KJV vs. New Translations

curiousone1, I have move the topic here where it is more appropriate and will probably find a much better response. Hope this helps.

 

It's OK. I know you're new to the Baptist Board. Don't worry, before long you'll know your way around as well as anyone.

 

Curiousone, that person may have been refering to the modern critical text, which is based, largely, on the work of two Anglicans, one a Bishop, and the other a College Professor, named Westcott and Hort. It has been charged by some that they were not believers in the fundamentalist sense. They did write some things that cause me to wonder, particularly regarding the deity of Christ, accepting which I believe is absolutely necessary for one to be a believer.

Although the newer versions of the critical text (NA27/UBS4) have departed somewhat from the text of Westcott and Hort, and has even reverted to the readings of the Byzantine majority on several occasions, it is still generally believed the text of Westcott and Hort is the basis for the modern critical text.

Most of the modern versions up until a few years ago were based either on the work of Westcott and Hort, or the NA/UBS descendents of that work.

 

Those two men were not involved in changing the text. They were simply collating and attempting to make decisions about the most likely reading. I do not think they are or should be the issue in this debate. The question is not "who" were the people behind it. Both sides can make cases for and against the other. The question is "What reading among the many preserved is most likely to be original?"

I would not let those two men drive you away from the NIV. It is a good Bible for reading. Remember, the Bible was not intended to be difficult.

 

I agree with Pastor Larry. The text itself should be the focal issue, not the people behind the text. Things can be said about King James & Company and things can be said about Westcott and Hort. What should be carefully considered are the texts themselves.

Daniel Payne

 

curiousone1:

I recently have heard some things that have me puzzled as to what version I need to be reading. It is my understanding that the majority of the new translations are from two individuals who are/were non-believers. Is this true . . .

No, it is not true. If that is what people have been telling you, then it does call into question any means they might have used to persuade you "what version you need to be reading."

 

the charges are worse than that they were non-believers, actually. they range fr Roman Catholicism n liberalism to witchcraft.

not that these charges themselves haven't gone unanswered:
http://members.aol.com/pilgrimpub/whghost.htm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by curiousone1:
from two individuals who are/were non-believers. Is this true and would someone please provide some insight on the topic??? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

Don't be frightnened of your NIV because of baseless and irrelevant accusations. It is a good translation.

Also don't be too married to it as the only thing to study. I would recommend study in at least the KJV and NASV as well. Others would add to that list. The three above do not differ in fact or doctrine, contrary to what you will hear in this forum. They do read differently and use different textual foundations, but are all good English Translations of God's Word, and if you don't nitpick or imagine a conspiracy, they are very equivilent.

 

I really like the New American Standard Bible, (NASB) or I sometimes use the NKJV. I think both are good. I don't care a whole lot for the NIV or the older KJV. I think some of these newer translations have updated material. Just my opinion.
James2

 

Curious

Check your E-mail. I sent you an answer to your question

 

A friend of mine bought me the NIV Men's Devotional Bible by Zondervan Its a great read as far as the Devotionals go. From that point I have some questions.
First (and this is Quoted from my NIV)
"In 1967 the New York Bible Society (now the International Bible Society) generouly undertook the financial sponsorship of the project-a sponsorship that made it possible to enlist the help of many distinguished scholars. The fact that participants from the United States, Great Britian, Canada, Australia and New Zealand worked together gave the project its international scope. That they were from many denominations-including Anglican, Assemblies of God, Baptist, Brethren, Christian Reformed, Church of Christ, Evangelical Free, Luthera, Mennonite, Methodist, Nazerene, Presbyterian, Wesleyan and other churches- helped to safeguard the translation from sectarian bias."
So this means that the NIV is a non-Denominational Bible, right? Or is it a Bible for the One World Church? Or may be they did this so each Denomination would get its 2 cents in. Who wouldn't want to read a bible that contains at least one verse were you could prove your Denomination is the best Denomination.

Second (this is also quoted)
" The NIV text may be quoted in any form (written, visual, electronic or audio), up to and inclusive of five hundred (500) verses without express written permission of the publisher, providing the verses quoted do not amount to a complete book of the Bible nor do the verses quoted account for 25 percent of the total text of the work in which they are qouted"
But then they say " We offer this version of the Bible to him in whose name and for whose glory it has been made."
So wait they said at 1st it was copyrighted and Im limited on how much i can quote or use. Then they give it I assume to God. But retain the rights of the Word of God as their own? Does God hold a Copyright to his word so that only those asking permission can use it? Or are they protecting their investment. Making sure no one can copy their work without some kind of compesation.
I read a really great book called New Age Bible Versions: An Exhaustive Documentation Exposing the Message, Men and Manuscripts Moving Mankind to the Antichrist's One World Religion. Its by a G.A. Riplinger.
check it out
Eric

 

Eric

You had about 2 ounces of credibility, until you mentioned your source.

G.A. Riplinger is not a person who can be trusted to expound any form of truth. Especially when it comes to Bible Versions.

 

Why is G.A. Riplinger Bad?

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Eric:
Why is G.A. Riplinger Bad?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Eric:

see About Gail Riplinger's Writings

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Eric:
Why is G.A. Riplinger Bad?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

See alsoNew Age Bible Versions: Review Article -- S. E. Schnaiter

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
I do not think they are or should be the issue in this debate. The question is not "who" were the people behind it. Both sides can make cases for and against the other. The question is "What reading among the many preserved is most likely to be original?"

I would not let those two men drive you away from the NIV. It is a good Bible for reading. Remember, the Bible was not intended to be difficult.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Amen, the same thing could be said regarding the translators of the KJV or the so called Christians who copied the many copies of the textus receptus.

[ January 23, 2002: Message edited by: Phillip ]

 

I give up. Why be a christian if every "translation" out ther is flawed in some way. Whos to say what I beleave about God is evan true. From what i learned here no wonder people become Mormons, JW, and 7th day Adventist. So the KJV is Flawed and the NIV and The NASB and all the other "translations". What am I to do go out and learn a bunch of Dead Languages? Just so I can get the TRUE meaning of What Some guys from 2000+ years ago wrote? Why i thought thats why we had English "Translations". Maybe I should go out and buy every single version of the Bible so that may be I can disern what God is really trying to say.
You can take any verse from any Version and "prove" any Doctrine (if you dont beleave me go to www.notdeceived.net or talk to the people at www.LDSchat.com) Im not un- educated or a Scholar. Im Joe America the common man. I go to a FIB chruch, read my Scofeild KJ 1611 AV study bible (I bet yall really can give me the low down on C.I. Scofield like how he used some of Westcott and Hort, Not that i should let these two chase me away from it right.) I Pray, I vote with my heart not with a Party, but thats not important is it. So im wrong now wrong about every thng my KJV told me. I should have learned Greek,Latin, and Hebrew. Not that i have enough problems understanding what people from my on country are saying. From what ive learned now there is no real proof that im evan saved cause the book they used to lead me to the Lord is a Flawed imperfect version. IM SORRY this is just really confusing. I dont want to get any one mad. BUT come on 2000 years people is a long time. 2000 years with imperfect versions of the bible. 2000 years since the Apostles set ink to paper.But all of a sudden just in the last 100 years or so we have these perfect or near perfect versions to use? Smells a bit fishy to me. We can sit here for the next year and debate this issue so let me say is yes i agree the KJV is flawed but so is every other version out their. They were all written by MAN not God. And Now i know not One of them was Inspired by God. Read my last post the info i got i pulled out of my NIV not Gayles Book. So ill not be reading a Bible any more because no one here will agree with the next guy which one to use. I will not be learning any languages, I have school, Drill, A child, Chruch (not for long though since they use the KJV) and work to deal with. once again im sorry im upset. Maybe im over reacting to the lousy day i had. Maybe the thought that im now un sure of my own faith is making me like this. Maybe this is another one of those numerous "parody" baptist site like Landover Baptist I dont Know now. Thank you all for reading this. If you would like to help me PLEASE DO!!! But no smart Alec comment Please were all Christians right(i hope).
Distrot and Destoyed Christian
Eric