I need two willing people

[Gina B]

Preferably both educated.

I used to be KJVO. Now I'm not.

For personal reasons and the occasional self-examination of my beliefs that I sometimes do, I'd like to put my own opinions and ideas aside and listen to two learned people explain the Biblical and historical rationale behind their beliefs...one someone who is KJVO, and one who is not.

Is anyone willing to take the time to offer this to me or point me to something written by someone that is available online and is very clear, concise, and to the point?

If you'd like to post it on this thread it's all good, but if you'd like to avoid the mess that can happen on these types of threads, feel free to pm me instead.

I came onto the versions section in hopes of finding a few answers, but haven't found much in the way of anything useful and/or backed up with links to scripture or studies, thus this request.

For clarification, I do not wish to debate this. I'm simply looking for information...possibly I may have a few questions about what you say or what you send me.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

There is good info here from the non-KJVO crowd: http://vintage.aomin.org/kjvo.html

I am more of a Majority Text myself, so not KJVO, but neither do I regard every translation as equal.

 

[Mexdeaf]

There is good info here from the non-KJVO crowd: http://vintage.aomin.org/kjvo.html

I am more of a Majority Text myself, so not KJVO, but neither do I regard every translation as equal.

Brother, I do not think that anyone on here considers all translations equal, although they all are faithful copies of God's Word (with the notable exceptions of the Clear Word Translation, the JW bible, all paraphrases and those of like ilk).

 

[Ed Edwards]

Here is what I believe (I use it for my Signature block as well).

All VALID English Language Bibles
Collectively and Individually
contain and are
the Inerrant and Perfect
Written Word of God
preserved by Divine Appointment
for the generation in which they are translated.
​

I can prove these statements. But to PROVE ANYTHING ONE NEEDS TO START WITH: some undefined terms (i.e. we all know what they are, but logically they are understood by both parties) and some 'logical assumptions'.

I say 'logical assumptions' because they are not like what we usually think of assumptions. Others have called them "Axioms" (AKA: 'self-evident truths)\and other terms. For our purpose here we shall just call them Agreed Statements.

I suggest startilng with these "Undefined Terms" and 'Agreed Statements'. Whoever wants to Discuss this with me must agree to them, or I can't prove my statement to you.

Undefined Terms:
Inerrant Scriptures (I.E. the Bible)
Man (humans)
Deity (God 3in1)
Lord Jesus
Virgin Birth
Blood Atonement
Bodily Resurrection of Lord Jesus
Bodily Resurrection of the Saints

http://www.eaec.org/bibleanswers/Five_Fundamentals_of_the_Faith.pdf

​

'Agreed Statements':
1. The Deity of our Lord Jesus Christ (John 1:1; John 20:28; Hebrews 1:8-9).
2. The Virgin Birth (Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 1:23; Luke 1:27).
3. The Blood Atonement (Acts 20:28; Romans 3:25, 5:9; Ephesians 1:7; Hebrews 9:12-14).
4. The Bodily Resurrection (Luke 24:36-46; 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, 15:14-15).
5. The inerrancy of the scriptures themselves (Psalms 12:6-7; Romans 15:4; 2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:20)

​

​

 

[EdSutton]

Brother, I do not think that anyone on here considers all translations equal, although they all are faithful copies of God's Word (with the notable exceptions of the Clear Word Translation, the JW bible, all paraphrases and those of like ilk).

Although I might suggest that sometimes, some 'paraphrases' are actually, or at least may potentially be better renderings, as a whole, than are some 'translations,' at least from my perspective.

I certainly do agree with Mexdeaf as to what I call "manufactured versions" such as the CWT, NWT, JST, etc., however, or to any others to which one can assign this type of nefarious motives.

Ed

 

[Tater77]

If you want to know about textual criticism, look up anything by Bruce Metzer.

If you want to know about translations, I recommend the NET Bible with full notes. Its a perfectly transparent translation. It can be downloaded for free here http://bible.org/downloads

Get the first one, 14 mb, with full notes. Then there are others also.

Then all I can say is to sit and read a good MV like the NASB, ESV or NIV.

Hebrew is a world apart from English and there is more than one right way to translate a verse in the OT with good vocabulary. Greek is closer to English but there is still alternate ways to render a verse there too.

 

[Dale-c]

The King James Only controversy is one of the best things I have read on this topic.

Also, this is pretty inexpensive, it is just an mp3 from a radio show back in the 90s I believe.
http://www.aomin.org/catalog/produc...d=255&osCsid=b40dd7ba1a453fa774a99cfeb6c8d974

 

[Dale-c]

I of course also agree that not all translations are equal. In fact I don't know anyone who believes that.
The thing is though that in the case of most sound translations they may be better or worse depending on the passage.
For instance, the NASB I think is better than the NIV overall but in places the NIV is better than the NAS.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Brother, I do not think that anyone on here considers all translations equal, although they all are faithful copies of God's Word (with the notable exceptions of the Clear Word Translation, the JW bible, all paraphrases and those of like ilk).

I was thinking more along the lines of good/poor translations and good/poor underlying manuscript support.

A translation is either a good or poor translation of the underlying manuscript, which is either good or poor. I disagree with the NIV translation philosophy of dynamic equivelance and with giving preference and more weight to the sinaticus and vaticanus.

Older is does not necessarily mean better.

 

[Ledlak]

There are very few exhaustive works that line up the various translations and show the differences side by side. If you want to see an eye opener, read Gale Riplinger's New Age Bible Versions (link below). Don't go by other's opinions and what you may have heard about this book. Just give it a fair hearing, er, reading and weigh the evidence for yourselves. Some folks start with doctrine and show that a particular version teaches that doctrine...I guess they also let the cart pull the horse. All doctrine must come from God's Word. I would also counsel anyone with a sincere interest to look at the biographies of the people who actually did the translating work, especially those of newer "versions". For example, look up the background on Virginia Ramey Mollenkott, one of the translators that worked on the NIV. Then there is the history of the different manuscripts used for the various translations. If you think they are all the same, you would be wrong. See the works of Dean Burgon, et al.

http://www.amazon.com/New-Age-Bible-Versions-Documentation/dp/0963584502/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1252012660&sr=1-1

 

[rsr]

Don't go by other's opinions and what you may have heard about this book. Just give it a fair hearing, er, reading and weigh the evidence for yourselves.

Unfortunately, Riplinger so badly and liberally mangles quotations that you really need several reference works to check on her allegations. I would not recommend even reading her works unless you are willing to check every one of her "facts."

 

[tenderhearted]

I hope that I don't cause any trouble here, but I will say this:

I am a kjv oNLY. I believe that it is the perfect word of God for the English speaking people. I have never, not one time, had any confusion from it.

As I read that bible, it reads ME. I have learned more and gotten such wonderful truth from it.

I believe that the modern English versions have errors and even some are corrupt, like the Dewey version, and the New world testament, and even the NIV.

I used to attend a non denominal church, that used the NIV. I had read in the NIV in Isaiah about satan and his fall. It said:

Isaiah 14:12 (New International Version)

12 How you have fallen from heaven,
O morning star, son of the dawn!
You have been cast down to the earth,
you who once laid low the nations!

a couple of days later, I am at sunday service and they are singing a song called Oh MORNING STAR!!

My heart sank, I could not even listen to the sermon and I certainly quit singing. I was under the impression that the Morning star was satan, after all I just read it in the bible.

Later on the afternoon, I went online and spoke to a friend that had been teaching me about the KJB, I asked him who the morning star was and he told me Jesus and showed me the contradiction in the NIV.

Revelation 22:16 (New International Version)

16"I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you[a] this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star."

In the niv, both Jesus and satan are called morning stars, but in the kjv:

Isa 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

Rev 22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

No confusion, clear, cut, and revealing of the word of God.

I am sticking with KJB.

 

[TC]

Have you ever heard of context? Reading each passage in context will tell you that they are talking about two different people. Otherwise, one could play the same kind of games with the KJV. For example, Peter called Satan a lion and Jesus is called a lion in the book of Revelations. So Satan = lion and Jesus = lion, therefore Satan = Jesus. This means the KJV is corrupt and should be thrown out. But, reading each passage in context shows that each passage is speaking of a different person and dispels any such foolishness. The same goes for the NIV. It does not in any way say that Satan and Jesus are the same person.

Another example is when Job says that the morning stars sang together. Does that mean that there are multiple Jesus es out there? Certainly not when each passage is read properly. Context is your friend.

 

[TC]

BTW, welcome to the Baptist Board tenderhearted. :wavey:

 

[TC]

There are very few exhaustive works that line up the various translations and show the differences side by side. If you want to see an eye opener, read Gale Riplinger's New Age Bible Versions (link below). Don't go by other's opinions and what you may have heard about this book. Just give it a fair hearing, er, reading and weigh the evidence for yourselves. Some folks start with doctrine and show that a particular version teaches that doctrine...I guess they also let the cart pull the horse. All doctrine must come from God's Word. I would also counsel anyone with a sincere interest to look at the biographies of the people who actually did the translating work, especially those of newer "versions". For example, look up the background on Virginia Ramey Mollenkott, one of the translators that worked on the NIV. Then there is the history of the different manuscripts used for the various translations. If you think they are all the same, you would be wrong. See the works of Dean Burgon, et al.

First, Welcome to the Baptist Board.

I have Riplinger's book and it is full of misquotes and misrepresentations. I do not know about you, but I call that lying. There are much better sources out there than her and others like her. however, the whole issue boils down to is personal opinion. There is absolutely no scriptural support for one version onlyism.

 

[TC]

Preferably both educated.

I used to be KJVO. Now I'm not.

For personal reasons and the occasional self-examination of my beliefs that I sometimes do, I'd like to put my own opinions and ideas aside and listen to two learned people explain the Biblical and historical rationale behind their beliefs...one someone who is KJVO, and one who is not.

Is anyone willing to take the time to offer this to me or point me to something written by someone that is available online and is very clear, concise, and to the point?

If you'd like to post it on this thread it's all good, but if you'd like to avoid the mess that can happen on these types of threads, feel free to pm me instead.

I came onto the versions section in hopes of finding a few answers, but haven't found much in the way of anything useful and/or backed up with links to scripture or studies, thus this request.

For clarification, I do not wish to debate this. I'm simply looking for information...possibly I may have a few questions about what you say or what you send me.

I used to be KJVO as well. I left the KJVO camp after reading Tyndale's 1534 NT. I have not looked back and I have not once regretted becoming a freedom reader. What happened was I was reading New Age Bible Versions and ran across some quotes from Barker's book on the making of the NIV. Riplinger quoted in this manner: blah blah blah ... yadda yadda yadda ... yip yip yip. She then concluded that Barker did not believe in the deity of Jesus and that because he was an apostate the NIV was corrupt and could not be trusted. I wanted to know if this was true so I went to the library and researched his book. I found the first part of the quote on one page and the second part of her quote two full pages later and the third part was in a different chapter five pages later. He did not believe anything close to what Riplinger claimed. I found other such misrepresentations throughout the her book. I started researching the veracity of other KJVO authors claims in like manner. The final nail in the coffin of my time as a KJVO was when I bought and read Tyndale's 1534 NT, a reprint of the 1611 KJV, and what parts I could read online from the Geneva Bible.

 

[Dale-c]

Tenderhearted, I appreciate your tone. However you are simply ignorant on the facts (as I once was as well)
I was a KJVO for years.

The basic problem that you and other honest and sincere KJV people make is that you are setting up the KJV as the standard.
The KJV is now what God inspired. It is a good translation of the original languages which God did in fact inspire.

To answer your direct assertion about lucifer, please read this article.

http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3482

 

[Dale-c]

I am a kjv oNLY. I believe that it is the perfect word of God for the English speaking people.

What do you base this on? And could you prove this without saying anything bad about the other translations?

When did the KJV become the perfect translation for the english speaking people?

Could there ever be a new perfect translation for english speaking people in the future as language changes?

How does someone in Germany or France no what is the perfect Bible for those languages?

 

[Ledlak]

Every word of God is pure

1 Corinthians 14:33

"For God is not a God of disorder but of peace" NIV
"For God is not a God of disorder but of peace" NAS
"for God is not a God of disorder but of peace" ISV
"for God is not a God of confusion, but of peace" ASV

"For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace" KJV

Do you see a difference? "Every word of God is pure" Proverbs 30:5. Please note; when we are first introduced to that wicked one in the garden, he was trying to rephrase God's words.

 

[Dale-c]

Ledlak, what is your point? All of those say the exact same thing there is no difference in meaning at all.