Which English edition of the Bible is the best?

Here's a quick question.

Is anybody on here qualified to say what the best translation is? I know I'm not, and I doubt anybody else is, frankly .

As a caveat, this thread is more about people's favorite translations than anything, and some ideas have more merit than others.

i believe we are very qualified to give our opinions and unless you know how much or what research someone else has been through i don't see what gives you the right to discredit their opinions.

That was all you could find??
I wonder why?
How would it change salvation in any way? Changing oxen to unicorn in no way equals changes made in other versions

Here is only a few of the reasons you don't choose a bible because "You like reading it"
This can be veiwed in more detail here
www.kjvgodsword.com


The Holy Bible(KJV)
There is no copyright you can't copyright something that does not belong to you.I know I know you say there is a copyright in my bible and it is a King James Version. Look close at the copyright and you will see that it is on study notes it is not on the scriptures. I could or you could take a Holy Bible The King James Version and quote it reproduce it reprint it for commercial purposes or not with out anyone's permission. How can we do this ? It is Gods words not mans
Ok enough preaching lets compare the Holy Bible KJV to "The Holy Bible, New International Version."
1
KJV
Mark:1:2: As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.
Mark:1:3: The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.
NIV
Mark:1:2:It is written in Isaiah the prophet:
"I will send my messenger ahead of you,who will prepare your way:
Mark:1:3:"a voice of one calling in the desert,prepare the way for the Lord,make straight paths for him.'"

Malachi:3:1 is quoted in vrs. 2 and Isaiah:40:3 is quoted in vrs 3 The KJV "Prophets" is right. The NIV "Prophet" is wrong.
2
KJV
Luke:2:33: And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him.
NIV
Luke:2:33:The child's father and mother marveled at what was said about him.

The only time the bible refers to Joseph as "father" the bible is quoting some one.The NIV changing Joseph to "father" they have again attacked the deity of Jesus christ
3
KJV
Isaiah:14:12-15:
How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! Isa:14:13: For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: Isa:14:14: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. Isa:14:15: Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.
NIV
Isaiah 14:12-15
12 How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations! 13 You said in your heart, "I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of God; I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly, on the utmost heights of the sacred mountain.[1] 14 I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High." 15 But you are brought down to the grave, to the depths of the pit.

The KJV is plain as to who is being talking about.Why would the NIV want to change "Lucifer" to "morning star"? Is morning star more descriptive? No. The NIV made Lucifer into Jesus. Jesus called Himself morning star. Why change hell to the grave? Question. Who changes "hell" to "grave"? Jehovah's Witnesses.
4
KJV
Daniel:3:25:
He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.
NIV
Daniel 3:25
He said, "Look! I see four men walking around in the fire, unbound and unharmed, and the fourth looks like a son of the gods."

They took a reference to Jesus Christ and made it into to one of other gods.

5
KJV
Colossians:1:14:
In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
NIV
Colossians 1:14
in whom we have redemption,[1] the forgiveness of sins.

Just take out the blood of Jesus Christ why don't you.
Take out the blood and what do you have
Hebrews:9:22:
And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

6
KJV
Acts:8:37:
And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
NIV
Acts 8:37
omitted

Removed a passage that gives you the requirement for baptism.Salvation by faith in Jesus Christ

7
KJV
John:3:16:
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
NIV
John 3:16
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[1] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

Sorry but Jesus is not the one and only son of God.He is the "only begotten Son"I am a son of God If you are saved you are a son of God there is more than one son of God but there is only one begotten Son,Jesus Christ.

8
KJV
Matthew:23:14:
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.
NIV
Matthew 23:14
omitted

Wonder why they would want to remove this vrs. Hits a little to close to home??
9
KJV
John:1:1,2
1- In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2- The same was in the beginning with God.
NIV
John 1:1,2
1- In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2- He was with God in the beginning.

With the KJV verse two is telling you is that you could take "Word", and "God", and change them around in the verse and still get the same meaning reaffirming the Deity of Christ. Verse one could read like this
= Note the following is only for example =
In the beginning was God, and God was with the Word, and God was the Word
With the NIV you loose that.

10
KJV
1Timothy 3:16
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness:
God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit,
seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on
in the world, received up into glory.


NIV
1 Timothy 3
16Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great: He[1] appeared in a body,[2] was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory.

One of the clearest passages on the Deity of Jesus Christ has been attacked The NIV takes out GOD Changes God to HE. The NIV reads "HE appeared in a body" He who!?!? Everyone has "appeared in a body". He is a pronoun that refers back to a noun, There is not a noun to refer back to. The NIV reading does NOT make sense. If it does to you that is only because you don't read the NIV or someone told you. Hint! Hint! that is what they want! They want you and I to go to them to tell us what the bible says. That is the job of the Holy Spirit.

12
KJV
Philippians 4:13
I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me.
NIV
Philippians 4:13
I can do everything through him who gives me strength.

In this vrs the NIV has taken Christ out and changed it to him. Him who? Him could mean anyone. In the Bible(KJV)it is plain who it is that strengtheneth it is CHRIST.

t3gah said:

All of that and they, the persons who translated the KJV version, got the Hebrew word re'em, which means oxen or cow mixed up with Unicorn, a mythical animal.

Numbers 23:22
God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn.

Numbers 24:8
God brought him forth out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn: he shall eat up the nations his enemies, and shall break their bones, and pierce [them] through with his arrows.

Deuteronomy 33:17
His glory [is like] the firstling of his bullock, and his horns [are like] the horns of unicorns: with them he shall push the people together to the ends of the earth: and they [are] the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they [are] the thousands of Manasseh.

Job 39:9
Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib?

Job 39:10
Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee?

Psalms 22:21
Save me from the lion's mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns.

Psalms 29:6
He maketh them also to skip like a calf; Lebanon and Sirion like a young unicorn.

Psalms 92:10
But my horn shalt thou exalt like [the horn of] an unicorn: I shall be anointed with fresh oil.

Isaiah 34:7
And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness.​

Click to expand...

Exzactly like I said... it really doesn't matter so choose a Bible to your liking.

NetDoc said:

As a noted humorist once remarked (and I can't think of his name), "It's not the things in the Bible that I don't understand that bother me, but the things that I do understand and don't do!".

I am thinking Will Rogers... but that's not quite right either. Maybe GK Chesterton.

Click to expand...

The first thing I will point out and holds true of all the new versions of the bible is that they are copyrighted. That means someone is claming authorship and ownership of the material .
I have a NIV in front of me right now the following is a direct quote.
"This copyrighted material may be quoted and/or reprinted for non-commercial purposes up to and inclusive of (50) verses without express written permission of the publisher, provided the following credit line appears with the material being quoted:
"Taken from the Holy Bible: New International Version & copy; 1978 by the New York International Bible Society, used by permission."
Quotations and/or reprints for commercial purposes or in excess of 50 verses, or other permission requests must be directed to, and approved in writing by the New York International Bible Society."
Ok that is great so if you or I want to quote the NIV we have to have permission if we want to reproduce the NIV we have to have permission. I have gone to Churches where the Preacher quoted more than 50 scriptures in his message if he was preaching from the NIV (according to the NIV) he would have to have WRITTEN permission, and if he is quoting less than 50 scriptures he is going to have to quote the little permission spill.
WHAT!! WHY!! it is "THE BIBLE" Gods words not mans OR is it!
The Holy Bible(KJV)
There is no copyright you can't copyright something that does not belong to you.I know I know you say there is a copyright in my bible and it is a King James Version. Look close at the copyright and you will see that it is on study notes it is not on the scriptures. I could or you could take a Holy Bible The King James Version and quote it reproduce it reprint it for commercial purposes or not with out anyone's permission. How can we do this ? It is Gods words not mans..
www.kjvgodsword.com

Show me a change in the KJV that affect the major doctrines of the bible,
I already put quite a few on an earlier post showing MAJOR changes in doctrine with the NIV.
And I don't care if some educated idiot said unicorn should be oxen, The bible
was completed with not one error in the doctrine it teaches.
God did not say go ahead and mess with my word.
11 Peter 1:20-21 says "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Hmm so God didn't inspire it?
Do you even know the meaning of the word?

3 of it's meanings could be used in this instance, the best one, (cause I'm tired of repeating myself when eyes are blinded by satan)
This meaning is

To affect, guide, or arouse by divine influence.

Now what did the 11 Peter 1:20-21 say???

11Corinthians 4:2 (Handling the word of God deceitfully) vs 3 (If our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost) vs 4 (In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds)

I'm not claiming to be a scholar, but anyone who has the Holy Spirit dwelling
inside of them can "Spiritually discern" and judge whether, or not all versions are the right one.
Proof? 1 Corinthians 2:14-15
God reveales to his children through? HOLY SPIRIT! Verses 10-12 same chapter.
Guess what else I found right across from 11Timothy 3:16? Which SAYS the scripture was given by INSPIRATION of God. (using that word)

11 Timothy 2:23 But foolish and unlearned questions avoid.........

Yo Bro... Go read I Corinthians 13. Charity=Love??? We just don't speak that language anymore. The good King is dead, long live the King.

Clearly, your lucid and insightful harangue on "copyright law" has been lost on me. You can repeat it 20 times and it's still just as meaningless. Like the KJV, the NIV is MERELY a translation. But it's at least a translation into a modern language, and more specifically one that I am somewhat conversant in. Protecting your intellectual property is as American as apple pie. I don't think you can't find scriptures against having a copyright! But hey, you can surprise me!

You see, I asked for SCRIPTURAL references that the KJV was the "inspired version", and like the empty arguments you so emphatically contest you have come up with squat. Zero. Nada. Zip.

While you are free to fill up the forum with your rantings, you would be far more convincing if you could provide ONE scripture to prove your point. Just one. Uno. Ein. Oдно. ένας.

So please, either you believe that you should ONLY believe in the Bible (including whether there is an inspired version or not) or you don't. Show me in the sriptures or stop talking out of both sides of your mouth.

With all the learned registered user at rf.com, they should make a new completely accurate translation for rf.com.

That would certainly solve matters.

NetDoc said:

Yo Bro... Go read I Corinthians 13. Charity=Love??? We just don't speak that language anymore. The good King is dead, long live the King.

Clearly, your lucid and insightful harangue on "copyright law" has been lost on me. You can repeat it 20 times and it's still just as meaningless. Like the KJV, the NIV is MERELY a translation. But it's at least a translation into a modern language, and more specifically one that I am somewhat conversant in. Protecting your intellectual property is as American as apple pie. I don't think you can't find scriptures against having a copyright! But hey, you can surprise me!

You see, I asked for SCRIPTURAL references that the KJV was the "inspired version", and like the empty arguments you so emphatically contest you have come up with squat. Zero. Nada. Zip.

While you are free to fill up the forum with your rantings, you would be far more convincing if you could provide ONE scripture to prove your point. Just one. Uno. Ein. Oдно. ένας.

So please, either you believe that you should ONLY believe in the Bible (including whether there is an inspired version or not) or you don't. Show me in the scriptures or stop talking out of both sides of your mouth.

Click to expand...

The King James Version I have that was printed in 1939 has this on the preface page

To the Mighty Prince James....

I think the UNICORN thing is enough to disqualify the KJV or Authorized version from being a real bible anyway.

I don't remember UNICORN being on the list of animals described in the bible. Which means in those days (medievel times) anything is ok for the translation because the Prince never read it. They also took Most High in Psalms 83:18 and changed it to most high with lower cased letters. Most likely so as not to offend his majesty the prince, james. They use the name for God, Jehovah, when that's some abomination of a Spanish Monk of the Dominican Order of Catholics. Jehovah is supposed to be like Yahweh, yet "Jehovah" has one extra vowel when the original Hebrew text has no vowels to begin with. Which means, Yahweh aint right either. Then there's the whole "I AM THAT I AM" bit that's been made infamous because of the movie with Charlton Heston, The Ten Commandments. Nice going all the way around.

The KJV is by far the most beautiful of them, but not the most accurate. It all depends in what you're looking for, I guess. Me, I'll stick with the original Hebrew

dhiannian said:

There is no copyright you can't copyright something that does not belong to you.

Click to expand...

WHAT IS COPYRIGHT?



Copyright is a form of protection provided by the laws of the United States (title 17, U.S. Code) to the authors of “original works of authorship,” including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, and certain other intellectual works. This protection is available to both published and unpublished works. Section 106 of the 1976 Copyright Act generally gives the owner of copyright the exclusive right to do and to authorize others to do the following:

• To reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords;
  
• To prepare derivative works based upon the work;
  
• To distribute copies or phonorecords of the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
  
• To perform the work publicly, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works;
  
• To display the copyrighted work publicly, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work; and
  
• In the case of sound recordings, to perform the work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.
  

In addition, certain authors of works of visual art have the rights of attribution and integrity as described in section 106A of the 1976 Copyright Act. For further information, request Circular 40, “Copyright Registration for Works of the Visual Arts.”

HelpMe said:

i believe we are very qualified to give our opinions and unless you know how much or what research someone else has been through i don't see what gives you the right to discredit their opinions.

Click to expand...

I didn't discredit your opinion on what translation you liked the most. I discredited the opinions of most people (including mine) on which Bible is the best. Unless we have critically reviewed every Bible and have the requisite knowledge to evaluate it, then we are not competent to make a judgement.

The skills needed:

1). Avanced knowledge of Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic.

I qualify for only one, thus discrediting my opinion on most Bibles automatically...unless their Old Testament is from the LXX. From what I've read of your posts, I don't think you qualify here, because I've read our exchanges. If you claim competence in these languages, I can very easily organize a test to check.

2). Have a firm grasp of textual criticism.

This requires a firm grasp of textual criticism's principles, various theories, and the manuscript evidence. I'm willing to wager that I know a good deal more than most people on the board about this, but again, my knowledge is not sufficient. I haven't had the proper tools, and I certainly don't have access to manuscripts.

So, to test your competence in this area, I'm going to ask a question about NT criticism. In John 3.13, there are a variety of readings, all centering around the phrase "o wn en tw ouranw." Which readin do you prefer. Why? I don't want doctrinal reasons, simply the listing of textual variants, principles of textual criticism, textual evidence, and the theory on the development of the text. All that you require is a good Greek New Testament with a critical apparatus.

3). You must have knowledge of historic linguistics.

Some variations occur because of changes in the language. You must have a firm grasp of the linguistic situation in these cases. I don't need to test this, because I doubt you know the languages well enough to begin this study.

4). You must have familiarity with almost all the Bibles to make a "best" judgement. I haven't even approached that, and I doubt anyone on here has read 200+ Bibles to do it either.

These are just four points I feel that we are wanting in that we need to be adept in order to say which is the "best" translation. I feel I am. I feel you are. If you cannot meet these standards, then you aren't competent to make the call.

dhiannian said:

The first thing I will point out and holds true of all the new versions of the bible is that they are copyrighted. That means someone is claming authorship and ownership of the material .
I have a NIV in front of me right now the following is a direct quote.
"This copyrighted material may be quoted and/or reprinted for non-commercial purposes up to and inclusive of (50) verses without express written permission of the publisher, provided the following credit line appears with the material being quoted:
"Taken from the Holy Bible: New International Version & copy; 1978 by the New York International Bible Society, used by permission."
Quotations and/or reprints for commercial purposes or in excess of 50 verses, or other permission requests must be directed to, and approved in writing by the New York International Bible Society."
Ok that is great so if you or I want to quote the NIV we have to have permission if we want to reproduce the NIV we have to have permission. I have gone to Churches where the Preacher quoted more than 50 scriptures in his message if he was preaching from the NIV (according to the NIV) he would have to have WRITTEN permission, and if he is quoting less than 50 scriptures he is going to have to quote the little permission spill.
WHAT!! WHY!! it is "THE BIBLE" Gods words not mans OR is it!
The Holy Bible(KJV)

Click to expand...

Actually, it simply means the government recognizes it as their translation and will enforce copyright on the issue. All translations are part interpretation (the KJV is no different). As such, the government decided they had enough originality that they would strong-arm people to abide by the license the publishers laid down.

A second thing to consider, is that the KJV was once property of the state. This is why many early groups refused it and went for the Geneva Bible. You'll find that particularly true of groups who fled to the Americas. Given that, your argument cuts against the KJV just as sharply.

dhiannian said:

There is no copyright you can't copyright something that does not belong to you.I know I know you say there is a copyright in my bible and it is a King James Version. Look close at the copyright and you will see that it is on study notes it is not on the scriptures. I could or you could take a Holy Bible The King James Version and quote it reproduce it reprint it for commercial purposes or not with out anyone's permission. How can we do this ? It is Gods words not mans..
www.kjvgodsword.com

Click to expand...

You can copyright something you don't own. It has happened frequently even by the commonly accepted understanding. I'm pretty far on the left here, though. I don't think you can own an idea, so I think all copyright is an artificial ownership of something you can't own.

dhinnian said:

Show me a change in the KJV that affect the major doctrines of the bible,
I already put quite a few on an earlier post showing MAJOR changes in doctrine with the NIV.
And I don't care if some educated idiot said unicorn should be oxen, The bible
was completed with not one error in the doctrine it teaches.
God did not say go ahead and mess with my word.

Click to expand...

Now, there are a couple of things to consider here. First, you have to realize that the definition of "major doctrine" is a pretty circular one. Who determines a major doctrine? The speaker does, and the Bible is simply used to prooftext. It makes no list of doctrines to classify them as major/minor doctrines.

It is also true that no doctrine you would consider "major" is eliminated from the modern translations...unless you believe that "unicorns" are a major doctrine. As such, why even make the argument? It cuts for modern versions just as easily.

An example of changes in a "major doctrine" in my opinion are traditions the KJV started. First, it systematically eliminated the energy words of the New Testament. This, naturally, was due to the poverty of the English language, but we can express them now, and they are still omitted simply on account of that tradition. While people really don't care about "unicorns," they would care about changes of "work" to "energize." As a result, this doctrine is completely omitted.

Another is simply a slant on terminology. It systematically translates aphiimi as "forgive," but my Church treats it more as "remit," and it treats dikaioo as "justify," when "made righteous" is just as valid, and frankly, more literal. This slant is a legalistic one, and it changes the interpretation of the whole NT.

So, yes, the KJV does affect major doctrines. The first example I gave is a change. The second is a bias in translation.

dhiannian said:

11 Peter 1:20-21 says "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Hmm so God didn't inspire it?
Do you even know the meaning of the word?

3 of it's meanings could be used in this instance, the best one, (cause I'm tired of repeating myself when eyes are blinded by satan)
This meaning is

To affect, guide, or arouse by divine influence.

Now what did the 11 Peter 1:20-21 say???

11Corinthians 4:2 (Handling the word of God deceitfully) vs 3 (If our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost) vs 4 (In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds)

Click to expand...

Peter used the origins of Scripture to forbid private interpretation of Scripture. Scripture is inspired of God and good for the Christian, so we must certainly not interpret it independantly, as the people 2 Peter was writing from. I doubt that's the interpretation you'd want, but that's what I and my Church see.

dhiannian said:

I'm not claiming to be a scholar, but anyone who has the Holy Spirit dwelling
inside of them can "Spiritually discern" and judge whether, or not all versions are the right one.
Proof? 1 Corinthians 2:14-15
God reveales to his children through? HOLY SPIRIT! Verses 10-12 same chapter.
Guess what else I found right across from 11Timothy 3:16? Which SAYS the scripture was given by INSPIRATION of God. (using that word)

11 Timothy 2:23 But foolish and unlearned questions avoid.........

Click to expand...

Many people in this very thread claim their views were guided by the Spirit. Why are you so certain that your interpretation is right, when everybody else is just as certain. My answer is that I have confidence in Christ's promise to guide the Church. I don't think you can appeal to that, though.

No*s said:

1). Avanced knowledge of Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic.

From what I've read of your posts, I don't think you qualify here, because I've read our exchanges. If you claim competence in these languages, I can very easily organize a test to check.

Click to expand...

1-you already know i don't believe in greek primacy, right?
2-shoot.not that i'll respond immediately, as you may of noticed my posts have dwindled of late.and if you'd payed attention, which apparently you haven't(more in a second), you wouldn't repeatedly ask me about the greek text.

No*s said:

In John 3.13, there are a variety of readings, all centering around the phrase "o wn en tw ouranw." Which readin do you prefer. Why? I don't want doctrinal reasons, simply the listing of textual variants, principles of textual criticism, textual evidence, and the theory on the development of the text. All that you require is a good Greek New Testament with a critical apparatus.

Click to expand...

you've surely seen my personal opinion regarding greek text.so with me, why persist?

if you think i'm going to explain why i prefer which translation of each verse, you've surely lost your mind or totally mistaken me for someone with either different beliefs from me or with too much time.

And no one has gone up into the heaven except He who came down from the heaven – the Son of Adam.-the scriptures
http://www.eliyah.com/thescriptures/
which is "similar to the bible in basic english"
http://www.greeknewtestament.com/B43C003.htm

No*s said:

I don't need to test this, because I doubt you know the languages well enough to begin this study.

Click to expand...

and i wouldn't need to answer as i'm sincerely disinterested in your unnecessarily overly judgemental approach to this matter.

and before anyone says "you're one to speak" i'll just say "i am".

No*s said:

4). You must have familiarity with almost all the Bibles to make a "best" judgement. I haven't even approached that, and I doubt anyone on here has read 200+ Bibles to do it either.

Click to expand...

i honestly disagree.

NetDoc said:

Yo Bro... Go read I Corinthians 13. Charity=Love??? We just don't speak that language anymore.

Click to expand...

NetDoc,

I like the words:



Know and knew pertain to having relations with someone. Knew means you already did and know means that you plan to. The KJV has made the world so confused being the largest printed book ever.


Or how about these terms?



But, I must add that this thread is about peoples preferences, favorite bible. IF they like the KJV then they like it. I like it because it's a bible. A neat one with all sorts of quirky issues. I would like an original Tyndal, that would be a nice addition to my collection of translations. Also it's nice to have one because so many other people already have a KJV if you want to converse with people about scriptures.


I think it's kind of fun trying to figure out what the meanings are, research and all. As a mainstay bible for the newly converted and such I believe it to be a bad choice due to the learning curve of both God's people way of thinking and another language such as Early/Old English hampering that learning curve even farther.

HelpMe said:

1-you already know i don't believe in greek primacy, right?

Click to expand...

I'm well aware of that. However, you're aware that most of the NT was written in Greek, right? So, knowledge of the Greek language is a requirement. Unless, of course, you can overturn the consensus of 2000 years of teaching and the near-universal consensus of scholarship, most of the NT was written in Greek, and it is quite possible that all of it was. Unless your word, and that of the Pe****ta guys, outweigh this testimony, Greek will remain a requirement as far as I'm concerned, and likely, for nearly everyone on this board.

It is also quite foolish on account of the LXX. It represents a different text-line than the MT in a number of cases. If you can't read Greek, you can't deal with one of the most important witnesses to the Old Testament.

HelpMe said:

2-shoot.not that i'll respond immediately, as you may of noticed my posts have dwindled of late.and if you'd payed attention, which apparently you haven't(more in a second), you wouldn't repeatedly ask me about the greek text.

Click to expand...

I can, and I will, ask about Greek. It is directly applicable to the subject at hand.

Translate the first paragraph of St. Ignatius' epistle to the Magnesians into Aramaic. I will forward it to a friend, who I know has studied Aramaic at the seminary level so that he can reveiw it, since I don't read Aramaic. Naturally, that takes a while as well.

I know you won't even try to fulfill this, but it's up in the air anyway. Translate the preceding sentance and this one into Hellenistic Greek.

HelpMe said:

you've surely seen my personal opinion regarding greek text.so with me, why persist?

Click to expand...

Frankly, because Greek is relevant. Your opinions don't lesson Greek's importance in this matter.

HelpMe said:

if you think i'm going to explain why i prefer which translation of each verse, you've surely lost your mind or totally mistaken me for someone with either different beliefs from me or with too much time.

Click to expand...

Nope. I don't really care about each verse. I asked about one verse. Why dodge it? It's a pretty easy question.

HelpMe said:

And no one has gone up into the heaven except He who came down from the heaven – the Son of Adam.-the scriptures
http://www.eliyah.com/thescriptures/
which is "similar to the bible in basic english"
http://www.greeknewtestament.com/B43C003.htm

Click to expand...

Actually, I asked about textual principles, an evaluation of the variants, and the reasons why you choose one. You gave me a webpage. It doesn't take too terribly much thought to put together a response to that question. It's just one verse and one phrase. If you can't do it, just say so.

HelpMe said:

and i wouldn't need to answer as i'm sincerely disinterested in your unnecessarily overly judgemental approach to this matter.

Click to expand...

It is not judgemental to question whether a person is qualified in a matter upon which he is speaking. I made no statements about your character, so please, don't start on mine. I made an assertion about what I suppose your qualifications are. If it isn't true, then simply answer a question:

What was it that Hebrew first gained in order to denote vowel sounds? That should be an easy one if you are really skilled in historical linguistics. Even I know that, and my Hebrew studies are nowhere near up to snuff.

HelpMe said:

i honestly disagree.

Click to expand...

That's just fine. But...how do you judge the "Best" if you aren't familiar with all the contenders...or anywhere near it. That takes time, and as you asserted, you don't have it. You may hold a Bible up to be the best, and even if you had done the work for the languages, then any of dozens of Bibles could be better.

I also neglected to mention...there's also fudge room in translation theory. What theory do you hold?

No*s said:

I'm well aware of that. However, you're aware that most of the NT was written in Greek, right? So, knowledge of the Greek language is a requirement.

Click to expand...

you could say all of it was written in greek depending on which ancient manuscripts you use as evidence, so no.

No*s said:

Unless, of course, you can overturn the consensus of 2000 years of teaching and the near-universal consensus of scholarship, most of the NT was written in Greek, and it is quite possible that all of it was.

Click to expand...

if the majority appeals to you for it's being the majority, then so be it.

No*s said:

Unless your word, and that of the Pe****ta guys, outweigh this testimony, Greek will remain a requirement as far as I'm concerned, and likely, for nearly everyone on this board.

Click to expand...

the most important person was left out.

No*s said:

I can, and I will, ask about Greek. It is directly applicable to the subject at hand.

Click to expand...

so is latin.

No*s said:

Translate the first paragraph of St. Ignatius' epistle to the Magnesians into Aramaic.

Click to expand...

more with the early church fathers?not gonna happen.

No*s said:

Translate the preceding sentance and this one into Hellenistic Greek.

Click to expand...

more greek?not gonna happen.

No*s said:

Frankly, because Greek is relevant. Your opinions don't lesson Greek's importance in this matter.

Click to expand...

and your opinions don't validate it.

No*s said:

It's just one verse and one phrase. If you can't do it, just say so.

Click to expand...

yes, it's just one verse for now.

HelpMe said:

if you think i'm going to explain why i prefer which translation of each verse, you've surely lost your mind or totally mistaken me for someone with either different beliefs from me or with too much time.

Click to expand...

No*s said:

What was it that Hebrew first gained in order to denote vowel sounds?

Click to expand...

oral tradition.niqqudim.

No*s said:

That's just fine. But...how do you judge the "Best" if you aren't familiar with all the contenders...

Click to expand...

start by eliminating what you deem unworthy of much more time, for me i need some sort of true name version, you can imagine how diminished that list is now can't you?

I believe my point has been made now for anybody reading.

No*s said:

I believe my point has been made now for anybody reading.

Click to expand...

An example of brillianly performing a wholly unnecessary task.

Thanks Deut. .

priceless.