My Problems With MV's

Yep, no question about it. I'm much more than half finished reading through the New Testament in both the ESV & HCSB (also parallel with the TNIV). The language difference between the ESV and the HCSB is stark. There are many more points of similarity between the the HCSB and the TNIV. Of those three, I now prefer the TNIV, and the ESV is my least favored.

 

You provided a list of several differences that can be found between the texts of English "MVs" (meaning 'Modern Versions'). First, you should be made aware that "MV" is primarily used as a pejorative term ("modern" tending to have a negative connotation in these discussions). Second, this is not just a "modern" problem since differences can also be found between ALL English Bible versions of ALL eras (even pre-1611 ones like Tyndale, Matthew's, Geneva, etc.). So, since you have used a derisive term while casting your unjust accusation against some contemporary Bible versions, some folks here will be offended.

Your personal choice of the KJV seems to be based on a sense of comfort and familiarity. And some people prefer Ford products to those manufactured by Toyota, Honda, Kia, Mercedes, Fiat, or Volvo. Of course, there are many differences between the vehicles made by these companies; but they all basically function the same and perform the same service. There is no purpose in comparing people's emotional sentiments about the brands, but there can be beneficial results from an intellectual discussion of the differences using objective criteria.

You like the KJV. (We get that.) It seems you have nothing further to add here.

 

Well, you did say --

I notice that you didn't address the two issues brought forward in the first paragraph of my post: that you used a prejorative term, and that you made a grossly biased accusation.

If you're willing to participate in this debate forum (and I hope you are) then move beyond the personal preference announcement and complaints about phantom 'attacks'; try presenting some genuine objections, and expect your assertions to be challenged (feelings may be subject to bruising).

 

Quote: I cannot imagine a preacher attending seminary and spending so much time studying the languages then waste away their skills by ignoring them rather than building upon the foundation of what they have already been taught.
----------------------------------------

Some people learned the Greek and Hebrew well enough to make good use of it. I did better with Latin, German, French, Welsh and, of course, English.

I have immersed my mind in many theologies and studied hermeneutics and have many modern versions in my library to complete my study without reading and translating each passage of scripture for that week.

In my younger years I would stand up to any man so learned in Greek and Hebrew in understanding what saith the scriptures.

So, I contend that he is no better equipped than am I in undertanding what is being said in any scripture.

Cheers,

Jim

 

If it is, how does that absolve you from what you have written? Do you always attempt to deflect attention away from your own guilt?

You're still sidestepping the issue.

 

Your quotation of Rippon does not seem to even be from this thread. Why don't you just converse with me, and leave Rippon out of it?

 

I'm still able to teach the truths of the Christian faith from my much loved TNIV.

 

I still like the NASB the best

 

Yeah, I use to once, but it got to awkward for me in some places. And I've sort of outgrowth those italics.

 

Well, I'm just a teacher and not a Preacher

 

God has promised to preserve His Word forever. If there was not the King James Bible then God's people would have been without the Word of God for hundreds of years. If that was the case then God is not true to His Word and the Bible that you claim to believe is not worth the paper that it was written on. Why do scholars feel they need to improve on the Word of God? These other versions were written by men who wanted to make the Bible fit into their doctrine instead of letting the Bible (as written)shape their doctrine.

 

WOW! Franklinmonroe,welcome aboard the TNIV train.Other members include go2church,tcgreek and myself.Are there any others?I know ededwards reads it though it's not his current favorite.We don't hold any TNIVO meetings because we don't think it's the only valid version out there.

 

Well, we both do the same in the end: We read. :thumbs:

 

But if the train is growing, we might need to. :laugh:

 

As I said God promised to preseve His Word and yes it was preserved in 1610, 1510, and before the foundation of the world. However the modern versions have taken out scripture that deals with baptism after salvation. If you take that out then you can justify baptizing babies. Also the manuscripts used for many of these versions contradict each other.

 

Well, I don't have a TNIV yet. I may have to break down and get one, but I just haven't been able to work up putting down my NASB yet . . . I've been disappointed in other purchases that promised more than they delivered.