An argument against 7 translations by a former KJVO

[37818]

 

[Scarlett O.]

If you don't have an hour to watch this, I looked it up on Youtube, knowing the comments would give the list of Bibles he is against.

So here they are:

[1] The New World Translation [NWT]
[2]The Muslim Translations
[3] The Passion Translation
[4] The New Revised Standard Version [updated edition]
[5] The Tree of Life Version
[6] The Message
[7] The King James = "without a careful consideration that English has changed" In other words - he said King James Onlyism

 

[Scarlett O.]

He has another 45 minute video where he lists his 7 "good" translations.

7 Good Bible Translations (ft. Mark Ward) (youtube.com)

[1] New King James
[2] ESV
[3] NASB
[4] CSB
[5] NIV
[6] NET
[7] NLT

 

[37818]

Each of those 7 cited [post #1] by Mark Ward are with qualifications as to why. He gives specific case issues for each.

Personally I would cite. "The New English Bible." Re: NT, 1961. OT, 1970.

Genesis 11:1, ONCE UPON A TIME all the world spoke a single language and used the same words. . . .

Psalms 22:16, The huntsmen all about me; a band of ruffians rings me round, and they have hacked off my hands and my feet. . . .

 

[Deacon]

Thanks for the "Reader's Digest Version", Scarlett (pun intended).

I stay clear of speciality Bible versions like the "Passion" or "Tree of Life" versions.

"The Message" is a speciality version but has its place, qualified by a note from the pastor/translator in the Preface (so very few people ever read a Preface).

The Message is a reading Bible. It is not intended to replace the excellent study Bibles that are available. My intent here (as it was earlier in my congregation and community) is simply to get people reading it who don’t know that the Bible is read-able at all, at least by them, and to get people who long ago lost interest in the Bible to read it again. But I haven’t tried to make it easy—there is much in the Bible that is hard to understand. So at some point along the way, soon or late, it will be important to get a standard study Bible to facilitate further study. Meanwhile, read in order to live, praying as you read, “God, let it be with me just as you say.”
—Eugene H. Peterson​

Rob

 

[MrW]

If you don't have an hour to watch this, I looked it up on Youtube, knowing the comments would give the list of Bibles he is against.

So here they are:

[1] The New World Translation [NWT]
[2]The Muslim Translations
[3] The Passion Translation
[4] The New Revised Standard Version [updated edition]
[5] The Tree of Life Version
[6] The Message
[7] The King James = "without a careful consideration that English has changed" In other words - he said King James Onlyism

I oppose them, too, especially the Mess…, for that is what it is. It doesn’t even resemble Scripture. It’s NOT a translation; it’s a man’s very biased opinion of what he wants the Bible to say.

If I was shipwrecked on a deserted island with it, I would burn it for firewood.

 

[JD731]

https://www.thenivbible.com/about-the-niv/history-of-the-niv/

One Man’s Vision for the NIV
Howard Long, an engineer from Seattle, was known for his passion for sharing the gospel and his love for the King James Bible. One day, he tried sharing Scripture with a non-Christian—only to find that the KJV’s 17th-century English didn’t connect.

In 1955, Long embarked on a ten-year quest for a new Bible translation that would faithfully capture the Word of God in contemporary English. Eventually his denomination, the Christian Reformed Church (CRC), and the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) embraced his vision for the NIV.

Evangelicals Unite for a New Bible Translation
In 1965, a cross-denominational gathering of evangelical scholars met near Chicago and agreed to start work on the New International Version. Instead of just updating an existing translation like the KJV, they chose to start from scratch, using the very best manuscripts available in the original Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic of the Bible.

One year later, their decision was endorsed by a gathering of 80 evangelical ministry leaders and scholars. And so the Committee on Bible Translation (CBT), the self-governing body responsible for the NIV, was born.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Why would anyone present a list of bad translations and not include the NIV. It is a creation from the Reformed mind? Among the host of bad translations, it might be the very worst, IMO.

Another question; who believes that God desires that unsaved men understand his scriptures, which is his mind, if they have not been born again by the gospel. The gospel is contained in the scriptures but it is not confined to the scriptures. The gospel is to be preached that unsaved men might hear and believe and be converted. The New Testament church began without a written Bible. It began with the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It grew from the preaching of men who saw Jesus after he rose from the dead and the means of it's growth has been converted men preaching to unsaved men ever since.

The holy Scriptures gives their worth in 2 Tim. 3.

1 Thess 1:7 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,
8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:
9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;
10 When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day.

He did not say "obey not the scriptures, he said obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ."

This means one needs a preacher and salvation before he needs a Bible.

2 Thessalonians 2:10-13
10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

I personally think that creating new translations is going to be in the same conversation with going to the lake of fire for some creators.

The scriptures are a Jewish culture proposition. It is different from ours. How will one update that?

1 Cor 1:21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

 

[GodisgraciousR325]

Should look into the history of the NIV, I believe there is a book about its history from one of its editors, there is quite a Catholic influence.

Anyways, the King James Bible is understandable and we still many of its words.

Yes, 17th century English may be hard but the current King James is in proper English.

The gospel:

 

[Logos1560]

Should look into the history of the NIV, I believe there is a book about its history from one of its editors, there is quite a Catholic influence.

Have you looked into the history of the making of the KJV? There is quite a bit of Roman Catholic influence on the KJV. The state Church of England retained some doctrines and practices from the Roman Catholic Church, and all the KJV translators were members of that Church of England. William Reynolds (1544?-1594), a brother of KJV translator John Reynolds [or Rainolds] (1549-1607), was said to be one of the translators of the Roman Catholic Douay-Rheims Bible (Paine, Men Behind the KJV, p. 128). At one time a Protestant, William became a Roman Catholic through the influence of his brother John who had been a papist (McClure, KJV Translators Revived, p. 122).

The KJV used and consulted Hebrew-Latin lexicons and Greek-Latin lexicons that often had renderings from Jerome's Latin Vulgate as the definitions of Hebrew OT words or of Greek NT words. The Church of England makers of the KJV also borrowed many renderings from the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament. Erasmus had introduced some readings from an edition of Jerome's Latin Vulgate into his edited Greek New Testament text that became the basis for the later printed Textus Receptus editions. Some Old Testament renderings in the KJV seem to be based on Jerome's Latin Vulgate. The rendering Lucifer comes from Jerome's Latin Vulgate. The rendering "pygarg" at Deuteronomy 14:5 comes from the Greek Septuagint rendering pygargos or from the Vulgate rendering pygargus. The rendering unicorn and unicorns come from Jerome's Latin Vulgate.

The same exact measures/standards that are applied inconsistently to the making of other English Bible translations are not applied to the making of the KJV.

 

[GodisgraciousR325]

That dosen't convince me in any way to not use the King James Bible.

The Latin, Douay still says Jesus is God, and the gospel, dosen't mean its right in the other areas. The Latin Vulgate is actually quite close to the King James vs the Critical Text.

It still omits stuff like Matthew 6:13's ending but just since it uses the same terms like John 1:1 mean its wrong.

This is not in the same level as comparing this with the critical versions.

 

[GodisgraciousR325]

Have you looked into the history of the making of the KJV? There is quite a bit of Roman Catholic influence on the KJV. The state Church of England retained some doctrines and practices from the Roman Catholic Church, and all the KJV translators were members of that Church of England. William Reynolds (1544?-1594), a brother of KJV translator John Reynolds [or Rainolds] (1549-1607), was said to be one of the translators of the Roman Catholic Douay-Rheims Bible (Paine, Men Behind the KJV, p. 128). At one time a Protestant, William became a Roman Catholic through the influence of his brother John who had been a papist (McClure, KJV Translators Revived, p. 122).

The KJV used and consulted Hebrew-Latin lexicons and Greek-Latin lexicons that often had renderings from Jerome's Latin Vulgate as the definitions of Hebrew OT words or of Greek NT words. The Church of England makers of the KJV also borrowed many renderings from the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament. Erasmus had introduced some readings from an edition of Jerome's Latin Vulgate into his edited Greek New Testament text that became the basis for the later printed Textus Receptus editions. Some Old Testament renderings in the KJV seem to be based on Jerome's Latin Vulgate. The rendering Lucifer comes from Jerome's Latin Vulgate. The rendering "pygarg" at Deuteronomy 14:5 comes from the Greek Septuagint rendering pygargos or from the Vulgate rendering pygargus. The rendering unicorn and unicorns come from Jerome's Latin Vulgate.

The same exact measures/standards that are applied inconsistently to the making of other English Bible translations are not applied to the making of the KJV.

The Latin/Greek probably means the same thing in those verses just like John 1:1, Genesis 1:1 where the Catholics just had a better rendering of it that had no influence in theology.

The King James Bible is still not Catholic nor supports Catholic doctrine, the King James Bible is the word of God.

 

[Logos1560]

The King James Bible is still not Catholic nor supports Catholic doctrine

I did not claim that the KJV is Roman Catholic.

The accurate point was to refute a seeming attempt to use the fallacy of guilty by association against present English Bible translations by suggesting association with Roman Catholicism when just as strong as association between the KJV and Roman Catholicism could be suggested.

 

[Logos1560]

the King James Bible is the word of God.

Are you omitting the fact that the KJV is an English translation? The KJV is not exclusively or solely the Bible given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles.

The King James Version is one English translation or version of the word of God. The KJV is the word of God translated into English in the same sense (univocally) as the pre-1611 English Bibles are the word of God translated into English and in the same sense (univocally) as some post-1611 English Bibles such as the NKJV are the word of God translated into English. The Scriptures do not teach that the word of God in English is bound to the textual criticism decisions, Bible revision decisions, and translation decisions of one exclusive group of Church of England men in 1611.

 

[GodisgraciousR325]

The perfect word of God is the King James Bible, not the New King James or any other version.

 

[GodisgraciousR325]

I did not claim that the KJV is Roman Catholic.

The accurate point was to refute a seeming attempt to use the fallacy of guilty by association against present English Bible translations by suggesting association with Roman Catholicism when just as strong as association between the KJV and Roman Catholicism could be suggested.

The new versions omit verses.

 

[GodisgraciousR325]

Are you omitting the fact that the KJV is an English translation? The KJV is not exclusively or solely the Bible given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles.

The King James Version is one English translation or version of the word of God. The KJV is the word of God translated into English in the same sense (univocally) as the pre-1611 English Bibles are the word of God translated into English and in the same sense (univocally) as some post-1611 English Bibles such as the NKJV are the word of God translated into English. The Scriptures do not teach that the word of God in English is bound to the textual criticism decisions, Bible revision decisions, and translation decisions of one exclusive group of Church of England men in 1611.

I do agree that God inspired those but the Bible for the world to day is the English King James Bible.

The NKJV is not a KJB.

The King James Bible had things that were close to the Douay and others since that is what it is in scripture, its nothing related to new versions using the same idea.

The new verisons are omitting verses, not just rephrasing things and changing things up that is just untrue.

The Bishops, and others are not fully the same as the King James.

 

[JesusFan]

The perfect word of God is the King James Bible, not the New King James or any other version.

The perfect word of God refers to only the originals, and NO English translation can claim to be perfect, inspired, without any error etc!

 

[Logos1560]

The new verisons are omitting verses, not just rephrasing things and changing things up that is just untrue.

According to scriptural truth, adding words or verses would be just as wrong as omitting words or verses. Some may claim that they are simply removing added words or verses. When you allege the omitting of verses, you would have the burden of proof to demonstrate that those verses were actually found in the original Scriptures given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles.

There are some whole verses differences in the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV is a revision. In Psalm 14, the Great Bible (also 1535 Coverdale's Bible) has three additional verses which are not in the KJV. These three verses from the Latin Vulgate are also in the Douay-Rheims Bible [numbered Psalm 13 in Douay-Rheims]. Several pre-1611 English Bibles did not have three whole verses [Mark 11:26, Luke 17:36, and Revelation 21:26] that are found in the KJV.

There are textual differences involving whole verses in the twenty to thirty varying printed Textus Receptus editions of the New Testament. The Greek NT manuscripts that underlie the varying TR editions differ in whether or not they include the following whole verses: Mark 11:26, Luke 17:36, Acts 8:37, 1 John 5:7. Scrivener maintained that Acts 15:34 is omitted by several manuscripts including over fifty cursives and that “Erasmus inserted it in his editions from the margin of Codex 4” (Introduction, Vol. II, p. 373). Some other significant differences in TR editions are found involving clauses and phrases at Mark 15:3c, John 8:6c, John 8:9b, John 8:59c, John 19:38c, James 4:6b, 1 John 2:23b, Revelation 5:11b, Revelation 18:23a, and Revelation 21:26. In the 1550 Greek text edition by Stephanus, over 2,000 differences are indicated in the textual marginal notes from only fifteen Greek manuscripts and the printed Complutensian edition.