Bible versions

[nasa1]

I would like to ask: do you believe that there is only one specific Bible version that is truly God's Word?

My son and I were talking about Bibles and he said that different Bibles say different things sometimes. I also know that sometimes certain groups create their own Bibles - there is a universalist Bible coming out soon, and there is a gender-free Bible, etc. I have also seen these teen-age Bibles that look like magazines that are just a total abomination IMO.

I really like the Young's Literal Translation. I know that some people say the King James is the only true Word of God, but I don't really see how that can be, seeing as how it used to contain the Apocrypha.

nasa

 

[Epiphoskei]

I like the King James, but it hardly qualifies as even being "English" anymore. I have mixed feelings on the YLT. It only does half the work of translation for you, and when I have to correct someone who has gotten the wrong impression from it, they often take offense, as if I'm contradicting the very word of God, since it's got the word "literal" in it and thus can't be wrong, or so the argument goes.

I really don't go for the notion that there can be only one translation per language which is truely God's word. Since the beginning there have always been numerous, numerous translations in every language, particularly beginning around the reformation with the advent of printing, and no one started objecting until quite recently.

 

[wnwall]

The original writings in the original languages were inspired by God but the copies of the originals and the translations are not inerrant.

 

[Canuckmom]

I think the Authorized Version is the best English Bible we have today, though only the origional Hebrew and Greek were inspired. I love it's majesty of language. The modern versions read like a newspaper. With a little effort the old English can be mastered - my mother tongue wasn't English. My main objection to the modern translations is that they are based on Westcott & Hort. If you investigate modern versions you can see where parts of the Scripture are left out, and often the deity of Christ is attacked.

 

[Epiphoskei]

No Bibles, to my knowledge, are based on Wescott-hort; they're all based on the critical text (all the texts viewed together through the science of textual criticism).

The deity of Christ also isn't being attacked, it simply just wasn't probably affirmed everywhere in all the first manuscripts. Very few people, and no experts, actually believe those statement were deliberatly taken out. The Bible affirms the deity of Christ plenty, but the things in the KJV which aren't in modern translations are omitted because the new testament authors didn't write them.

 

[cygnusx1]

KJV , all the rest seem watered down even 'Arminian' in some places after it.

 

[xapis]

I use the ESV...

http://www.esv.org/translation/philosophy
http://www.esv.org/translation/team
http://www.esv.org/translation/manuscripts
http://www.esv.org/translation/kjv

 

[nasa1]

Thanks to everyone who replied,

I wish the New Testament had been preserved as well as the Old Testament had been. I feel very secure in the accuracy of the OT.


I have an ESV, a NASB, a KJ and a parallel Bible with the RSV, the Message Bible, the New Living Translation (which is a paraphrase) and the KJ. I find that I like NASB, ESV, and KJ.


Sometimes I will read old school Christian material and it will have a quote from the 1611 KJ Bible, from the apocrypha. I find it strange that the apocrypha was called God's Word, and now it is not.

NASA

 

[Librarian]

I use the ESV...

The ESV unfortunately follows the Critical Text. The TBS have a good article on it.

 

[Epiphoskei]

The ESV unfortunately follows the Critical Text. The TBS have a good article on it.

You do realize there's no such thing as "the critical text," right? I have a "critical text" myself, and it isn't strictly speaking one text. Every time there is textual disagreement, it simply tells you what seperate manuscripts read. Then translators consider what is the most likely variant for themselves. The fact that they all end up with similar sounding texts which all disagree with the KJV in the same places goes to show that it's pretty obvious why the manuscripts the KJV was written from don't count for much today.

 

[Librarian]

The fact that they all end up with similar sounding texts which all disagree with the KJV in the same places goes to show that it's pretty obvious why the manuscripts the KJV was written from don't count for much today.

That they differ with the Received Text proves nothing other than that they differ with the Received Text. You are making a huge leap of logic unwarranted from MSS evidence.

 

[OldChurchGuy]

I would like to ask: do you believe that there is only one specific Bible version that is truly God's Word?

My son and I were talking about Bibles and he said that different Bibles say different things sometimes. I also know that sometimes certain groups create their own Bibles - there is a universalist Bible coming out soon, and there is a gender-free Bible, etc. I have also seen these teen-age Bibles that look like magazines that are just a total abomination IMO.

I really like the Young's Literal Translation. I know that some people say the King James is the only true Word of God, but I don't really see how that can be, seeing as how it used to contain the Apocrypha.

nasa

Since we do not have the original copy of any Old Testament or New Testament writings, it seems to me all translations are up for grabs.

For me, I think an NIV Study Bible is tops. This is because the NIV Study Bible has footnotes showing alternative manuscript readings. For example, while it translates the number of the Beast at the end of Revelation 13 as "666", there is a footnote explaining some of the earliest manuscripts have the number as "616". Any translation that is confident enough to show alternate manuscript writings is worth it to me.

As always,

OldChurchGuy

 

[Epiphoskei]

That they differ with the Received Text proves nothing other than that they differ with the Received Text. You are making a huge leap of logic unwarranted from MSS evidence.

I'm not making a specific argument from manuscript evidence, I'm pointing out that the vast majority of experts, when presented with the same manuscript evidence, all tend to come up with the same decisions about what the text really said.

 

[BigNorsk]

Since we do not have the original copy of any Old Testament or New Testament writings, it seems to me all translations are up for grabs.

For me, I think an NIV Study Bible is tops. This is because the NIV Study Bible has footnotes showing alternative manuscript readings. For example, while it translates the number of the Beast at the end of Revelation 13 as "666", there is a footnote explaining some of the earliest manuscripts have the number as "616". Any translation that is confident enough to show alternate manuscript writings is worth it to me.

As always,

OldChurchGuy

If you like that, take a look at the NET, there are more than 60000 footnotes in the bible. It gives you a unique insight into the translator's thought and knowledge.

http://www.bible.org/netbible/index.htm is the online version with complete footnotes.

http://net.bible.org/home.php as a part of the NExT bible learning environment. Which includes things like Strongs, dictionaries and an interlinear.

Marv