Most accurate English Translation

[EdSutton]

[insult toward (poster) removed]

Why do these seem to be one of the most often used phrases I see on the BB in all threads? Is the only way we can stand to knock someone else down??

Sometimes it seems that that is how it is all over all forums where anything is discussed that has a hint of being controversial. Frankly, I see not need for insults on this board, and I know I don't need any. I can accumulate enough every day all on my own, without posting on any 'board'.

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

Honest question. I know the whole KJVO argument, but are there any other groups that hold to one version?

Honestly? This is no set-up or anything of the sort. I just have never seen them or heard of them... but is there a NIVO? or ESVO? or RSVO? Just curious if anyone has more insight into the other half....

Some cults certainly do, nowadays, having 'traslated' versions to support their own doctrines, and the RC church for years held to the Vulgate in the same manner, I'd say.

And let me say this to one who was so quick to denigrate "laptop scholars" - a 'nice' insult I'd say, as opposed to a vicious one, but an insult nonetheless. I make no claims to be a scholar of any sort, much less a 'laptop' flavor. But the internet and the work of many unknown Christians, in many cases, and for unknown thousands of hours work, has made available to anyone who gets on-line, a plethora of information and knowledge, at one's fingertips, that one could not accumulate otherwise, in ten lifetimes, let alone one. Truly, as the Bible says, "Knowledge shall be increased." I'm thankful it is being made so. I imagine the leading church men and women for nearly 2000 years would have given their eye teeth for just such a tool. Let's not pitch out the baby with the bathwater, just because so many use it for ungodly purposes.

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

That's sort of like the question I have in the other thread. I was wondering if there's an equivalent to the KJVOnly in other languages like some French translation, or some Chinese translation. Why not? Why would God specially inspire only an English translation? Why not a specially inspired Japanese translation?

Uh, 'cause it is, after all, the KJV??

Don't you know that God holds the English speakers in higher regard than any others??

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

I will only say that the KJB does not CONTAIN the words of God, it IS the word of God. The distinction is very important. Others may contain the word of God, the KJB IS the word of God.

This is nothing less than "reverse" neo-orthodoxy, IMO.

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

I don't think I agree with your statement above. The verse clearly states that the man was reading. IMHO he didn't understand the fufilment of the verse, not the actual words. But hey, what do I know, I'm open to the MVs.





I want to agree with you but for at least (2) issues that come to mind. The first would be us having a frank debate over the differences between different styles of the Greek language, in particular koine vs. classical Greek. The other area has to do with the contention that proponents (on this board) of the MVs are sub-par intellectually. The fact of the matter is the proponents here for MVs seem to me to be using intellectual arguments to make their case. It seems to me that the neo-fundamentalist are the ones who shun scholarship (broad brush, I know), not the old fashoned fundamentalists.

Regarding koine Greek, I remember having a discussion with a friend of a friend who thought the Bible was non-sense. This man was an associate professor of classical literature at Princeton Univ. I showed him a copy of my Greek NT and he could hardly contain his contempt for the koine Greek as he felt himself too sophisticated to bother studying it. I did however get him to look at John 1:1 and he thought that the JWs rendition in the NWT was wrong however he thought the squabble between orthodox Christians and JWs on this doctrine was not any big deal.

Good post!

And a belated Welcome to the BB.

Ed

 

[npetreley]

Uh, 'cause it is, after all, the KJV??

Don't you know that God holds the English speakers in higher regard than any others??

Ed

I guess the really funny thing would be if there were some Chinese dictator Mao version, or whatever, considered to be an inspired version by DMVOnlyists, but it contradicted the KJV. That would be tricky to resolve, wouldn't it? Obviously both sides would claim the other one was corrupt.

 

[EdSutton]

I guess the really funny thing would be if there were some Chinese dictator Mao version, or whatever, considered to be an inspired version by DMVOnlyists, but it contradicted the KJV. That would be tricky to resolve, wouldn't it? Obviously both sides would claim the other one was corrupt.

Probably.

I really do not think there is any definite answer to the question of "Most Accurate English Translation" in every single verse. That is my personal opinion.

I personally think the NKJV is a pretty good translation, because of my general 'Majority Text' preference.

I do not care for the NIV, my wife's favorite BTW, because there is too much Dynamic Equivalency to suit me.

I also like the ESV, NASB, and HCSB, very much overall, from the times I have compared on Bible Gateway, but I own none of these three above.

I may get me an HCSB. As a 'Southern Baptist,' I should contribute to the coffers, you know! :laugh: :laugh:

Ed

 

[npetreley]

I don't like the NIV, either. I tend to use the NKJV most of all, but I'm looking at ESV and HCSB, now. I thought NKJV used TR, though.

 

[EdSutton]

I thought NKJV used TR, though.

Basically, but not exclusively. One can find concise margin notes about, say, Acts 8:37, and the questionable textual basis for it, for an example.

Ed

 

[John of Japan]

That's sort of like the question I have in the other thread. I was wondering if there's an equivalent to the KJVOnly in other languages like some French translation, or some Chinese translation. Why not? Why would God specially inspire only an English translation? Why not a specially inspired Japanese translation?

Actually, there is a very small group in Japan who are CJVO, "Classical Japanese Bible Only." There are others connected with them who prefer the Classical Japanese Bible but don't completely reject other versions.

Here is the irony. The Classical Japanese OT is the same as the Motoyaku ("Original Translation") OT of the 1870's, from the Masoretic Hebrew text. However, the NT is a revision of the Motoyaku, and is translated from one of the very first Nestle's texts, and is thus solidly in the Westcott-Hort line. Occasionally a KJVO rookie missionary will come over and insist that the Classical Japanese Bible is the Japanese equivalent of the KJV--until a veteran sits down with him and shows him the difference. (There are no Japanese NTs in print from the TR.) This may be the version that fellow in Pensacola inists is the Japanese equivalent of the KJV. The Motoyaku (trans. primarily from the KJV) hasn't been in print for 100 years or so. I had to search 2nd hand stores for 4 years to find my copy. And that is the rest of the story. :type:

 

[npetreley]

That's a really interesting story, thanks!

That's better than I could have hoped. It pits two Onlyists against each other, because they both think they have the "God-inspired" version, but the two versions disagree.

 

[John of Japan]

That's a really interesting story, thanks!

That's better than I could have hoped. It pits two Onlyists against each other, because they both think they have the "God-inspired" version, but the two versions disagree.

It's a dilly! :thumbs:

 

[av1611jim]

Jim may not mean it this way, but the statement implies that the KJB contains all the words of God. Of course, the KJB is NOT the complete and total collection of the words of God since human history began. Many of God's words were never recorded, or were not preserved for us.

I suppose you mean this?

John 21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

If not then how is it you can make such a sweeping statement without proof?

 

[Keith M]

You are incorrect. For the majority in AD150 could not read at all therefore they had to be taught to either read for themselves or take someone's word as to the veracity of the message. In addition, folks in AD150 had the added benefit of hearing from second generation disciples of the original twelve. Hence, your refutation falls apart at the outset.
Furthermore; in AD150 though the common language of the empire was Greek, the disciples had been scattered hither and yon into countries in which the commoner did NOT speak Greek and depended on translations , the Old Latin being one of many.

Therefore; they had to be TAUGHT the meanings of words just as we do today. My logic holds true in spite of your weak attempt to refute it. You will have a tough sell convincing any competent teacher that you can present ANY document of the caliber of Scripture to their students which they will NOT have to look up the meaning of some of the words. As a matter of fact, I challenge you to produce any version, valid or no, which is totally understandable by ALL who read it.

Nehemiah 8:8 So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.

Acts 8:30-31 And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest? And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.



Even God's word itself shoots your assertion in the foot. It is clear that God's word WILL NOT be understood by all who read it or hear it.

Though I agree that Scripture should be understandable (humanly speaking) to any who can read, I can testify to you that it will NOT be, in spite of the BEST efforts of supposed 'godly men'.

This concept that God's word should be so simple that a child can understand it is a perversion of the truth that the GOSPEL IS that simple. For although the GOSPEL is simple enough for a child, even Peter has declared that there are some things (words included) which are hard to understand, hence the NEED for a teacher. Hence the COMMAND of Christ that WE should go and TEACH!

It is just too simple minded to assume that we can dumb down God's word to the level of a preschooleror even a grade school kid. For even the CONCEPTS such as propitiation are struggled with by greater scholars than you or I. Did you know what propitiation was without looking it up or being taught? I didn't think so.

Jim, as is quite common for you, you are accusing me of saying something I didn't say. I did not say, nor did I remotely suggest, that everyone could read in A.D. 150. In your haste to make it appear as if I said something beside what I actually said, you totally missed the point I was making. From there your entire argument simply degenerates into unfounded support for your own errant way of thinking.

Making God's word understandable for today's reader is not "dumbing down" the word of God in any way, Jim. However, making God's word easily misunderstood, as you would have it, is certainly not a very bright thing to do. You would have God's word understandable only to those who are "educated" to your own standards, while that is certainly not the intent of the original writers. Now was that the intent of the Holy Spirit when He inspired those writers.

:godisgood:

 

[Keith M]

I will only say that the KJB does not CONTAIN the words of God, it IS the word of God. The distinction is very important. Others may contain the word of God, the KJB IS the word of God.

Amen, Jim! But just as the various and differing KJVs do not just contain the word of God but are the word of God in English, it is also true the NKJV does not merely contain the word of God, it IS the word of God in English. Ditto the HCSB, the NIV, the NASB, etc. When you deny the veracity of the MVs you deny the veracity of what God has graciously provided for us. God didn't stop preserving His word in 1611 as you would have us believe, Jim. God actively continues the inerrant preservation of His word today. Praise God for his continuing work of preservation!

 

[Keith M]

I get the impression the statement means that the KJV is specially inspired, whereas all other English versions are just translated.

Again, I have to ask, where did anyone get the idea that the KJV in particular was given by some gift of inspiration? Who started that, and why?

Much of the KJVO point of view comes from a Seventh Day Adventist form sometime back in the 19th century. His false ideas have been cultivated by writers such as Riplinger, Gipp and Ruckman into what we see as the errant KJVO position of today. The sad thing is that there are those who actually fall for these false beliefs.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Come on folks. We go a couple weeks with no trouble, then we are forced back to deleting and closing.

Why can't we leave this old issue aside?

This IS NOT a KJV discussion. It WILL be closed if this train continues.

 

[Keith M]

That's sort of like the question I have in the other thread. I was wondering if there's an equivalent to the KJVOnly in other languages like some French translation, or some Chinese translation. Why not? Why would God specially inspire only an English translation? Why not a specially inspired Japanese translation?

There are apparently those who errantly believe God has limited His preservation work to one particular English Bible version.

It's sad, but the "usual suspects" have derailed this discussion into yet another discussion of the KJVO position.

 

[Bro. Williams]

Amen, Jim! But just as the various and differing KJVs do not just contain the word of God but are the word of God in English, it is also true the NKJV does not merely contain the word of God, it IS the word of God in English. Ditto the HCSB, the NIV, the NASB, etc. When you deny the veracity of the MVs you deny the veracity of what God has graciously provided for us. God didn't stop preserving His word in 1611 as you would have us believe, Jim. God actively continues the inerrant preservation of His word today. Praise God for his continuing work of preservation!

That is quite a statement to make! I am no brilliant scholar by any means but I do know one thing, things that are different are not the same! Let us not take the KJVO stand for a moment... let us consider though, that the varying versions contradict one another. How is that the KJV, the NIV, and the NASB (etc,) can all be "the word of God" in English if they not only say different things at some points, but say completely different things at certain points, to the degree of contridicting one another? How can two things (or 3,4,5,6, etc in the case of versions) be the same if they are different?

 

[Bro. Williams]

Some cults certainly do, nowadays, having 'traslated' versions to support their own doctrines, and the RC church for years held to the Vulgate in the same manner, I'd say.

You are right there, I had momentarily overlooked that memory. I do believe some Spanish speaking groups hold to one version as well...

And let me say this to one who was so quick to denigrate "laptop scholars" - a 'nice' insult I'd say, as opposed to a vicious one, but an insult nonetheless. I make no claims to be a scholar of any sort, much less a 'laptop' flavor.

Is a statement always an insult if it is the truth? Or as Paul said, Galatians 4:16 Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?