels just would not allow the Catholic Church to control the scriptures as they should have.

:thumbs::rolleyes:

 

I think it is safe to say the Church was kept in great care and comfort for hundreds of years after the Bible was first translated for the english speaking people in 1611. I also believe that one can still find the scriptures sacred by using and studying an authorized King James Version of the Bible, so don't bother taking us down the road of which King James Version are you using.

 

Tee Hee - the Queen of the KJBOs, Gail A. Riplinger,
in IN AWE OF THY WORD (A.V.Publications, 2003)
lists ten English Vesions of the Bible BEFORE the KJVs.
The KJVs are not the first translations into English.

So it really is NOT safe to say what you said.

 

When was the first KJV translated and published? 1611.

Tee hee go crawl back in your shell if you are trying believers on guilt by association.
Every group has it's crackpots. BTW which group are you a member of?

 

Is the CWB "Clear Word Bible"
a SDA /Seventh Day Adventist/ version?

The SDA denys that the CWB is another
translation - the CWB is a Bible text with
commentaries in it (like the old Schofield
KJVs.. Nor is the Tim LaHaye
PROPHECY STUDY BIBLE a new translation
version (it contains a KJV1769 edition Bible).
So I guess even the SDA

 

I'm not a member of a group.
I'm a Baptist. :tonofbricks:

 

Definition of group- any collection or assemblage of persons or things.

Makes your post sound stupid don't you think?

 

Typo, there.

Ya' shoulda' said, "I'm not a member of any organized group.

I'm a Baptist." :tonofbricks:




:thumbs: :smilewinkgrin:

Ed

 

Uh, as I recall, unless I am completely mistaken in this, wasn't that the aim ("to make the scriptures (sic) more accessable (sic) and understandable") of the translators and authorizers of the KJV? Not to mention the translators of the LXX, Jerome, Bede, Cadmaeon, King Alfred the Great, John Wyclif, Martin Luther, William Tyndale, Desiderius Erasmus, Casiodoro de Reina, Theodore Beza, Miles Coverdale, John Rogers (alias Thomas Matthew), John Wesley, John Nelson Darby, (and who even knows how many more) all the way through the late Art Farstad, Ed Blum, the Wycliffe Bible translators, the New Tribes translators, and John Himes (aka John of Japan on the BB), currently involved with a group undertaking of translating the Bible into Japanese?

Are you suggesting that all of these were and are contributing to this supposed confusion? And if so, why should it not apply to the translators of the KJV, as well, which attempted the same thing - to make it more understandable?

So, exactly how many of the above translations of the individuals I have named should be considered this "drivel"? (Personally, I am not willing to stand before my Lord and accuse such as Wyclif, Luther, Tyndale, and Wesley of propagating "drivel". Especially when I am fairly sure I have not done 1% of what some of them have done for the cause of Jesus Christ. Maybe it's just me, but such presumption would have a kinda' hollow sound, I'd think!)

Why is there such a selectively (and specifically) applied double-standard, here?

Ed

 

May I suggest that this statement falls on its own errors. To be specific, this is The Anglican Church, and Bibles had been translated into English for about 225 years, before this.

And I seem to recall that Wyclif (who was persecuted, branded an heretic, and whose health was broken by this, leading to his premature death from a stroke) and Tyndale (who was condemned and burned at the stake), to name two, had given their very lives for just this, translating the Bible into English.

Ed

 

Did you bother to read the post just before this statement was made?
Something to the effect of a "Cotton Patch Bible."
Therefore the "such drivel" I was referring to was/is the Cotton Patch Bible.

Of course I am not suggesting the work of many of the translators you mentioned are the work of confusion.

As for when It began I would say 1971 with The Living Bible.

 

Well that can be corrected with a little math then.

"I think it is safe to say the Church was kept in great care and comfort for hundreds of years after the Bible was first translated for the english speaking people in 1386, or thereabouts." :thumbs:

 

Amen - all the way to 2007!

 

So you would accept the ASV and RSV as "pre-confusion" valid translations?

 

Yes, I would.

 

Thanks for that. I would be interested to know how you chose 1971 as your standard for valid vs invalid English versions.

Are you happy with the RSV rendering of Isaiah 7v14 - "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Imman'u-el." -

compared to the KJV (and most other renderings) rendering of "almah" as "virgin" instead of "young woman"?