Do you compare new versions with other versions?

[mcdirector]

Bro Rippon is very good at that -- making comparisons between versions. I've never seen anyone as studious as he at comparing versions.

I re-reading The Bible in Translation by Bruce Metzger, and I just finished the chapter on the KJV 1611. I realize that the average person didn't have multiple Bibles, but I am curious if those with access did make comparisons too. What got me wondering (besides this thread) was a paragraph (pp 76-77)

"The aim of the revisers is clearly stated in the preface. It was not to make "a new translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one. . . but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones one principal good one." Although usually called a translation, it is in fact merely a revision of the Biships' Bible, as this itself was a revision of the Great Bible, and the Great Bible a revision of Coverdale and Tyndale. A great deal of the praise, therefore, that is given to it belongs to its predecessors. For the idiom and vocabulary, Tyndale deserves the greatest credit; for the melody and harmony, Coverdale; for scholarship and accuracy, the Geneva version."

I'm not saying this to take anything away from the KJV1611. It just made me wonder if men who had access, men with understanding of where the KJV came from would want to pick up one of the above mentioned Bibles and make comparisons.

 

[Askjo]

I have always heard it was an all out attack on the word of God.

Agree, I suspected it for a long time.

 

[Askjo]

Yes, Onlyism is.

No, not Onlyism, but WHO????

 

[Askjo]

I do compare new versions with the KJV. It's quite effective in determining the source for doctrinal differences.

Very true.

 

[TCGreek]

Bro Rippon is very good at that -- making comparisons between versions. I've never seen anyone as studious as he at comparing versions.

I re-reading The Bible in Translation by Bruce Metzger, and I just finished the chapter on the KJV 1611. I realize that the average person didn't have multiple Bibles, but I am curious if those with access did make comparisons too. What got me wondering (besides this thread) was a paragraph (pp 76-77)



I'm not saying this to take anything away from the KJV1611. It just made me wonder if men who had access, men with understanding of where the KJV came from would want to pick up one of the above mentioned Bibles and make comparisons.

It's so good to see a sister engaging in such things. Keep it up! Your desire for these matters has charmed my heart.

 

[Askjo]

27 editions!? Why so many?

I learned that 27th restored approx. 500 TR words. In the future the 27th will become 28th. 29th.... 35th.... 50th.... 100th. Who know?

 

[Askjo]

Why so many editions of the KJV?

Did they change any doctrines?

 

[franklinmonroe]

Did they change any doctrines?

Doctrines keep getting mentioned; are there doctrines left out of some Bible versions? Which doctrines are left out of which Bibles?

The doctrine of the virigin birth? the Trinity? salvation by grace? the Diety of Christ? Which doctrines are being changed? Inspiration of the scriptures? the eternal blessing of the saved and eternal punishment for the lost? the return of Christ? Which Bible can I not find these in?

Please tell me, as I would not want to use such Bibles. (you may skip the NWT, Joseph Smith's 'Inspired' version, or other obvious cultish 'Bibles')

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Did they change any doctrines?

Totally off point. The poster questioned the number of editions of a Greek text, I questioned the number of editions of the KJV.

Why did you bring up doctrines?

 

[Askjo]

Doctrines keep getting mentioned; are there doctrines left out of some Bible versions? Which doctrines are left out of which Bibles?

The doctrine of the virigin birth? the Trinity? salvation by grace? the Diety of Christ? Which doctrines are being changed? Inspiration of the scriptures? the eternal blessing of the saved and eternal punishment for the lost? the return of Christ? Which Bible can I not find these in?

Please tell me, as I would not want to use such Bibles. (you may skip the NWT, Joseph Smith's 'Inspired' version, or other obvious cultish 'Bibles')

God inspired His Words through Paul's writings in the NT. Paul wrote his letters to 2 different locations. The KJV has a same doctrine on these phrases in Paul's TWO letters, but one phrase of the Scriptures in his letters was deleted in modern versions.

 

[Askjo]

Totally off point. The poster questioned the number of editions of a Greek text, I questioned the number of editions of the KJV.

Why did you bring up doctrines?

Ok, let's see here:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rufus_1611
27 editions!? Why so many?

I do compare new versions with the KJV. It's quite effective in determining the source for doctrinal differences.

Originally Posted by C4K
Why so many editions of the KJV?

Did you read what Rufus posted before you posted? See red bold above????

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Ok, let's see here:



Did you read what Rufus posted before you posted? See red bold above????

My post had nothing to do with the statement on doctrines. It merely pointed on the inconstancy of question the number of editions of a Greek text while allowing for a number of editions of an American translation.

To put it in the context of your focus - "How many of those editions of the Greek text affected doctrine?"

 

[Ed Edwards]

Paul1611 in the Opening Post:

Do you compare new versions with other versions?

Yes. I have an e-sword triplet including
the KJV1611 Edition and the KJV1769 Edition with
Strong's Numbers. (Strong's is so much better to
use electronicly than on paper /I have a limit to how much
I can lift, less than the weight of STRONG'S/.)

If I find a probem with my newer versions
(the KJV1611 & KJV1769), I use the grand OLD VERSION:
GENEVA BIBLE (I have the 1587 Edition).

Rev 19:12 (KJV1769 Edition with Strong's Numbers):
(1161) His848 eyes3788 were as5613 a flame5395 of fire,4442
and2532 on1909 his848 head2776 were many4183
crowns;1238 and he had2192 a name3686
written,1125 that3739 no man3762 knew,1492
but1508 he himself.848

Ah, 'deh' (G1161) isn't translated??? in the new Bible
I better check an Older Bible:

Rev 19:12 (Geneva Bible, 1587 Edition):
And his eyes were as a flame of fire,
and on his head were many
crownes: and he had a name
written, that no man knewe
but himselfe.

Ah, the older Bible translates the (G1161)
about which Strong's sez:

G1161
δέ
de
deh
A primary particle (adversative or continuative);
but, and, etc.: - also, and, but, moreover,
now [often unexpressed in English].

BTW, G1161 appears in the KJV1769 Edition, New Testament
and is used 2841 times in 2534 verses.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Rsr:

The most noticeable [changes are] ...
and clipping the "and" off the beginnings of OT sentences.

That comment of Rsr just quoted
lead to thecomments of Ed Edwards
in post #53.

 

[TC]

I do compare newer versions of the Bible with older ones. I also compare older versions with each other, and I also compare new versions with other new versions. Since I do not read Greek or Hebrew, I think it is the best way to get the sense of the scriptures.