Kings James Version why the best ?

[ebia]

I meant that the term "infallible" is not used. Yes, fine, it is not, your right. However, all the characteristics of infallibility were ascribed to the Vulgate at Trent. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck...well...

'fraud not.

You have to read between the lines when looking at a document from the Romanists. They like to say certain things without actually saying those things.

You have to read things the way the RCC reads them. And more importantly, look at how the RCC acts. The simple matter is that the Vulgate is not taken to be infallible.

If your saying that a version is free from all doctrinal and moral error,
which popes as recent as Pius XII said, your essentially saying it's infallible, even if that specific term is not used.

In actual fact Pius XII is one of the popes who wrote on its limitations.

A whole mass of catholic books carry an nihil obstat and imprimiture - that certainly doesn't imply infallibility. That's not what such declarations are about.

Of course the Council of Trent is infallible in the RCC, so by extension all it's documents are infallible.

That doesn't follow. That's not how councils are understood.

The Nova Vulgata has not been canonized by any recent council (it was created after the most recent one, Vatican II),

And it won't be. But recognising the need to produce it necessarily implies recognition of the limitations of its predecessor.

 

[Michaelrh1325]

I figured this was as good a place as any to ask a question about the KJV.

After finding out that the KJV was actually revised several times, I started doing some research. I found out that we use the 1769 version. The more I dug, I found out that we use the 1769 version...mostly. The Oxford and Cambridge editions are slightly different here and there.

After using these sites: Waite's Three Errors in the Oxford KJV Edition by Rick Norris and http://www.kjv-only.com/rick/1769.html I found out that my KJV matches some of both of the Oxford and Cambridge KJV's. It isn't purely Oxford or purely Cambridge. Is there such a thing as a hybrid, or do people just not have a clue what they're talking about?

My KJV is this: Zondervan - King James Version Thinline Bible - 9780310411246
It doesn't say whether it's Oxford or Cambridge

 

[bach90]

'fraud not.


You have to read things the way the RCC reads them. And more importantly, look at how the RCC acts. The simple matter is that the Vulgate is not taken to be infallible.


In actual fact Pius XII is one of the popes who wrote on its limitations.

A whole mass of catholic books carry an nihil obstat and imprimiture - that certainly doesn't imply infallibility. That's not what such declarations are about.


That doesn't follow. That's not how councils are understood.


And it won't be. But recognising the need to produce it necessarily implies recognition of the limitations of its predecessor.

Divine Afflante Spiritu - Pius XII - 1943
And if the Tridentine Synod wished "that all should use as authentic" the Vulgate Latin version, this, as all know, applies only to the Latin Church and to the public use of the same Scriptures; nor does it, doubtless, in any way diminish the authority and value of the original texts. For there was no question then of these texts, but of the Latin versions, which were in circulation at that time, and of these the same Council rightly declared to be preferable that which "had been approved by its long-continued use for so many centuries in the Church." Hence this special authority or as they say, authenticity of the Vulgate was not affirmed by the Council particularly for critical reasons, but rather because of its legitimate use in the Churches throughout so many centuries; by which use indeed the same is shown, in the sense in which the Church has understood and understands it, to be free from any error whatsoever in matters of faith and morals; so that, as the Church herself testifies and affirms, it may be quoted safely and without fear of error in disputations, in lectures and in preaching; and so its authenticity is not specified primarily as critical, but rather as juridical.

If I read it the way Rome wants, they want to have their cake and eat it. Yes the Vulgate is not infallible as a critical edition, but it is infallible as a juridical edition. Who on earth talks like that? So according to Rome their Vulgate is free from all error...but it needs revising. Brilliant. I know how Rome works, very well. I used to be RC.

The New Vulgate is not meant to override the doctrinal issues in the Clementine, but only the critical (textual) issues. It's very difficult to change one without affecting the other...particularly in the Genesis example I used. If Gen 3:15 doesn't read "she shall bruise your heel", one of the arguments for Mary's sinlessness is thrown right out the window. I'm not saying that they hold it to be a critically infallible edition (like the J-dubs and the Mormons do), just doctrinally. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of saying something is free from error, except for its' text. To me, that's absurd. It's actually even more ridiculous when Pius XII says how it is infallible in the Western rite but not the Eastern rites. So basically the Vulgate is infallible until your flight lands in Athens (along with the value of your Euro but I won't get into that here).

Yes, a whole lot of books carry a nihil obstat and imprimatur. We're not talking about any book here. If you are saying your Bible is free from error, your saying it is infallible. One of the definitions for infallible in the dictionary is in fact, free from error. (Infallible - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary).

I'm not going to interpret a document through a popish lens, searching in vain for the hidden meaning behind the word games which the Vatican loves to play. I'll let grammar, source, the definitions of the words we're using, and context be my rule.

 

[ebia]

Divine Afflante Spiritu - Pius XII - 1943
And if the Tridentine Synod wished "that all should use as authentic" the Vulgate Latin version, this, as all know, applies only to the Latin Church and to the public use of the same Scriptures; nor does it, doubtless, in any way diminish the authority and value of the original texts. For there was no question then of these texts, but of the Latin versions, which were in circulation at that time, and of these the same Council rightly declared to be preferable that which "had been approved by its long-continued use for so many centuries in the Church." Hence this special authority or as they say, authenticity of the Vulgate was not affirmed by the Council particularly for critical reasons, but rather because of its legitimate use in the Churches throughout so many centuries; by which use indeed the same is shown, in the sense in which the Church has understood and understands it, to be free from any error whatsoever in matters of faith and morals; so that, as the Church herself testifies and affirms, it may be quoted safely and without fear of error in disputations, in lectures and in preaching; and so its authenticity is not specified primarily as critical, but rather as juridical.

If I read it the way Rome wants, they want to have their cake and eat it. Yes the Vulgate is not infallible as a critical edition, but it is infallible as a juridical edition. Who on earth talks like that? So according to Rome their Vulgate is free from all error...but it needs revising. Brilliant. I know how Rome works, very well. I used to be RC.

The New Vulgate is not meant to override the doctrinal issues in the Clementine, but only the critical (textual) issues. It's very difficult to change one without affecting the other...particularly in the Genesis example I used. If Gen 3:15 doesn't read "she shall bruise your heel", one of the arguments for Mary's sinlessness is thrown right out the window. I'm not saying that they hold it to be a critically infallible edition (like the J-dubs and the Mormons do), just doctrinally. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of saying something is free from error, except for its' text. To me, that's absurd. It's actually even more ridiculous when Pius XII says how it is infallible in the Western rite but not the Eastern rites. So basically the Vulgate is infallible until your flight lands in Athens (along with the value of your Euro but I won't get into that here).

Yes, a whole lot of books carry a nihil obstat and imprimatur. We're not talking about any book here. If you are saying your Bible is free from error, your saying it is infallible. One of the definitions for infallible in the dictionary is in fact, free from error. (Infallible - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary).

I'm not going to interpret a document through a popish lens, searching in vain for the hidden meaning behind the word games which the Vatican loves to play. I'll let grammar, source, the definitions of the words we're using, and context be my rule.

This is daft. What matters not is how you interpret Roman documents and phrases. What matters is what they mean by them/take them to mean.

"free from moral & doctrinal error" does not mean infallible, however much you want to - as the Nihil Obstat... shows.

 

[bach90]

This is daft. What matters not is how you interpret Roman documents and phrases. What matters is what they mean by them/take them to mean.

"free from moral & doctrinal error" does not mean infallible, however much you want to - as the Nihil Obstat... shows.

Webster's Dictionary

Infallible

: incapable of error : unerring <an infallible memory>
2
: not liable to mislead, deceive, or disappoint : certain <an infallible remedy>

3
: incapable of error in defining doctrines touching faith or morals

I mean, I guess it doesn't, if we're not using words they they are defined. A document has to be looked at through an objective method. In terms of faith and morals, the Vulgate is infallible in Rome. This does not mean that Rome holds it to be the original Bible or the best critical edition of the Biblical text, but it does mean that you cannot reject an argument from Scripture just because one is using the Vulgate. You are free to say that the better or more ancient reading would be this...this does not overthrow the infallibility of the Vulgate. Example Genesis 3:15


Clementine:
Inimicitias ponam inter te et mulierem, et sperm tuum et sperm illius: ipsa conteret caput tuum, et tu insidiaberis calcaneo eius.

NV:
Inimicitias ponam inter te et mulierem et sperm tuum et sperm illius; ipsum conteret caput tuum, et tu conteres calcaneum eius.

For an English (sort of) equivalen (not exact, the NAB is translated from the Greek not the New Vulgate...but the translation serves my point)...

D-R:
I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.

NAB:
I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; He will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel.

The Clementine/D-R reading supports the idea that Mary (ipsa) is going to crush the serpent. However this reading is not supported in any ancient manuscripts and it's been corrected in the NV and the NAB. No one seriously argues that ipsa is the better reading, that would be laughable. However the doctrine is still taught in the RCC because the Vulgate is infallible in doctrine.

In other words, the Vulgate clearly has the incorrect reading, but you can't challenge the doctrine derived from this incorrect reading because it's based off a text which lacks error (is infallible) in doctrine and morality.


Another example, until the 1940s, Roman Catholics (only the laity of course) were forbidden to use a translation of Scripture if it didn't come from the Vulgate.

Even Roman Catholics don't make a big difference between the Vulgate being free from moral and doctrinal error, or "infallible", as demonstrated by Trent and Pius XII stating how the Vulgate is free from moral and doctrinal error. Infallible, according to the common use of the word in the English language and dictionary.

At least a KJV onylist (which I'm certainly not) is logically consistent. The Scripture is right and is infallible both as a critical text and a doctrinal text. I would disagree, but it's logically correct. The RC view though is that you can use a text which is not the best critical text (which they freely admit), but because an outside authority as declared it free from error (the definition of infallible as I've pointed out in the dictionary), A bad critical text can be used to support doctrine...that's not logically consistent. Having their cake and eating it too.

Also a Nihil Obstat does not mean that a document is infallible in faith and morals. It means there is nothing damaging to faith in morals. Saying that the sky is green does not damage faith and morals, but it's certainly not an infallible statement.

 

[ViaCrucis]

If your bible is not translated from the Textus Receptus , then you have only and imitation bible , not authentic .

I'm not sure you know what the TR even is.

The term "Textus Receptus" is mostly an anachronism. A term applied to a textual lineage that influenced the translations of the Reformation and post-Reformation period during the 16th and 17th centuries.

But there did not exist a "Textus Receptus" as a singular, uniform textual edition until later. Rather, the TR is a composite of numerous critical editions of the Greek New Testament that includes several editions from Erasmus alone, in addition to critical editions produced by Stephanus and Beza. None of these critical editions agreed entirely with one another, and even throughout Erasmus' scholarly career his critical edition went through numerous edits and changes.

The Authorized Version of King James I of England was a translation from these many Greek texts, with the various scholars working and choosing which variants were preferable and in some cases lifting entire portions piecemeal from previous English translations such as Tyndale's Version. Beyond these, the translators relied upon traditional readings taken from the Vulgate (such can be seen in the KJV translation of Isaiah 14:12 which retains the Vulgata's "lucifer"). Even after the 1611 edition, it went through numerous re-edits until the situation with the Authorized Version had become a total mess, and a standardized text was put forth in 1769, which is the "King James Version" we all know today.

Why should we limit translations to an arbitrary set of competing and conflicting--and outdated--critical editions of the Greek text (i.e. the Textus Receptus) when we have a far larger library of textual manuscripts available, far superior critical editions at our disposal, and nearly five hundred years of adept scholarship at our collective fingertips in order to present far superior translations of Holy Scripture for our benefit and edification?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[coons786c]

I'm not sure you know what the TR even is.

The term "Textus Receptus" is mostly an anachronism. A term applied to a textual lineage that influenced the translations of the Reformation and post-Reformation period during the 16th and 17th centuries.

But there did not exist a "Textus Receptus" as a singular, uniform textual edition until later. Rather, the TR is a composite of numerous critical editions of the Greek New Testament that includes several editions from Erasmus alone, in addition to critical editions produced by Stephanus and Beza. None of these critical editions agreed entirely with one another, and even throughout Erasmus' scholarly career his critical edition went through numerous edits and changes.

The Authorized Version of King James I of England was a translation from these many Greek texts, with the various scholars working and choosing which variants were preferable and in some cases lifting entire portions piecemeal from previous English translations such as Tyndale's Version. Beyond these, the translators relied upon traditional readings taken from the Vulgate (such can be seen in the KJV translation of Isaiah 14:12 which retains the Vulgata's "lucifer"). Even after the 1611 edition, it went through numerous re-edits until the situation with the Authorized Version had become a total mess, and a standardized text was put forth in 1769, which is the "King James Version" we all know today.

Why should we limit translations to an arbitrary set of competing and conflicting--and outdated--critical editions of the Greek text (i.e. the Textus Receptus) when we have a far larger library of textual manuscripts available, far superior critical editions at our disposal, and nearly five hundred years of adept scholarship at our collective fingertips in order to present far superior translations of Holy Scripture for our benefit and edification?

-CryptoLutheran

What manuscripts are you talking about? Would you agree that the NIV,NLT,ASV and others are far superior to that of the KJV?

 

[Michaelrh1325]

In what fantasy world is the NIV and NLT superior to the KJV?

 

[ebia]

In what fantasy world is the NIV and NLT superior to the KJV?

I don't know about fantasy worlds, but in this real world where better manuscripts and better scholarship is available and people no longer speak early-modern English.

 

[coons786c]

Those Thee's And Thou's

"And thou shalt speak unto him, and put words in his mouth: and I will be with thy mouth, and with his mouth, and will teach you what ye shall do." (Exodus 4:15)
These words of God, spoken to Moses concerning the mission he and his brother Aaron were to undertake at Pharaoh's palace are one of numerous examples in Scripture where the King James translation uses several different forms of the second-person pronoun. In this one verse, we see the words "thou," "thy," "you," and "ye," all fulfilling this function. Most modern translations would translate this sentence: "You shall speak to him ...and I will be with your mouth,... and will teach you what you shall do." Why would the King James translators use four different forms of the pronoun when only "you" and "your" are used in modem versions?
The fact is that the Elizabethan-age English was able to make much finer distinctions than modem English. That is, "thou," "thee," "thy," and "thine," were used for the second person singular, whereas "ye," "you," "your," and "yours" were the corresponding words for the plural. Different words also were used for subject, object, and possessive modifier, as is still true for first and third-person pronouns.
In our text, God was telling Moses that he (Moses) was to speak to Aaron, and that He (God) would then teach both of them, not just Moses, what they were to do. This distinction is clear in the King James English, but not in modern English. This is one of numerous examples where such fine points in the King James language are lost in modern translations.
In the Lord's Prayer, for example, "Yours is the kingdom" could suggest that many will possess the kingdom, where "thine is the kingdom" clearly recognizes one God alone. Clear words are important for clear meanings, and Jesus said, "My words shall not pass away" (Matthew 24:35). HMM
--From Days of Praise, Henry M. Morris. Editor
I have already said, the translators of the new Bible versions know the above facts from the able pen of Dr. Henry M. Morris. It is no secret, but they are so dishonest they are unwilling to tell us the facts. They are willing to tell falsehoods, in order to destroy the KJV.

 

[Michaelrh1325]

The NIV is an atrocity. The NLT is okay. My wife uses it because she has difficulty reading it, but I wouldn't use a paraphrase as my main Bible unless I had to. If someone said the ESV, NRSV, NASB, among some others, were better, no problem. It's entirely debateable and I like all of those versions. But the NIV? YUCK! And a paraphrase?

 

[coons786c]

http://www.avpublications.com/avnew/downloads/PDF/Tracts/nabv_tract.pdf

http://www.avpublications.com/avnew/downloads/PDF/Tracts/NKJV_tract.pdf

When I saw this I could not believe it!!

 

[ebia]

The NIV is an atrocity. The NLT is okay. My wife uses it because she has difficulty reading it, but I wouldn't use a paraphrase as my main Bible unless I had to. If someone said the ESV, NRSV, NASB, among some others, were better, no problem. It's entirely debateable and I like all of those versions. But the NIV? YUCK! And a paraphrase?

I'm not a big fan of the NIV, especially on Paul. But id take any modern translation over the KJV

I don't have a problem with good paraphrases.

 

[OzSpen]

I'm not sure you know what the TR even is.

The term "Textus Receptus" is mostly an anachronism. A term applied to a textual lineage that influenced the translations of the Reformation and post-Reformation period during the 16th and 17th centuries.

But there did not exist a "Textus Receptus" as a singular, uniform textual edition until later. Rather, the TR is a composite of numerous critical editions of the Greek New Testament that includes several editions from Erasmus alone, in addition to critical editions produced by Stephanus and Beza. None of these critical editions agreed entirely with one another, and even throughout Erasmus' scholarly career his critical edition went through numerous edits and changes.

The Authorized Version of King James I of England was a translation from these many Greek texts, with the various scholars working and choosing which variants were preferable and in some cases lifting entire portions piecemeal from previous English translations such as Tyndale's Version. Beyond these, the translators relied upon traditional readings taken from the Vulgate (such can be seen in the KJV translation of Isaiah 14:12 which retains the Vulgata's "lucifer"). Even after the 1611 edition, it went through numerous re-edits until the situation with the Authorized Version had become a total mess, and a standardized text was put forth in 1769, which is the "King James Version" we all know today.

Why should we limit translations to an arbitrary set of competing and conflicting--and outdated--critical editions of the Greek text (i.e. the Textus Receptus) when we have a far larger library of textual manuscripts available, far superior critical editions at our disposal, and nearly five hundred years of adept scholarship at our collective fingertips in order to present far superior translations of Holy Scripture for our benefit and edification?

-CryptoLutheran

Via,

That's an outstanding response. Thanks so much for your thoughtfulness in providing this explanation.

Oz

 

[coons786c]

Jesus Christ – the Object of our Belief

As other verses are compared, a pattern will appear. For instance, the Bible teaches that salvation comes from simple belief on the Lord Jesus Christ.
(KJB) John 6:47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
The modern versions distract the reader and detract from the necessary object/Person of our belief – the Lord Jesus Christ. Satan has always desired worship, to the point of beckoning the Lord to bow down to him (Matthew 4:9). Is it any wonder then that the Devil has eroded the very foundations of this truth? Elimination of these truths remains his ultimate goal. The modern versions are many steps in that direction. Upon whom are you to believe according to the NIV?
(NIV) John 6:47 I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life.
He who believes on what or whom? Jesus said to believe “on me.” The Devil wants to decide what you are supposed to believe in and in whom you are to believe. If we leave this crucial choice to Satan, he will eliminate God’s truth so that many more people remain confused, bewildered, and lost. Consider all the religions of the world offering substitute saviors that cannot save.

Salvation – Simple or Difficult?​

When all of a person’s physical needs are almost effortlessly satisfied, his spiritual needs can easily be overlooked and ignored. Such is the warning conveyed in the following verse concerning priorities. When someone elevates money above all else, a misplaced trust results. He finds it hard to trust in anything but his riches; therefore, he does not realize his need for Christ.
(KJB) Mark 10:24 And the disciples were astonished at his words. But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God!
The KJB does not say that salvation is difficult to attain. In fact, it affirms the simplicity that is in Christ (II Corinthians 11:3). Throughout time, Satan has gradually eroded the truth in an effort to achieve his ultimate goal: to completely change the truth of God into a lie (Romans 1:25). The next passage achieves this goal in the NIV by stating that salvation is a hard thing to attain.
(NIV) Mark 10:24 The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, “Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God!”
The NIV changes the whole point of the passage. It eliminates the dire warning to those who trust in riches and makes salvation sound difficult to everyone. Do the KJB and the NIV say the same thing? Do they teach the same truths? Obviously not! Salvation is not hard. Manmade religion makes salvation hard. What must you do to be saved?
· Realize you are a sinner (Romans 3:23).
· Believe that the Lord Jesus Christ died for your sins (Romans 5:8).
· Repent of trusting in anything else to save you (Romans 2:4-5).
· Accept the free gift of salvation (Romans 6:23).
· Believe in the Saviour to forgive your sins (Romans 10:9-13).
One cannot trust in his church membership, his baptism, or his good works to save him. One must simply trust in the Lord Jesus Christ alone by believing on Him. You can’t say, “I am trusting in Jesus” and believe that your good works will merit a place for you in heaven. Anyone so doing has failed to believe solely on the Lord Jesus Christ and is sadly trusting in his own good works to merit that which cannot be earned – heaven’s glory. The Lord Jesus Christ and He alone must be the object of our trust.
(KJB) Ephesians 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
When a person hears the truth, he must decide whether he will accept this truth over everything else. Once a person repents of trusting in anything other than Christ, a simple heart belief in the payment Christ has made is sufficient to save any lost sinner. The Bible tells us that once we have “believed,” the Holy Spirit of God seals us “unto the day of redemption” (Ephesians 4:30).
These are precious truths no matter how frivolously the modern versions handle them. How does the NIV present these same truths? The NIV states that a person becomes included in Christ by simply hearing the word of truth!
(NIV) Ephesians 1:13 And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit,
What a mess! How confusing! No one is included in Christ by simply hearing the truth. Even the parable of the sower clearly contradicts this teaching. “And these are they by the way side, where the word is sown; but when they have heard, Satan cometh immediately, and taketh away the word that was sown in their hearts.” (Mark 4:15). The NIV seems to indicate that church attendance, faithful viewing of televangelists, or listening to the Bible on tape saves.
One must first act upon the truth he hears. A person must TRUST in Him by believing that He died for his sins. No one is included in Christ simply by hearing the truth; such a statement is equivalent to claiming to have been born a Christian. No one is physically born a Christian. Rather, being born a Christian is a matter of the spiritual rebirth (I Peter 1:23).
Notice that the NIV also mentions being marked toward the end of the verse – “you were marked in him with a seal.” Christians are not marked, nor do they have to be concerned about the future mark of the Beast (Revelation 13:16-17, Revelation 19:20). However, since these modern versions seem to be the end times bibles of choice, this verse could be used by the antichrist to convince people in the Tribulation that the saved are only those that have the Mark of the Beast. “…God is not the author of confusion…” (I Corinthians 14:33).

 

[Michaelrh1325]

I'm not a big fan of the NIV, especially on Paul. But id take any modern translation over the KJV

I don't have a problem with good paraphrases.

And that's just wrong, however I'm sure you're exaggerating a little. The KJV is a fine translation, but I wouldn't read it exclusively. I like a mixture of KJV, NASB, ESV, and NRSV. I wouldn't pick up an NIV or paraphrase over any of these.

 

[coons786c]

QUESTION

Don't the best manuscripts support the new versions?

ANSWER:

No. The best manuscripts support the Bible, the Authorized Version.


EXPLANATION:

The new versions are only supported by about five of the over 5,000 manuscripts of Bible text. Critics of the Bible claim that these manuscripts are better than those used by the translators of the Authorized Version. This is not so.

The two most prominent of these, Vaticanus, which is sole property of the Roman Catholic Church, and Sinaiticus are both known to be overwhelmed with errors. It is said that Sinaiticus has been corrected and altered by as many as ten different writers. In Vaticanus is found the evidence of very sloppy workmanship. Time and again words and whole phrases are repeated twice in succession or completely omitted. While the entire manuscript has had the text mutilated by some person or persons who ran over every letter with a pen making exact identification of many of the characters impossible.
Both manuscripts contain uninspired, anti-scriptural books which are not found in the Bible.
The only place where these error laden, unreliable manuscripts excel is in the quality of the materials used on them. They have good bindings and fine animal skin pages. Their physical appearance, contrary to their worthless texts, are really rather attractive. But then we have all heard the saying, "You can't tell a book by it's cover". The covers are beautiful but their texts are reprehensible.
And yet in spite of these well known corruptions, they are the basis for many new versions such as the New American Standard Version and the New International Version rendering these versions critically flawed and unreliable. The manuscripts represented by the King James Bible have texts of the highest quality. So we see that the best manuscripts are those used by the King James translators.

 

[OzSpen]

The NIV is an atrocity. The NLT is okay. My wife uses it because she has difficulty reading it, but I wouldn't use a paraphrase as my main Bible unless I had to. If someone said the ESV, NRSV, NASB, among some others, were better, no problem. It's entirely debateable and I like all of those versions. But the NIV? YUCK! And a paraphrase?

The NIV is not a paraphrase. It, like the NLT, uses dynamic equivalence as a translation philosophy. It give meaning-for-meaning. But the NIV, NLT, NAB and JB are outstanding dynamic equivalence translations. The NLT uses simpler language than the NIV and is particularly good for new Christians or those who are struggling with their use of English. It is an excellent translation for migrants who are learning English. However, my son who has an MDiv and reads both Hebrew and Greek, uses the NLT as his primary Bible as he finds it to be an excellent translation.

The KJV, D-R, NKJV, ASV, RV, RSV, ESV, NRSV and NASB use formal equivalence philosophy, trying to get a word-for-word equivalent. Since I read NT Greek, it is very difficult to do this as some kinds of adjustments need to take place to make it look like formal equivalence.

Oz

 

[ebia]

And that's just wrong, however I'm sure you're exaggerating a little.

barely. Of course there are some real fringe translations out there, but I would take any mainstream modern translation over the KJV. I don't speak early modern English, and I don't like the KJV style of artificial high-prose. If I had to take an early modern translation I'd pick Tyndale over the KJV.

 

[OzSpen]

QUESTION

Don't the best manuscripts support the new versions?

ANSWER:

No. The best manuscripts support the Bible, the Authorized Version.

So what criteria do you use to determine the "best manuscripts"?

Oz