New Study Bible

Interesting.

 

IMHO the ESV is a good translation. I'm not familiar with the Scofield III but if it is anything like the first two editions, it has some good points. It might be worthwhile to at least check into it.

 

Nice to see it is finally appearing on shelves in bookstores.

 

The different versions that come out remind me of a rumor.

One person tells the truth, another takes that truth and tells it to someone else, who in turn tells another. It goes on and on until the truth has been twisted so much that people believe it is the truth when it is extended far beyond it.

Prime Example have a skit called 'Attack of the Monster Tongue' in which they show how rumors are very damaging.

I have said all that to say this. The truth is getting twisted more and more each time a new version of the Bible is put on the shelf.

 

sfic, your comparison doesn't hold water.

That would only work if the translations came from other translations. New versions of the Bible go to the Greek and Hebrew, not just other English versions.

 

IF that is the case, someone out there has umpteen versions of the greek and hebrew, cuz the words keep changing.

So I am still right. each time a new version comes out, there is a change in words in one or more verses.

If they were all going to the same book, there would be no change.

 

English words change meaning over time. Even if there were only one translation, later readers would understand the words differently.

The words change for a simple reason. Each translator tries to determine anew the best way to represent the most accurate/reliable reading. Note: no matter what English version you use (including KJV), many of the words will differ from previous versions.

 

Double post.

 

KJV has not changed from its original other than spelling and grammatical errors. Can the same be said of all the other versions when they remove key words, whole verses, and in one instance.. 11 verses from one chapter?

 

The KJV differs from previous English versions. That's an indisputable fact.

Yes, the same can be said of versions which never included those verses because they were never in that version's "original."

 

so, God meant to leave the blood, the mercyseat, the virgin birth, judgment, sin, hell, the deity of Christ, His bodily Resurrection out of the Bible? KJV translators just added them from their own ideas?

I think not!

 

Those concepts are all valid, and they are all present in all modern versions. They may not be MENTIONED as many times because of the difference in underlying manuscripts. The KJV translators didn't add anything. They translated the texts they had at the time.

But you're a KJVO, so I'm not going to continue to waste my time.

 

wonder if God says the same thing about those that hold to versions that leave out key verses or condone sin?

'I'm not going to continue to waste my time'

 

I would love to see a legitamate "translation" of the Bible that condones sin. I would also like to see one that rejects the virgin birth, blood atonement and the resurrection. By legitamate I mean one accepted by Christian scholars not the cult off shoots.

Bro Tony

 

BTW, I do preach only from the KJV, but I do view other translations.

If one would check my posts, they would see where I showed an error in the NKJV this morning.

NKJV translates 'teil tree' as being a terebinth, yet the terebinth is a turpentine tree when the teil is a linden.

Two different trees.

So yes, the new translations are changing the Word more and more.

10 years ago scholars claimed the NIV was the most accurate. 6 years ago, they said it was the NASB, Then the HCSB. Now what?

James tells us a double minded man is unstable in all his ways.

In trying to make the Bible user freindly, it is actually taking the reader farther and farther from the truth.

 

I am still waiting for one legitimate Bible translation that leaves any of these doctrines out of their translations. These kind of statements are slanderous against brothers in Christ and they have no basis in truth. These claims are a far cry from whether you believe a translation rightly named a tree. If you prefer the KJV, great!, but watch making blanket statements against the Word of God that are blatantly false. If they are not false again show us a legitimate version of the Bible that takes leaves those crucial doctrines out. You cannot do it because it is not true.

Bro Tony

 

I agree we dont want people to be able to use the Bible and understand it in their own language.

Bro Tony