#2 Valid Versions for 'Others'

[Ed Edwards]

#2 Valid Versions for 'Others'

Please vote for the following versions in English if you consider them a valid version. (This media limits me to ten examples) Please contine the 'Valid' versions discussion in the Other Religions debate world. Please do NOT vote that a version is valid unless you have studied the version a year or more. Your vote means that you consider the version valid and have verified that it is vaild by personal use. Thank you for your cooperation.

 

[Ed Edwards]

The first Valid Version discussion is located here:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=51860&page=30

Here is how author Small Fry began that thread. Ed added the BOLD state as suited Ed, not Small Fry:

// In looking over many of the responses in this part of the forum I often come across the use of this phrase, it goes something like "all valid versions are inspired of God." My question is this, what makes a version valid, and how on earth is everyone going to come to the same conclusion on this subject? I believe that there has to be rock solid, unshakeable, absolute truth out there somewhere. If I have to depend on what others tell me is right then that doesn't seem very unshakeable to me. I need to know from God. If I have to trust in a bible to reveal truth to me, how can I trust it if I don't even know if it is valid or not? If I have to know Hebrew and Greek does this mean that I will not even know absolute truth until I have completed years of study. I need absolute truth from the point of salvation on. Where is it? //

My defended position is in my Trailer/signature:

 

[Rippon]

I do not have the 1611 version and the other KJV's you mentioned.

I do not have the Geneva.

I own the NWT which I do not consider to be a valid version.But,parts of it are very orthodox.Yet in its entirety it does not qualify as a valid version.

I appreciate the Message in some select spots.However,it's not really what one needs to get a good "read" on the Word of God.

As far as the RDCV goes -- I do not own one,and I've never even seen one.But there are are number of language groups which might have something similiar.They do not have all 66 books of the Canon in their hands -- they have only some of the books of the Bible .God has used that to further His purposes.

I think that those who have a few books of the Bible in their language may be in a more advantageous position in some ways vs. the rest of us who have many versions in their totality.They probably read,study and meditate more on their Bibles than the average Western Christian does.

 

[EdSutton]

As per usual, I did not vote in the poll, since the options would force me to make a series of "picking from false alternatives."

I believe that any and all version(s) is/are (a) "valid version(s)", in and when it/they accurately reflect,present, and convey the sense of the Biblical languages, from the most "literal", word-for-word, overall, in this case, the NASB- 1995, to the most "non-literal", overall, which in this case, I would believe to be "The Message". And yes, I would even included the extremely flawed, due to the 'translator' bias, NWT, in this.

I will not consider the RDCV as a 'valid version," in that it has too much of the text "chopped out", but it may well be valid, where the knife has not yet entered. I have never looked at this one, due to my own 'bias' against less than full versions.

Incidentally, I just noticed, that I was asked "not to vote" (Glad I complied, here!)
unless I had studied a particular version for at least a year or more. The only one of these that I think (but do not know, absolutely) was anywhere close to any of those version(s)/edition(s) was a 'cheapest of the cheap' Scofield KJV that I bought in 1969, and used only for a couple of years, or so, during my Bible College years, before it literally fell apart, and became unusable, generally speaking.

Following that I bought a 1967 KJV, which had one of the best quality binding and paper that one could acquire, and which I used, almost exclusively for almost 30 years (even having it rebound once, at a cost that almost equalled the original purchase price), until it was taken from me, from my cab, one evening, and without my knowledge. Not being able to replace that particular edition, at that time, from anywhere, at any price, I still wanted the particular edition, but it was simply not to be found, in my pre-computer days.

However, I think/thought enough of the KJV, that I still went out and bought me a new one.

Ed

 

[Rippon]

Following that I bought a 1967 KJV, which had one of the best quality binding and paper that one could acquire, and which I used, almost exclusively for almost 30 years (even having it rebound once, at a cost that almost equalled the original purchase price), until it was taken from me, from my cab, one evening, and without my knowledge. Not being able to replace that particular edition, at that time, from anywhere, at any price, I still wanted the particular edition, but it was simply not to be found, in my pre-computer days.
[/quote]

Ed,put a cap on that cab story! Do you know how many times you've mentioned that tale in the last few years? I'm half-joking.There are worse things in the world.

Do you like the Mills Brothers?They had a hit in 1968 with Cab Driver.

 

[EdSutton]

Following that I bought a 1967 KJV, which had one of the best quality binding and paper that one could acquire, and which I used, almost exclusively for almost 30 years (even having it rebound once, at a cost that almost equalled the original purchase price), until it was taken from me, from my cab, one evening, and without my knowledge. Not being able to replace that particular edition, at that time, from anywhere, at any price, I still wanted the particular edition, but it was simply not to be found, in my pre-computer days.

Ed,put a cap on that cab story! Do you know how many times you've mentioned that tale in the last few years? I'm half-joking.There are worse things in the world.

Do you like the Mills Brothers?They had a hit in 1968 with Cab Driver.

O.K., but I never mention it unless the subject of what Bible(s) one has used, or is currently using, comes up.

Anyway, as you request:



Or maybe you meant one for the vehicle :

Ed

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Following that I bought a 1967 KJV, which had one of the best quality binding and paper that one could acquire, and which I used, almost exclusively for almost 30 years (even having it rebound once, at a cost that almost equalled the original purchase price), until it was taken from me, from my cab, one evening, and without my knowledge. Not being able to replace that particular edition, at that time, from anywhere, at any price, I still wanted the particular edition, but it was simply not to be found, in my pre-computer days.

Ed,put a cap on that cab story! Do you know how many times you've mentioned that tale in the last few years? I'm half-joking.There are worse things in the world.

Do you like the Mills Brothers?They had a hit in 1968 with Cab Driver.[/quote]

GE:
Ed Sutton, Also about thirty years ago a jersey my mother had knit for me was stolen from my 'bakkie' ('cab'). How must you feel about that KJV of yours if I feel so over my jersey till this hour!

 

[EdSutton]

Ed,put a cap on that cab story! Do you know how many times you've mentioned that tale in the last few years? I'm half-joking.There are worse things in the world.

Do you like the Mills Brothers?They had a hit in 1968 with Cab Driver.

GE:
Ed Sutton, Also about thirty years ago a jersey my mother had knit for me was stolen from my 'bakkie' ('cab'). How must you feel about that KJV of yours if I feel so over my jersey till this hour!

I would gladly work for a week as an ordinary 'day laborer' unloading garbage, at the local dump, right alongside the 'jailbirds' out on work release, were I physically able, for not a cent, just to get that Bible back. That Bible's true value, is not the version, particularly, but the 27+ years worth of my notes, written in it.

[ quote ] Please learn how to use the "quote" function, Gerhard Ebersoehn and Rippon, as it makes it much easier for us peons to deal with. [ / quote ]

If you take exactly what I have printed here, above 'bolded' and remove the spaces in the brackets it happens like so.

Please learn how to use the "quote" function, Gerhard Ebersoehn and Rippon, as it makes it much easier for us peons to deal with.

Incidentally, I do not recall ever hearing the song by the Mills Brothers.
Ed

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

I'm going to try: I 'pulled over' ('highlighted', 'dragged over', left clicker held down),then 'copied', now am going to 'paste':

[ quote ] Please learn how to use the "quote" function, Gerhard Ebersoehn and Rippon, as it makes it much easier for us peons to deal with. [ / quote ]

remove the spaces ...

Please learn how to use the "quote" function, Gerhard Ebersoehn and Rippon, as it makes it much easier for us peons to deal with. [/ quote]

.... and 'post' ---- let's see ...

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

I see it doesn't say whom I was 'quoting'.

Now I see why my children have so little respect for me.

 

[annsni]

When saying who you're quoting, you type:

then finish it out with the same brackets immediately around /quote

So then it becomes:

That's all folks!

 

[EdSutton]

I'm going to try: I 'pulled over' ('highlighted', 'dragged over', left clicker held down),then 'copied', now am going to 'paste':

[ quote ] Please learn how to use the "quote" function, Gerhard Ebersoehn and Rippon, as it makes it much easier for us peons to deal with. [ / quote ]

remove the spaces ...

Please learn how to use the "quote" function, Gerhard Ebersoehn and Rippon, as it makes it much easier for us peons to deal with. [/ quote]

.... and 'post' ---- let's see ...

My brother, you have inadvertently given me a secondary quote, by what you just printed, when I hit reply: (And also caused the "quote function to work improperly, so that I was not able to 'quote' you, here. I did not change this in any way, for effect.) And you failed to remover all the spaces, leaving one between the slash and the word "quote." That, alone, will 'disable' the "quote function." Incidentally, the 'highlighting is not relevant, as to whether or not the "quote function" will work. I believe annsni has perhaps given a clearer example, than I did. However, try mine again, both with and without highlighting, and by removing all the spaces and see what happens.

Incidentally, you should normally be able to merely click on "reply" Or "quote" at the bottom right side of the post, for the post to come up, properly, as opposed to "Post reply" on the left side. I'm no "computer whiz", by any stretch, by the most liberal definition of such, but even I've got that one figured out.

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

I'm going to try: I 'pulled over' ('highlighted', 'dragged over', left clicker held down),then 'copied', now am going to 'paste':

[ quote ] Please learn how to use the "quote" function, Gerhard Ebersoehn and Rippon, as it makes it much easier for us peons to deal with. [ / quote ]

remove the spaces ...

[quote ]Please learn how to use the "quote" function, Gerhard Ebersoehn and Rippon, as it makes it much easier for us peons to deal with. [/ quote]

.... and 'post' ---- let's see ...

Um, that's all the spaces; you still left one, which I have 'hi-lighted' with a 'red' flag, here. (I 'fixed' it to appear AS a quote, however, including injecting a space in the previous 'word' of "[quote ]") Incidentally, if you 'highlight' the "quote function", and the words inside are highlighted, as well, the words appear as "UN-highlighted" but will still appear as a 'quote', like so. I have 'removed' one "quote" word from the text to show this, easily.

Please learn how to use the "quote" function, Gerhard Ebersoehn and Rippon, as it makes it much easier for us peons to deal with. [/ quote]

Are you, by chance, taking any notes from this computer amateur, here, Rippon?

Ed.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Thanks, Ed Sutoon.

There's just a small resultant problem. When you open an archived thread, this method of quoting fails to show who said what. That's why I (always) put GE: before what I say myself after having quoted someone else.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Ed Edwards: // Unfortunately, quotes made by using 'the [ quote ] function cannot be quoted. //

(that means Ed Edwards said something in a past post)

Gerhard Ebersoehn: // There's just a small resultant problem. //

(that means Gerhard Ebersoehn said something in a past post)

Ed Edwards : This means Ed is saying something in this post. I know I sometimes store quotes off-line for additional study before responding. I store off-line in .txt format which destroys most formating added by Baptist Board editors, Microsoft Word editiors, and other major editors. There is no need to quote much, except to give a clue as to what one is talking about now.

 

[EdSutton]

Thanks, Ed Sutoon.

There's just a small resultant problem. When you open an archived thread, this method of quoting fails to show who said what. That's why I (always) put GE: before what I say myself after having quoted someone else.

No problem. Just follow the format annsni gave. That should take care of it.

Ed

 

[Rippon]

Are you, by chance, taking any notes from this computer amateur, here, Rippon?

Hey! I resemble that remark.