Bible version poll

[DocCas]

Originally posted by got2liv4him:
The 1611 is in olde english and contaqins the apocrypha. The 1769 was revised at Oxford to update to the modern form of English and the apocrypha were not included.

BTW, I was gloriously saved at eight with the AV1769, which is the only one I will use now.

The 1611 was not in "olde english." It was in the same language, Modern English, as the present editions of the KJV, the 1762/1769.

Old English 500-1100 - Genesis 22:10 in Old English: God wolde Þa fandian Abrahames gehiersumnesse, and clipode his naman, and swaed him Þus to: "Nim pinne ancennedan sunu Isaac," . . . John 3:16 in Old English: "God lufode middan-eard swa', daet he sealde his 'an-cennedan sunu, daet nan ne forweorde de on hine gelyfp, ac haebbe dact 'ece lif." (Aelfric translation, c1000 AD)

Middle English 1100-1500 - John 3:16: for god loued so the world; that he zaf his oon bigetun sone, that eche man that bileueth in him perishch not: but haue euerlastynge liif. (Wycliff, 1380)

Modern English 1500-Present - John 3:16: For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Secondly, the 1611 did not contain the Apocrypha as part of the text as the Greek Old Testament did, but omitted it from the text as the Hebrew Old Testament does, but the translators did include it between the testaments due to their believing it gave historical insight to the 400 silent years of the intertestimental period. The KJV translators were heirs to a long line of bible scholars who did not believe the Apocrypha was inspired scripture.

 

[got2liv4him]

Thanks for this insight. I have seen a copy of 1611 and noticed the apocrypha in it, but did not realize the difference between where the greek o.t. and how they put it in between the testaments. Also, I think I was attributing the olde spelling (i.e. using f instead of s?) to being olde English, but after your post and further study I have recognized that the difference is almost complete instead of partial (just spelling). Thanks for the correction!

 

[Steveninetx]

I was visited by two "FAITH" teams from the church I now attend. One team used the NKJV and the other team used NIV. The Bible I tend to use and study from now is NIV.

Steven

 

[LP]

I did not know of any other Bible 'cept the KJV in my first days. But now, I use most all translations, since each seem to have their highs and lows. You should check out the Jerusalem Bible sometime.

 

[LP]

Originally posted by trumpet:
The KJV1611 was the last bible to be translated with any accuracy.

Aw rats! That means all those new tribes being evangelized are now not going to be able to have missionary linguists doing the work of putting the Bible in the tribes' mother tongue, while also tapping into certain of the tribes' key cultural conceptions so as to make the Scripture's meaning accessible to them. I guess missionaries will have to become cultural "educators" now, and will have to haul in teams of English teachers with cases of KJVs. Please, someone let Wycliffe, New Tribes Missions, etc, know this new insight into the KJV so they can revamp their strategy to fit in with "the truth."

The implications of a doctrine give strong indication of validity. The above is an inescapable implication of the KJV Only hogwash.

Please stop this KJV Only silliness. It smells like smoke.

Satan has diverted you into a trap to do his bidding. He would have you do ANYTHING but truly bring onslaughts against his kingdom.

If I were to think devilishly, KJV Only sounds like a great strategy to divert some of God's people.

[ March 07, 2002, 05:19 AM: Message edited by: LP ]

 

[n2ChristJ]

Don't laugh. I was saved when I readed a Giddian(sp)Bible in a hotel while on vacation with my family. I believe it was a KJV. In the back of the book it gave the plan of salvation and a prayer to say, well I said that prayer and praise God for Giddian Bibles every since.

 

[kwob02]

The preacher in my home church used the KJV and taught that the use of any other modern version was of the devil. As a result, I was never saved in that church, because I never really heard the truth.

When I was finally led to a genuine experience with Christ, and this was confirmed by the indwelling and filling of the Holy Spirit, I don't think I recall the translation that was used by that particular minister, though I would guess probably the NASB or NIV from the way it sounded.

For my own reading and study I use the most accurate English translation of the Bible available, which is the NRSV.

 

[ventin]

Even as i start reading the post from page 1, my heart is greatly burdened as to the number of ppl who thinks that Bible versions saves. Very often, it is not how much we know of the Bible but how much we know the God of the Bible.

i used to struggle on this issue too as i dont remember ppl witnessing to me using the KJV. My christian relatives gave me the NKJV, Good News, NIV but never the KJV. As an ignorant christian then, it really didnt bother me which version i use but it matter to God how he chose to speak to me and lead me to him. As i mature and exposed to the many issues facing christianity, i will only follow what God has inspired and preserved in the KJV.

 

[Chris Temple]

Originally posted by kwob02:
For my own reading and study I use the most accurate English translation of the Bible available, which is the NRSV.

The NRSV is VERY far from being the most accurate Bible version. See What's Wrong With Gender Neutral Bibles? by Wayne Grudem

 

[KEVO]

IT WAS A KJV1611.SOMEONE CAN LEAD SOMEONE ELSE TO THE LORD WITH ANOTHER VERSION.BUT YOU CAN FIND A DOLLAR IN THE SEWER EVERY ONCE IN A WHILE BUT IT IS NOT THE BANK.

[Lose the caps or lose the post.]

[ March 25, 2002, 12:38 PM: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]

 

[Ransom]

KEVO screamed:

But you can find a dollar in the sewer every once in a while but it is not the bank. [de-capped for the sake of all our eyes]

Yet another so-called Bible believer insults God's holy Word by calling it a sewer.

 

[Forever settled in heaven]

it appears that gender sensitivity is part of the larger approach of Dynamic Equivalence, and anyone who doesn't subscribe to the translation principles of DE is likely to resist TNIV's gender sensitivity as well.

fr what i've read of Grudem, he seems to fit that mold, n that resistance gets a little repetitious after a while. get the heart right about DE, n the "problem" of modern versions will be fixed

Originally posted by Chris Temple:

Originally posted by kwob02:
[qb]... is VERY far from being the most accurate Bible version. See What's Wrong With Gender Neutral Bibles? by Wayne Grudem

 

[LordsKnight]

Back to the original thread...

I was born again under the influence of the KJV. I only use the King Jesus Version!

By His Amazing Grace!

Mike

 

[tyndale1946]

Mike that was a good one I'll have to remember that... The King Jesus Version!... Make that your "Only Bible" no matter what the masses say!... Brother Glen

 

[Forever settled in heaven]

o but doesn't it get confusing when the MASSES say the KJB is the ONLY bible?

that goes for the KJBOnly/Superior majority in some circles, n for those who'd argue for the Majority Text. masses ... masses ... masses

Originally posted by tyndale1946:
Mike that was a good one I'll have to remember that... The King Jesus Version!... Make that your "Only Bible" no matter what the masses say!... Brother Glen

 

[DocCas]

Do you ever post anything which makes sense? Are you taking drugs? Drinking a lot? Perhaps you could think your responses through a bit more, learn to spell, and leave the arrogant attitude behind the next time you post.

 

[Chris Temple]

Originally posted by Forever settled in heaven:
that goes for the KJBOnly/Superior majority in some circles, n for those who'd argue for the Majority Text. masses ... masses ... masses

How can MT proponents belong to the confused masses when the hold the minority position??