How can you tell...

[Ed Edwards]

Refreshed: "Joseph Smith Version was produced by the founder of Mormonism."

Can you give me enough information about this
"Joseph Smith" edition so i can read a copy myself.
I know he intened to retranslate the KJV (the
version he had handy) but didn't live long enough to
translate it. I have looked at his "BOOK OF MORMON"
and the Mormon: "DOCTRINE AND COVENENT". D&C has
a translation of maybe Matthew 24 & 25, but that is all.

What edition of the King James Version (KJV) does the
Mormons give away (like on TV)?

 

[Ed Edwards]

Originally posted by Askjo:
I wonder - Joseph ignored Rev. 22:18-19.

That isn't all.
He and Jesus get to decide which humans go
to heaven and which don't.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Originally posted by timothy 1769:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Daniel David:
Only those translations that accurately translate the text can be considered the Word of God.

This would rule out the Message and other drivel.

Amen! IMO Paraphrases can be nice for seeing what someone thinks the Bible might mean, but should never, ever be one's sole Bible since it's merely someone guy's idea of what the word of God teaches, not the word of God itself. Obviously some are better than others, but why not leave out the middleman?

Mind numbingly literal translations include: Greek/English interlinears, LITV*, ALT*, Young's*.

Essentially literal translations include: KJV*, MKJV*, NKJV*, ESV, NASB and most historical translations, like the Geneva*, Tyndale*, etc.

Light paraphrases include: NIV (more??)

Extreme paraphrases include: NLT, The Message

I recommend the KJV* (big suprise).

* TR/Majority text based translations </font>[/QUOTE]Good list, Timothy 1769!

I believe "The message" to contain the inerrant
Written Word of God. The NLT is better.

Happy New Year !

 

[Refreshed]

Ed,

I've debated enough Mormons around here to know that they use the same version of the KJV I do, so I guess it would be 1769. I'm 99 percent sure.

Here are some links to the Joseph Smith Translation which is not a KJV (well, okay, it really is plus some really messed up doctrine, but Joseph Smith said it was translated from the original languages).

Joseph Smith Translation for sale

Really good website on this straight from the source - LDS

You'll notice his poor grammar. He could not read or write.

Jason

 

[Ed Edwards]

Apparently "1867 Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible" is out of print, was incomplete,
and because i have no copy of it
(and i won't be paying $100,000+ for it

),
It need not be conisdered in this topic.

How do you tell if some Bible IN PRINT
and AVAILABLE to us is THE WORD OF GOD?

 

[timothy 1769]

Originally posted by Ed Edwards:
Refreshed: "Joseph Smith Version was produced by the founder of Mormonism."

Can you give me enough information about this
"Joseph Smith" edition so i can read a copy myself.
I know he intened to retranslate the KJV (the
version he had handy) but didn't live long enough to
translate it. I have looked at his "BOOK OF MORMON"
and the Mormon: "DOCTRINE AND COVENENT". D&C has
a translation of maybe Matthew 24 & 25, but that is all.

What edition of the King James Version (KJV) does the
Mormons give away (like on TV)?

1769 I think. How does one tell again? I think I have one down in the garage.... nope. But it WASN'T the Joseph Smith edition. They save weird stuff like that until you're pretty much safely in their clutches.

Heh, I was saved reading a free Mormon KJV.

 

[Refreshed]

Ed,

Here's where you can get one.
Inspired Version/Joseph Smith Version

The people who publish them now, the Community of Christ, formerly known as the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (or Reorganites), use it as their only scripture. Check, check, check it out!

Even if the JSV wasn't still in print that would not have negated my whole answer as to how to pick a Bible.

Jason

 

[timothy 1769]

Good list, Timothy 1769!

I believe "The message" to contain the inerrant
Written Word of God. The NLT is better.

Happy New Year !

I agape you, Ed! Your sweet wife, my sister, too.

I'm sorry I was so harsh with you way back when on the "Susan B. Anthony is the Devil's handmaid" thread. Though my position hasn't really changed, I was stoopid and acted like a preschooler, especially there toward the end.

The NLT is even better than the inerrant Written Word of God? Sounds like the KJV on steroids, heh....

ps. I like your faith-based position on the Bible, even though I can't really understand it

 

[Walls]

Timothy, you quoted the confession of 1689-I think, what about the 1644 confession? Which Bible were the Baptists using at the time?

 

[Refreshed]

Bro Tim,

That was very magnanimous of you. I wish all could follow your example.

Unfortunately we all can't. To put the paraprhases on the same plane as a formal equivalency Bible is to elevate a commentary to scripture status. Let's cannonize Matthew Henry's commentary while we're at it.

Jason (not feeling particularly magnanimous)

Okay, I'm better now.

 

[Refreshed]

Excellent question Walls. Hopefully someone can pull up the answer.

Jason

 

[Refreshed]

It looks like the final printing of the Geneva was in 1644, the same year as the earlier confession. This would lead one to believe the Geneva was on the way out??? I'll do some research, but I'm sure there are others that know much more about it than I do.

Jason...anxiously waiting...

 

[timothy 1769]

Originally posted by Walls:
Timothy, you quoted the confession of 1689-I think, what about the 1644 confession? Which Bible were the Baptists using at the time?

Hmm.. I'm not sure. I assume those confessions refer to the Greek and Hebrew anyway, and not to any particular translation.

The Geneva died out because of censorship. At the time of the English Commonwealth many thought the Geneva would make a comeback, but it just didn't. It's kind of a mystery. But there were a number of editions of the KJV with the Geneva notes after that time, which many people liked. Ultimately perhaps readers were more enamoured with the notes of the Geneva than with the Geneva translation per se. After that, for around 300 years, there effectively was no real competition to the KJV - not because of any censorship, but because of the deep love of the people for our English version.

It still gives me that warm special feeling

 

[Ed Edwards]

Originally posted by Refreshed:
I guess the answer to the question, "how are you to tell which versions are not to be used by a Christian," is when a Bible is translated with an agenda to advance one's own belief system. I can think of the Joseph Smith Version, the New World Translation.

Another instance (IMHO) where a Christian can fall short on their choice of "Bibles" is with the paraphrase. It is not even a translation, just an opinion as to what the text meant. Examples of this would be "The Message," "The Living Bible," or "Good News for Modern Man." They are nothing more than commentaries on the text. The Christian should have God's word, not the word of somebody talking about God's word.

We should seek out the best translation, why would we want to settle for second-best?

Jason

Looks good for me.

Note that in this circumstance, the fourth
best translation, might in the next occasion
be first best.

I personally never figured out the
thees and thous in the KJV

 

[Elk]

Hello! I would like to go really out on a limb here with what I would like to share, for I felt that today I had quite an eye opener. May this thought help you too today.
I for one have many, many Bibles. I love my Bibles. But part of all this is a quest that I had and still have, just to know, compare, and learn. Always trying to find the "perfect" Bible.
But I had a very strange thing happen here in these last couple of days. Our church had a guest evangelist who had also ministered in a church we used to go to. But there was a lot of chaos in that other church and consequently a lot of heavy duty things came down, if you know what I mean.
But of all things, in our new church some of these people came who I had not seen for a long time, to hear this evangelist.
As for me, I am always trying to make things right, I am an idealist, and somehow those words of Jesus about going to those "offended" or "offensive" really strike a cord with me. I have a real focus on that issue. I am an idealist, I believe as I said, always trying to make things perfect. grin.
So, to my amazement, I was involved in a group of people who got together again and let me tell you there was a connection, and people were trying to reconcile. It is a long story.
But today, I was speaking to someone, and I felt it was a divine message just for the moment.

About things of the past being "under the Blood of Jesus".

There truly is a time to let go and get on when people are just not sorry,...
but it is "under the Blood of Jesus".
Wow! I just wish that I could convey this better.

Because when I think of Bibles and all the stuff we go through (I know I am not alone here) trying to find "perfection", the perfect English Bible, well, just like trying to find perfection in people...it is just not going to happen when people are involved.
For I believe, when we stand in front of the Bibles at our Christian book stores and when we carefully listen to the Lord as we look at passages of a perspective Bible, we will just know, but even more when we pray that the Lord will use "said" Bible to teach us, trusting Him to reveal His Truth to us, what more could we want? It is all so fabulous.
So, when I think of "under the Blood of Jesus", I believe that all the imperfections of man, and all that is truly under the Blood of Jesus.
When will we forgive? When will we embrace what is good?
Or, will we continue and continue and continue on a endless quest of trying to find something that just might not happen?

So, I say, let us trust Jesus. Many people get saved by reading Bibles that are not on the "A" list of choices. What does that tell you?
It tells me that it was understood, and the Holy Spirit used it to reach someone...like me years ago.

God bless you all and Happy New Year.

 

[rsr]

The 1646 Confession's next-to-last scripture, from Psalms 74, was from Coverdale's translation for the Great Bible (1539-1541). The reading was maintained in the Book of Common Prayer into the 20th century.

The Second London Confession's opening scripture, Romans 10:10, is from the KJV.

 

[Keith M]

Originally posted by Refreshed:
I think you need to be discerning and not just say that "all versions" are the Word of God because there are some that a christian should not use.

Jason

Good point, Jason! The Clear Word Bible (SDA) and the New World Translation (JW) are a couple such versions which come to mind...

 

[Walls]

Originally posted by rsr:
The 1646 Confession's next-to-last scripture, from Psalms 74, was from Coverdale's translation for the Great Bible (1539-1541). The reading was maintained in the Book of Common Prayer into the 20th century.

The Second London Confession's opening scripture, Romans 10:10, is from the KJV.

Just curious and a bit off topic, but were there any Baptist confessions prior to these two?

 

[Walls]

My question really hasn't been answered. I am sure there are certain things you look for; like it is from TR or is it from Alexandrian text. Does it come from the Latin Vulgate? I guess I should have been more specific.

Then when you go to search the web for a certain version to find out info on it, it comes up with all the different places where you can buy one. Can not anyone help me with this or do I have to read every Bible there is before I can know?

 

[HankD]

Dear Walls,

This is my litmus test since I strongly prefer the TR based Bibles:

I turn to 1 John 5:7, if it is there in the text without a footnote or explanation, I know the Bible I am reading is based on the Traditional Text.

This narrows the selection to a small handful.

I still use some of the other MVs since IMO each has a strong point.

HankD