Bible Translations in Use

Question # 8

Which edition was used for the Old Schofield Bible?

I have a copy of a reproduction of the 1611 edition - it's not much fun to read - very unlike the Engish we use today.

 

I have the New American Standard Electronic Bible Library (NASB 1995 Update) that I use when I am on the computer. It also has the KJV (1769 Cambridge Edition), The Amplified New Testament, 1901 American Standard Version, and one called La Biblia de las Americas (I can't read that one, I must not have the give of tongues). They are quite useful but, the one I carry and use the most is the New Scofield Study Bible (KJV ??? Edition)

 

The question I find most interesting in this poll is: "Do you believe preachers should refer to the original languages?"

I am one of the 2 (so far) that answered 'No,' because of the inconsistency involved in this. If a preacher [or teacher or 'speaker'] wants to get a point across and a competent reference to the original language helps to do that, it would seem to be fine. BUT, if a look at the original languages lends no support to the point he is attmepting to make, or if it actually supports a counterpoint, then the speaker is going to say nothing about the original language of the passage involved.

 

The first question asks which translation I carry as my primary Bible. My primary is a Parallel Study Bible which contains four translations; KJV, NASB, NIV, and Amplified. I like to read the same passage from them all.

 

Dan Todd wrote:
>>I have a copy of a reproduction of the 1611
>>edition - it's not much fun to read - very
>>unlike the Engish we use today.

Really?
I have a repro. of the 1611 KJV and I absolutely LOVE it. As a matter of fact, I take it with me to church, as I do with my 1599 Geneva Bible repro. IMHO, even if someone is an athiest, they have to concede that the 1611 KJV is a work of art.

Our preacher reads from the NKJV, and I have no trouble following along in either translation.

 

Bob, You might as well go ahead and move it then, you made it a fight when you introduced that slurr that a man "is robbing his people of the Word of God".

It's always been funny to me that we have all these new versions, but it seems we have less in people who want to serve God, more in church splits over music and clothing, (which was never a "big" problem before.)

Most knew how to live for God for over 400 years from the AV1611, including the "SPELLING" revisions of later renditions, but now we have to exgesize by using Hebrew and Greek to get a point across that is already given in English! It's like backing up 2000-4000 years to only backstep in learning. We haven't really learned anymore, only we think we have, thus the old "Greek" heirarchy in intellect and knowledge by degree of learning presides over common sense! Foolishness, foolishness, foolishness! satan laughing

Funny thing: we just learned that English is the language used as the accepted international language amongst astronauts from all countries involved with the international space station! Wonder if that has anything to do with unconfounding languages? me sticking my tongue out!

 

Cause ...

What statistics do you have that show that people are less interested in living for God now than they used to be?? My experience is entirely different. As I have said before, when I was in a KJVO church, there was a great apathy towards Christian living and the word of God. Now using the NASB predominantly, I see a much greater interest in serving God.

There is much sin, but none of it is attributable to the use of modern versions. All of those sins existed long before the KJV and were widely accepted before the KJV, much less the modern versions.

Good pastors have always used the original languages as much as they were able. After all, that is all that used to exist, in the days before the word of God. And as if often said in jest, I now say truly: Good enough for the apostle Paul, good enough for me.

While the statement "robbing the church of God's word" is stronger than I would use, I certainly understand what he is saying. And I agree in principle.

And BTW, the language being spoken on the space station is the NIV language, not the KJV language. And if that is good enough for the world to use, then it should be for us right??

 

Guess that makes me a robber then...unless ya count using a Hebrew & Greek Dictionary. Can't read either language, never heard the Lord tell me I needed to. Never heard Him tell me I was a robber either, cept' for a spell when I wasn't sure about how we are to give! He straightened me out on that, & even used the BB to do it!

 

Hey ya didn't start nuthin'.....thats how we all get along HERE!!!!

 

I only replied to what I saw as a slurr towards those who don't use Greek and Hebrew as a means of impressing their congregations to say the exact same thing. It has always amazed me that one can't seem to grasp that, in context, the KJB says the EXACT SAME THING, as in the originals.

On the International Space Station issue, the men and women aboard speak very little about the Bible as they are busy working, but the point I was making is that English is the language they use, not Greek or Hebrew. I wouldn't say they speak in NIV language though, I would have to say they speak in NKJV language instead, but either way, if they were to do so, they should at least say what the Word of God really says.

I listen to many who are the acclaimed by the more mainstream in Christendom, and I don't hear them preach much against sin, but I do hear them give that "social" Gospel. I suppose when those we preach to only want to have their intellect "tickled", we'll have to keep our message within the realm of "acceptable" as not to offend anyone, hogwash!( that's what comes off the hog when you wash him!) Sin offended the Son of God, so sin is to be preached against!

On the "fighting" issue, Sorry guys, I'm not fighting, just applying simple reasoning to the conversation, that's all I'm capable of doing, is apply simple reasoning, I'm just simple, KJB simple.

 

Great ... Why didn't you tell us that you foudn the originals so we would all know. ... Oh wait, you mean you didn't find the originals? So how do you know that the KJV reads the "exact same thing"? You mean you don't really know, you just asserted that without any proof whatsoever?? Now you agree with us because we have said all along that there is no way to say that the KJV reads exactly like the originals because until you find them, you have no idea what they said.

My (no so??) subtle sarcasm is intended to point out that what you have just called "simple reasoning applied to the conversation" shows your conclusions to be wrong conclusion. It demonstrates the great flaw in your "simple reasoning."

These issues are not settled by these kinds of "ex-cathedra" statements. Most of us who love God's word demand more than the ideas of men; we want to hear it from God. We want to use his word to settle these matters.

They don't speak in Greek and Hebrew for the same reason we don't. It is not their language. And they don't speak in KJV English for the same reason we don't. It is not their language. But God did speak in Greek and Hebrew and that serves a vital role in understanding what God said. In 1611, there was a group of learned men who translated the Greek and Hebrew. You had no problem with them studying it and knowing it and using it. But you ahve a problem with modern scholars studying it and knowing it and using it. That is what we call in "simple reasoning," an inconsistency.

 

On the use of Hebrew and Greek from the pulpit: I seldom ever use these languages before the congregation. They don't know them, so whatever I had to say about them, they must take as gospel. Better to remain in the language they understand. They already know my degree of learning. The point of preaching the word is to make its message clear.

I use the KJV for preaching simply because I grew up with it and I know it best. In personal reading I like the Philips New Testament and the NIV. I often paraphrase scripture anyway and just fit verses into my message,,,,,often without reference to chapter and verse.

To each man his own style. Clarity,,clarity..clarity.....my main goal.

Cheers,

Jim

 

I thought the point of the question was about study, not preaching. I agree that we should rarely, if ever, refer to the original language words in preaching, unless it is something that might sound familiar, such as a word that has a like sounding English equivalent. We should not hesitate to make clear that certain words (such as "love" for instance) are delineated in the original languages.

Perhaps I misunderstood the question here.