A better English Bible.

[Conan]

Nothing wrong with learning a bit about bible translation but to think you can tell others what is the correct translation is wrong.

Why is that? You cannot recommend a Bible Translation or tell if one is good or bad? That is what this forum is for.

A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Knowledge is a good thing!

I was speaking of the whole bible. You seem to have missed that point.

I was focusing on New Testament textual criticism. Kind of what 37818 was talking about.

 

[Silverhair]

Why is that? You cannot recommend a Bible Translation or tell if one is good or bad? That is what this forum is for.

Knowledge is a good thing!

I was focusing on New Testament textual criticism. Kind of what 37818 was talking about.

Recommending a bible to use is not dealing with the textural variants. I would not recommend the KJV but rather the NASB or BSB or even the NET. Have you never heard the expression "A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing." it is dangerous because it tends to puff up an individual.

As I said unless one is a textural scholar in their own right all they are doing is relaying some scholars view. And since we have various scholars with differing views then to get a consensus as to the "correct" translation is doubtful to happen.

What one considers the best bible does not make it the best bible, just the best one for them.

 

[37818]

A missed variant, John 18:16.
known to the high priest, | known of the high priest, CT

 

[37818]

I would not recommend the KJV but rather the NASB or BSB or even the NET. Have you never heard the expression "A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing."

Noted not recommending the NKJV.

 

[Silverhair]

Noted not recommending the NKJV.

Your point being?

 

[37818]

Your point being?

Simply, you, for no specified reason, had not included the NKJV. I noticed.

 

[Silverhair]

Simply, you, for no specified reason, had not included the NKJV. I noticed.

I was not making a definitive list. The better question why are you concerned that I did not include it in a list?

Do you think it is better that those I listed and if so why do you think it is?

FYI I have it in my bible program and also the ABP the Tri and the NRSV and others but I did not list those either.

 

[37818]

I was not making a definitive list. The better question why are you concerned that I did not include it in a list?

The NKJV is primarily the same New Testament text as the KJV. But included Majority text and Critical text readings as notes.

Do you think it is better that those I listed and if so why do you think it is?

Majority text and Critical text readings as notes. Those others excluded the NT Majority text readings.

 

[37818]

I believe the issues between the NT Majority text and Critical text choices need to be discussed. It is not a clear all or nothing set of choices.

 

[Conan]

Recommending a bible to use is not dealing with the textural variants.

But it could be, to advanced student’s. True, it doesn’t have to be.

I would not recommend the KJV but rather the NASB or BSB or even the NET.

So you have locked yourself into Nestle/Aland only. I suppose that is ok, especially for new believers. But advanced students could have New Testaments with different Greek Texts for more accuracy. In other words, more correct readings. At least having some knowledge of variants.

Have you never heard the expression "A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing." it is dangerous because it tends to puff up an individual.

Of course I have heard of it. It’s not a legitimate excuse not to learn.

As I said unless one is a textural scholar in their own right all they are doing is relaying some scholars view. And since we have various scholars with differing views then to get a consensus as to the "correct" translation is doubtful to happen.

If one learns for him/herself they can share what they have learned.

What one considers the best bible does not make it the best bible, just the best one for them.

although there is much truth there, a better Bible is a better Bible. Whatever you use is fine I am sure. But people can learn for themselves what makes a better Bible. I would think that would be good.

 

[Silverhair]

The NKJV is primarily the same New Testament text as the KJV. But included Majority text and Critical text readings as notes.
Majority text and Critical text readings as notes. Those others excluded the NT Majority text readings.

But that is your preference to use the KJV or NKJV. Some prefer bibles based on the critical text others the majority text

I use bibles from both.

 

[37818]

But that is your preference to use the KJV or NKJV. Some prefer bibles based on the critical text others the majority text

I use bibles from both.

The NKJV NT notes has the Critical text readings. And the Majority text readings not in the body of the NKJV. Which the exclusive Critical text versions exclude.

 

[Silverhair]

But it could be, to advanced student’s. True, it doesn’t have to be.

So you have locked yourself into Nestle/Aland only. I suppose that is ok, especially for new believers. But advanced students could have New Testaments with different Greek Texts for more accuracy. In other words, more correct readings. At least having some knowledge of variants.

But advanced students could have New Testaments with different Greek Texts for more accuracy. In other words, more correct readings. At least having some knowledge of variants.

Of course I have heard of it. It’s not a legitimate excuse not to learn.

If one learns for him/herself they can share what they have learned.

although there is much truth there, a better Bible is a better Bible. Whatever you use is fine I am sure. But people can learn for themselves what makes a better Bible. I would think that would be good.

That was a rather arrogant statement you made re use of the N/A text. It just shows you have a closed mind regarding translation variants.

Well by your standard I must be an advanced student as I use bibles form both tracks of translation. Although I do not consider myself to be such.

Yes a better bible is a better bible but who is to decide which is the better bible. That is the fly in the ointment.

Regarding textural variants – you have 3 possibilities in this situation:
1) Person_A’s interpretation is TRUE – and Person_B’s interpretation is FALSE
2) Person_B’s interpretation is TRUE – and Person_A’s interpretation is FALSE
3) Both interpretations are FALSE

But we are still left with HOW to decide which is the correct interpretation.

 

[37818]

Reference: Text-Critical English New Testament INTRODUCTION

 

[Silverhair]

The NKJV NT notes has the Critical text readings. And the Majority text readings not in the body of the NKJV. Which the exclusive Critical text versions exclude.

But as always it comes down to which line on manuscripts the scholars give the most weight to.

 

[37818]

But as always it comes down to which line on manuscripts the scholars give the most weight to.

Have you read the link of Post #114? If you do. What do you think you disagree with?

 

[Conan]

That was a rather arrogant statement you made re use of the N/A text. It just shows you have a closed mind regarding translation variants.

Why? I have used Bibles based on Nestle/Alands Greek Text most of my life. I have found it much better to also include Textus Receptus and Majority Text Bibles as well. That’s more of an open mind to me.

Well by your standard I must be an advanced student as I use bibles form both tracks of translation. Although I do not consider myself to be such.

You can use any Bible you want no matter where you are at.

Yes a better bible is a better bible but who is to decide which is the better bible. That is the fly in the ointment.

You should decide. Perhaps you can consult with people you trust if need be.

Regarding textural variants – you have 3 possibilities in this situation:
1) Person_A’s interpretation is TRUE – and Person_B’s interpretation is FALSE
2) Person_B’s interpretation is TRUE – and Person_A’s interpretation is FALSE
3) Both interpretations are FALSE

But we are still left with HOW to decide which is the correct interpretation.

Here I believe 37818 can be a big help. We can at least consider them whether we come to any conclusions or not. To learn we must practice.

 

[37818]

FYI. For reference. On my phone.
I have the TR Greek text, Strong's numbers and Grammar.
Westcott-Hort Greek text, Strong's numbers and Grammar.
Byzantine 2005 Greek text, Strong's numbers and Grammar.

Plus other information.

 

[37818]

What ever translations one chooses is a decision one is making regarding our hearing the Word of God.

 

[Silverhair]

Have you read the link of Post #114? If you do. What do you think you disagree with?

The premise that the Byzantine text is the best. It could be and it is the best for those that think it is the best others do not.

That is what I have been pointing out to you from the start "some prefer the Byzantine text" but not all.

This is a horse that you have been beating to death for a number of threads now. The answer is obvious but you will not accept it. What you consider the better bible others will not.

The best Bible translation as the one that changes God’s words the least in the translation process. But as before who is to make that decision.