Why The Need?

I agree and I'm a Tyndale's translation reader, too! (That's what you meant, isn't it?)

 

Yes, you do. And other BB members have the right to expect threads to be kept on topic. For once, instead of promoting your own agenda, why don't you respect the right of others to have a civil discussion without it being hijacked to a divisive KJVO argument?

No, you certainly didn't mention the term KJVO. But you DID say...

If you're not promoting the KJVO myth, then what "one version" are you referring to? There's a strike against your own credibility, Sal.

You flatter yourself, Sal. I certainly DON'T haved a fetish about you. This false accusation is yet another strike against your credibility.

1. No, I certainly don't believe you have any magical or spiritual powers, Sal.
2. No, I certainly don't give you axcessive atention or reverence.
3. NO WAY!
4. No, I don't have an obsessive preoccupation or attachment for you.

My, my, my, Sal. Such a personal attack because I mentioned you were apparently trying to hijack the thread. Your "one version" comments, based on your track record, could only be taken by any reasonably intelligent person as a plug for the KJVO position. You really don't deal with truth or opposition to your position very well, do you, Sal? There's another strike against your own credibility.

Your meaning isn't very well articulated here, Sal. Are you intimating that I try to turn every thread into a KJVO thread? If that's what you're saying, then your accusation is absolutely false and has no basis whatsoever. There's another strike against your own credibility. You do more to damage your own credibility than anyone else ever does.

When God's word is attacked by those who hold the errant "one version" or KJVO position, I defend the word against such attacks. I have always defended God's word against KJVO attacks, and I have no intention of stopping now.

 

According to Ken Connelly in his The Indestructible Book before Wycliffe there were 40 Old & Middle English translations (mostly of the Psalms), and another 26 translations after (including Wycliffe's and its revisions). Connelly claims another 212 editions of the Bible (complete or in part) from 1525 to 1611. Then (p.181) --

Between the publication of the KJV in 1611 and the ASV in 1901, there were no less than 522 attempts by translators, revisors, or editors to discover the exact meaning of the original text of the Bible and express it pricisely in current English. ​

I believe that adds up to 800 English translations in one form or another before 1901 (with none included from the most recent 108 years). How many of those caused harm? I don't think the facts of history support your opinion.

 

I think the problem is more attitude about versions than how many versions we have available.

I benefit from all that I have read.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Amen, Bro. Jim! Preach it!

 

I find that interesting. We normally have 3-4 different translations at our Sunday night Bible study and never had any confusion.

 

If anything, the written word in many translations enhances our Bible Study.. a lot of times, I just project e-sword onto the wall, and dive in. If there is a question about a verse, I click on "compare" and all of my 39 versions of that verse is on the wall.. we read through them and get a real sense of what God was fully saying. I have everything from NASB and ESV on the most literal Word for Word end to The Message on the loose paraphrase end.

Try it sometime...

Hello there (tiny doing a Billy Mays impersonation)
TinyTim here... And I want to share with you something that revolutionized the way I did Bible Study...

e-sword!
www.e-sword.net

e-sword is a computer program that has many versions of the Bible, many commentaries, and dictionaries... plus many extras...

Now, what would you expect to pay for all of these valuable resources...
$500?,
$299.50?
$99?

Well for an unlimited time, get this, you don't have to pay!!!
That's right, it is .....


KABOOOM FREE!
But you have to click now..

And by doing so, you not only get one KJV.. you get the KJV 1611 FREE!
That's right, FREE. along with many commentaries, dictionaries, and extras... like 2000 sermon illustrations...

What could be better?... OH yeah, THEY ARE FREE!!!

Now back to our program !

 

How does that differ from 'To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.'?

 

This is where the leader comes in and should explain the differences...Confusion should be displaced.

Cheers,

Jim

 

I see these things as great teaching opportunities. I like different versions being in Bible study.

 

I generally agree - there are plenty of English versions - lets get busy reaching the rest of the world.

 

B4L... a confusion arose in our association one time because of ignorance to the way the word has been translated.. . Some churches wanted to make other churches KJVO..

So the leadership of the association offered a "history of the Bible" class in which the instructor was well versed in the way the Bible has been handed down to us. He started at the beginning, explained the process of translation... etc.

In the end.. NO KJVO showed up to the class.. they didn't want to "study to show themselves approved"... they took the easy way out... Willing Ignorance.

IF you congregation is ignorant to the fact of how versions are made, and it sounds like they are since they are questioning that verses are missing... (BTW... look at the bottom of the page.. it is there.. just honest), then it may be tiime for an education on how the Bible is translated.

Educating people is hard.. it will not be easy.. it is much easier to take the one version only route..

But that is not historical truth...

And you don't want to be accused of lying to your brothers and sisters when you stand before God just because it was the easy way out...

Encourage learning.. and when you do, the confusion will go!

God is not the author of confusion.. people who are willingly ignorant are.

 

We also agree on the superiority of the Byzantine text body and the importance of formal equivalence in translation work.

 

What did you hope to accomplish? Did you have a practical solution to rid the world of several hundred published English Bible texts?

Certainly you are welcome to your opinion. Again in a practical sense, how would the 'unneeded' Bibles be selected? And how many? Why not three, or five? Who can be trusted to take away our Bibles? What if the first one to be eliminated was to be the KJV?

Rather than the four you have identified, why not Matthew's, Coverdales's, Great, and Geneva (chronologically some of the earliest complete English Bibles translated mostly from the original languages)? What would be the objective criteria?

Interestingly, two translations you have choosen (NIV & NASB) are based upon a different Greek text (than KJV, NKJV) and would continue to perpetuate the "confusion" problem you seem to experience now with "missing" verses between versions (you said so yourself above about the NIV). The fact is, your choices aren't even a logical solution to your own problem.