How do you rate how good a Bible is?

Joey,

I am not going to continue here indefinitely. My point was never to have a long drawn out discussion. I only wanted to say that some of the arguments you are using are disputed arguments. As I have said before, I personally do not care which version, among the good versions, of Scripture someone uses. As Katie said, I think you should use a version that you understand. My concern is that you use proper argumentation in your discussion. I do not believe you are doing that. You are using weak arguments.

On John 3:16, when I read the NIV, I understand exactly what they are saying. On Gen 22:8 the word is yireh-lo. The “lo” is the part in question. It is a preposition meaning “to, for” and a third masculine singular pronominal suffix (him). You read it “to himself” or “for himself.” The KJV makes it appear as a direct object (provide himself). I do not know of any place in the OT where “lo” is a direct object or is used to introduce a direct object. It would be a very unnatural and unusual use of Hebrew I think. If someone has more info, please put it out. On that mountain, God did not provide “himself” as the sacrifice. He provided “for himself” a sacrifice by having a ram in the bushes. On 1 Tim 3:16, The mystery of godliness, the church of the living God, both precede the pronoun. It is clear who is being talked about. The KJV is clearer but that does not make it more accurate. On Luke 4:4 (compared to Matt 4:4), the gospels record words of Christ differently in many cases. That is a non-issue. I have not studied the variant so, again, I don’t know. Remember there are many good arguments that can be made against the superiority of the Byzantine text types. Do not be too quick to by that argument.

I do not mean to imply arrogance or to insult you in talking about the original language texts. I hope you will forgive me if you understood it that way. Nor do I mean to exclude others from the conversation or to bore them. However, I think it is important if we are going to talk about translations that we talk about the underlying text which of necessity involves original languages. There is room for difference on texts and translations. I do not hate the KJV at all. I do hate when people malign MVs unfairly while pretending the KJV is without problem. The KJV has as many problems as the MVs do. We just need to use good arguments both ways.

Thomas,

Please post your documentation for your assertion. I would like to be able to look it up and see what is said about it. I have never seen anyone, in the commentaries that I have used, even allude to such a study.

Katie,

As I said, I agree with you. Find a version you like and immerse yourself in it. Then live it.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I do not hate the KJV at all. I do hate when people malign MVs unfairly while pretending the KJV is without problem. The KJV has as many problems as the MVs do. We just need to use good arguments both ways.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Agreed. And I am not saying that the KJV doesn't have any problems. I was merely answering flyfree's question as to why I think the KJV is better. I am not visously attacking the MV's, as I like alot of them quiet a bit. Like, and in this order of prefrence, Webster95, ESV, NAS95, Amplified(though more of a Bible companion). I am not trying to prolong the conversation, I was merely defending the fact that you said that alot of what I said was not true, which that isn't true. Though you may not agree with what I say, I have given ample evidence as to why I find fault with it. Just as though I don't agree with you that the older mss.'s are better, doesn't make what you said not true. Just as you present your side of it quiet well, I too believe I have presented my side pretty good. I am not merely throwing sticks in the air.
Any way, I'm tired, I agree that you agree that we can disagree.

God speed.

 

To the origional question, I look at the broad based conservative Christian scholarship base that makes up the translation team. What is their source of documents. Second I require a translation that is easily understood by people TODAY. I believe God wants his word to be understood, not argued about.

 

Amen Thomas! I'm going up and vote for you for member of the year!

Seems to me like, regardless which side of the Byzentine/Alexandrian mss's you line up on, the MVs who consider and select from the best (subjective no doubt) of both are superior.

I still go with: NASB for accuracy, NIV for readability, and ESV coming on strong. I will finish reading the NLT through in one year on Dec. 31th (in Jeremiah and 2 Timothy today). It's very readable but I would not rely on it for Bible study. I can't wait to start the ESV on Jan. 1!