King James Only?

[scriptures]

I believe that a good version must be base on the oldest manuscripts available....They say we can reconstruct the whole Bible from these manuscript....

Right now, only the New American Bible, translated by Catholic scholars, has that claim.... I am using it more and compare it to "ISA"

 

[calluna]

I believe that a good version must be base on the oldest manuscripts available....They say we can reconstruct the whole Bible from these manuscript.

Who are 'they'?

 

[PrincetonGuy]

I believe that a good version must be base on the oldest manuscripts available....They say we can reconstruct the whole Bible from these manuscript....

Right now, only the New American Bible, translated by Catholic scholars, has that claim.... I am using it more and compare it to "ISA"

The NAB, in none of its editions, makes that claim; neither does any other translation of the Bible. Please verify your ‘facts’ before posting them.

The New Testament portion of the first edition of the New American Bible is translated primarily from the twenty-fifth edition, 1963, of the Nestle-Aland text. The Greek New Testament edited by Aland et al. for the United Bible Societies, 1966, was also used. Departures from these texts, however, are frequent.

The revised New Testament portion of the New American Bible is translated primarily from the third edition, 1975, of the United Bible Societies Greek text. The twenty-sixth edition, 1979, of the Nestle-Aland text was also consulted. This is just the reverse from the text of the first edition. Another change, much more significant, is that this revised edition of the New American Bible follows the United Bible Societies text much closer than the first edition followed the Nestle-Aland text.

None of these Greek texts are based primarily upon the oldest manuscripts available, but upon the data from a large number of manuscripts, some of which are much less old than others.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

The NAB, in none of its editions, makes that claim; neither does any other translation of the Bible. Please verify your ‘facts’ before posting them.

The site for that version can be seen here. I still compare all versions to the 3 main Greek texts. From what I see here, it doesn't appear to follow the that well.

http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/prefaceold.htm

http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/#matthew

[NAB] 2 Peter 1:3 His divine power has bestowed on us everything that makes for life and devotion, through the knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and power.

http://www.olivetree.com/cgi-bin/EnglishBible.htm
Greek texts from here

(tr) NT) 2 Peter 1:3 wV <5613> {SO-AS} panta <3956> {ALL} hmin <2254> {TO US] thV <3588> {THE} qeiaV <2304> {DIVINE} dunamewV <1411> {POWER} autou <846> {OF HIM} ta <3588> {THE/P} proV <4314> {TOWARD} zwhn <2222> {LIFE} kai <2532> {AND} eusebeian <2150> {DEVOUTNESS} dedwrhmenhV <1433> (5772) {GIVEN-GRATUIOSLY} dia <1223> {THROUGH} thV <3588> {THE} epignwsewV <1922> {KNOWLEDGE/RECOGNITION} tou <3588> {OF THE} kalesantoV <2564> (5660) {ONE CALLING} hmaV <2248> {US} dia <1223> {THROUGH} doxhV <1391> {GLORY} kai <2532> {AND} arethV <703> {VIRTUE,}

Byz./Maj.) 2 Peter 1:3 wV panta hmin thV qeiaV dunamewV autou ta proV zwhn kai eusebeian dedwrhmenhV dia thV epignwsewV tou kalesantoV hmaV dia doxhV kai arethV

W-H ) 2 Peter 1:3 wV panta hmin thV qeiaV dunamewV autou ta proV zwhn kai eusebeian dedwrhmenhV dia thV epignwsewV tou kalesantoV hmaV dia doxhV kai arethV

 

[scriptures]

Who are 'they'?

I got it from one of the sites... can't remember anymore.... I'll paste it once I located it....

 

[scriptures]

The NAB, in none of its editions, makes that claim; neither does any other translation of the Bible. Please verify your ‘facts’ before posting them.

The New Testament portion of the first edition of the New American Bible is translated primarily from the twenty-fifth edition, 1963, of the Nestle-Aland text. The Greek New Testament edited by Aland et al. for the United Bible Societies, 1966, was also used. Departures from these texts, however, are frequent.

The revised New Testament portion of the New American Bible is translated primarily from the third edition, 1975, of the United Bible Societies Greek text. The twenty-sixth edition, 1979, of the Nestle-Aland text was also consulted. This is just the reverse from the text of the first edition. Another change, much more significant, is that this revised edition of the New American Bible follows the United Bible Societies text much closer than the first edition followed the Nestle-Aland text.

None of these Greek texts are based primarily upon the oldest manuscripts available, but upon the data from a large number of manuscripts, some of which are much less old than others.

I have a hard copy of NAB and in the preface it says: " The text of the books contained in The New American Bible is a completely new translation throughout. From the original and the oldest available tests of the sacred books,.... "

A letter from Vatican was attached.... It was dated Sept. 18, 1970... Part of it said : " ...this new translation of the Scriptures from the original languages or from the oldest extant form in which the texts exist.."

As a christian... I have a progressive Bible study.... I don't stick to any religions creed...but continuous to learn from the scriptures....

I am not saying NAB is a perfect translation.... I always refer to the orignal languages.... ISA is very helpful for that purpose....

 

[scriptures]

LittleLambofJesus, can you point out exactly what you mean on 2Pet 1:3????

 

[scriptures]

Who are 'they'?

About the possibility of reconstructing the NT from the oldest available manuscript.... I got it here....

click here

 

[calluna]

About the possibility of reconstructing the NT from the oldest available manuscript.... I got it here....

click here

I can see no suggestion of such reconstruction there. I have never heard of that idea, and it does not seem very feasible, to me. Neither can I see anywhere any special claim for the NAB on any ground of this type, or on any other ground, for that matter.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I can see no suggestion of such reconstruction there. I have never heard of that idea, and it does not seem very feasible, to me. Neither can I see anywhere any special claim for the NAB on any ground of this type, or on any other ground, for that matter.

It is simple. Just go by the 3 main Greek texts [which can be seen at the OliveTree link] which is what I did when I spent about 5 months translating revelation then harmonizing it to the rest of the NT/NC then to the OT/OC.

http://www.olivetree.com/cgi-bin/EnglishBible.htm

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7164949&page=2
DO NOT WEEP!!!!! The Great City

Luke 19:41 And as He nears, beholding the City and He laments/eklausen <2799> (5656) on Her,

Reve 18:9 and shall be lamenting/klausontai <2799> (5695) and shall be wailing over Her

 

[PrincetonGuy]

I have a hard copy of NAB and in the preface it says: " The text of the books contained in The New American Bible is a completely new translation throughout. From the original and the oldest available tests of the sacred books,.... "

A letter from Vatican was attached.... It was dated Sept. 18, 1970... Part of it said : " ...this new translation of the Scriptures from the original languages or from the oldest extant form in which the texts exist.."

As a christian... I have a progressive Bible study.... I don't stick to any religions creed...but continuous to learn from the scriptures....

I am not saying NAB is a perfect translation.... I always refer to the orignal languages.... ISA is very helpful for that purpose....

It is very unfortunate that the preface in your copy of the NAB makes those statements because they are so broadly worded that they are factually incorrect.

The data that I posted came from the “Preface to the New American Bible, First Edition of the New Testament” and from the “Preface to the Revised Edition,” both of which are found in the Saint Joseph Edition of the New American Bible. Much more detailed information can be found in the following Preface to the New American Bible in which the same statements are made but clarified by much more accurate and precise statements:

http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/prefaceold.htm

 

[PrincetonGuy]

The “Preface to the New American Bible, First Edition of the New Testament” and the “Preface to the Revised Edition,” both of which are found in the hardcopy of the Saint Joseph Edition of the New American Bible, can be read online here,

http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/prefacenew.htm

http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/prefacerev.htm

 

[scriptures]

That preface was also included in my hardcopy.... By the way mine is locally printed.... here is the part of that preface which deserves some attention....

"Poorly attested readings do not occur in this translation. Doubtful readings of some merit appear within brackets; public readers may include such words or phrases, or omit them entirely without any damage to sense. Parentheses are used, as ordinarily in English, as a punctuation device. Material they enclose is in no sense textually doubtful. It is simply thought to be parenthetical in the intention of the biblical author, even though there is no such punctuation mark in Greek. The difficulty in dealing with quotation marks is well known. Since they do not appear in any form in the original text, wherever they occur here they constitute an editorial decision."

I find that portion very helpful in my reading and comparison to my ISA

 

[Rebirth In Flames]

I prefer to read a translation in today&#8217;s English that I&#8217;ll understand, instead of reading one where all of a sudden I feel like I&#8217;m Shakespeare on top of a castle sitting next to a fire burning &#8220;f.a. g.s.&#8221;, (as the KJV interprets fire wood as f. a.g.s... exhibit A: Christianforums made me type that word like that because it's considered a bad word now!!!). The words have changed meaning, sentence structure has changed, and who in the world talks to each other anymore in a KJV dialect? Give me a break! I want a translation that I&#8217;ll understand instead of having to pull out my outdated dictionary to look up what a word means every five seconds. There are plenty of literal and dynamic equivalents that are more accurate than the KJV, and a heck of a lot more readable! I have devotions to do, so give me a bible in today&#8217;s language so I can move forward! Shakespeare is dead.

 

[Mr. Timothy]

Anyone that says only one translation is right is fooling themselves and not worth my time.

Maybe all the HIV versions are fooling you! It's a shame that you can say on a public forum that other members of the family of God are not worth your time.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

(as the KJV interprets fire wood as f. a.g.s... exhibit A: Christianforums made me type that word like that because it's considered a bad word now!!!).
The words have changed meaning, sentence structure has changed, and who in the world talks to each other anymore in a KJV dialect?

Perhaps you should try the NKJV or RNKJV as they corrected about a 1000 mistranslated words in the archaic KJV. And also, the KJV/NKJV uses different greek text than the popular NASB, [which I feel is not that accurate either].

John 1:51 And He is saying to him "Amen, Amen I am saying to ye, *from *now ye shall be seeing the heaven having opened, and the messengers of the GOD, ascending and descending upon the Son of the Man.

http://www.olivetree.com/cgi-bin/EnglishBible.htm

NKJV) John 1:51 And He said to him, "Most assuredly, I say to you, hereafter you shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man."

NASB) John 1:51 And He said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, *** *** you will see the heavens opened and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man."

This concordance in fact uses the RNKJV as its source when looking up word/phrase search:

http://www.eliyah.com/lexicon.html

[RNKJV] John 1:51 And he saith unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Hereafter ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of

[Elohiym] ascending and descending upon the Son of man.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Maybe all the HIV versions are fooling you! It's a shame that you can say on a public forum that other members of the family of God are not worth your time.

The Hebrew and Greek Texts from which all English versions of the Bible since 1560 were translated do not lie. However, in order to defend the perfection and inerrancy of the King James Translation of the Bible it is very necessary to lie, and those who chose to lie rather than tell the truth are not worth anyone’s time. And the words of men and women who choose to believe lies rather than the truth, even when the truth has been made known to them, are not worth very much either.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by jawsmetroid Anyone that says only one translation is right is fooling themselves and not worth my time.

Gotta rep ya for that!!

I saw so many variances/differences in Bible version I just said the heck with it and just went right to the Greek and Hebrew.
Absoutely do not use 1 translation for Daniel 11!!!

http://www.awitness.org/lostmess/daniel.html

............As I have noticed while comparing translations of different verses in the Bible, even the most literal translations can suddenly depart from literalism, perhaps visit the Greek Septuagint and abandon the Hebrew translation for a single verse, whenever some highly cherished doctrine might be threatened by a truly literal translation. Rule of thumb : you should never, ever rely exclusively on one single translation.)...

........It turns out that there are certain things you can learn by not taking the Bible literally all the time, and this lesson is certainly one of them.

 

[darkshadow]

We should never say one version is the only one you should use. When you do your putting an unneeded yoke on your brother. Just as the Gospels were written for different reasons, but tell the same story, so are the translations. If you really want to know what the Scriptures say without someone else imputing themselves at all, read it in the original languages. (I have not learned them myself.)

 

[artybloke]

but the KJV is a translation of those texts I trust,

Errr... no it isn't. It's based mainly on a 12th century copy that is recognised by the vast majority of scholars to be full of errors (the Johannine Comma, the last twelve verses of Mark, and the story of the woman taken in adultery being only the most obvious insertions.)

Modern translations are based on the Westcott/Hort text of the 1890's that is based on the earliest manuscripts, in particular the Codex Sinaiticus (4th Century.)

Even the Codex Sinaiticus isn't perfect, of course, and has sometimes to be corrected from earlier citations in the writings of early church fathers like Ireneus and Clement, but it's a deal more accurate than the Erasmus text.

We don't have the original manuscripts, so whether they were perfect or not is a moot point. There are, incidently, over 200,000 textual variations throughout the manuscript collection of the NT alone. Most of these are transcription errors, spelling mistakes, etc., but some of them are "corrections" by later scribes to make them seem more theologically correct.

Most of these "coorections" don't survive into modern text, though I suspect a few do.