thinking from moving for the kjv to the esv

[Bro. James]

Ya mine is goat skin vary nice


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Would not sheepskin be more appropriate?

What is the best translation for the illiterate, impoverished masses who populate this planet?

There are two streams of scripture from antiquity--one of them is seriously corrupted.

Now what?

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

[zaptear]

I apologize but I don't understand


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[McCree79]

I apologize but I don't understand


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

He is saying-- "separate sheep from the goats"-- scripturally speaking one wants to be a sheep, not a goat. I believe he was making a joke.

*the rest of the post is pure opinion

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

[zaptear]

Oh ok thanks


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bro. James]

He is saying-- "separate sheep from the goats"-- scripturally speaking one wants to be a sheep, not a goat. I believe he was making a joke.

*the rest of the post is pure opinion

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Purity of opinion--an interesting notion. What is the criteria for having an opinion? What makes one better than another?

The origins of the English Bible is an interesting study. Some folk have been martyred for correctly translating The Word into the common vernacular.

Satan knows the power of Scripture and he has been trying to confuse the issue for millennia--all the was back to Eden and Eve being beguiled by a snake. Eve knew exactly what God had said. She was deceived. Adam disobeyed knowing what he was doing.

"All have sinned and come short of the Glory of God."

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

He is saying-- "separate sheep from the goats"-- scripturally speaking one wants to be a sheep, not a goat. I believe he was making a joke.

*the rest of the post is pure opinion

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

[Yeshua1]

Not just a publisher but the maker of probably some of the finest Bibles out there. My husband got one for his ordination as a gift from the church. That Bible is gorgeous! I ride horses so know good leather (saddles are worth thousands of dollars) and this Bible smells as good as my saddle.

There is also a local bible publisher in Lansing Mi called Local Church Publishers who make really high quality KJV bibles, for much less than Allen does!

 

[rlvaughn]

There is also a local bible publisher in Lansing Mi called Local Church Publishers who make really high quality KJV bibles, for much less than Allen does!

Thanks. I'll keep an eye out for these. I bought one from another local bible publisher called First Word Publishers in Milford, Ohio. I am happy with it.

In the 1980s I bought a World Bible Publishers Wide Margin Bible (# KWM-14-5941). It became my favorite Bible of all time. Unlike many wide margin Bibles, it had a true wide margin around all the text, and not just the outside. After I wore it out I looked for a new one and couldn't find it. I gave up and bought an Oxford Wide Margin Bible, KJV Reference Edition. It is a very good well manufactured Bible, but it is about 2-1/4" thick and weighs almost 4 lbs. I was never happy with that part, and that's why I bought the above Bible from First Word. It is almost the same as the World wide margin Bible I had.

Maybe the moral of the story is, if you find a Bible you really, really, really like, buy two or three of them because it may go out of print!

 

[McCree79]

Maybe the moral of the story is, if you find a Bible you really, really, really like, buy two or three of them because it may go out of print!

Yes! I have 2 different Bibles that I own a 2nd copy of hahaha



Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

[Jkdbuck76]

Ditto. I have 2 NASB'S that I like. Several kjv's from Local Church Bible Publishers and a Turquoise kjv from Church Bible Publishers. I have an ASV from Prolific Industries and several other translations both paper and electronic. I like the NASB very much.....I do NOT think it is too wooden.

Zap, don't worry about leaving the KJV-ONLY fold. A simple reading of The Translators to the Reader in the kjv should clear things up about what they thought they were doing and it wasn't double inspiration.

But before you leave, think long and hard about it. Pray about it. If you know that your reading a non-kjv bible will cause trouble, then you should leave.

Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk

 

[Rippon]

What is the best translation for the illiterate, impoverished masses who populate this planet?

Are you referencing only native English speakers who are illiterate? Perhaps you meant semi-literate.
In that case the NIrV would be very appropriate. For other languages you'd have to do some research.

There are two streams of scripture from antiquity--one of them is seriously corrupted.

Care to tell us what those two streams are? Spell it out for us please.

 

[McCree79]

.Care to tell us what those two streams are? Spell it out for us please.

I deleted two posts before posting....I was going to let it go....then Rippon comes along and kicks the door wide open. Hahahaha


Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

[Rippon]

Some folk have been martyred for correctly translating The Word into the common vernacular.

Ironic that you would say that when some here have argued that putting the Bible into the current vernacular compromises biblical authority.

 

[zaptear]

Ditto. I have 2 NASB'S that I like. Several kjv's from Local Church Bible Publishers and a Turquoise kjv from Church Bible Publishers. I have an ASV from Prolific Industries and several other translations both paper and electronic. I like the NASB very much.....I do NOT think it is too wooden.

Zap, don't worry about leaving the KJV-ONLY fold. A simple reading of The Translators to the Reader in the kjv should clear things up about what they thought they were doing and it wasn't double inspiration.

But before you leave, think long and hard about it. Pray about it. If you know that your reading a non-kjv bible will cause trouble, then you should leave.

Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk

I'm just going to stick with kjv and just use bible app in a ESV to reread versus that I may not understand


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TCassidy]

There are two streams of scripture from antiquity--one of them is seriously corrupted.

There are two primary New Testament textforms, the Byzantine and the Alexandrian.

However it is probably an error to say either of those is seriously corrupted. It is true that certain manuscripts representing those different textforms are corrupted, but that does not imply the entire textform is corrupt.

Codex Sinaiticus, the most popular of the Alexandrian manuscripts, certainly shows corruption, especially in the Gospels, but the same can be said about the most popular of the Byzantine representitives, any number of texts going under the term "Textus Receptus."

In my (not entirely humble) opinion the most accurate textform presently in print is "The New Testament in the Original Greek: Byzantine Textform," 2005, compiled and arranged by Maurice A. Robinson and William G. Pierpont (Chilton Book Publishing: USA, 2005).

Next would be "The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text." Compiled by Zane C. Hodges and Arthur L. Farstad. Thomas Nelson, 1982.

[Edited to add] I received an email from Dr. Robinson, the editor of "The New Testament in the Original Greek: Byzantine Textform" which reads, in part:

To which you might do well to point out that both editions agree about 99.8% of the time (most of the ca. 400 differences being in the Pericope Adulterae and Revelation; elsewhere only about 200 differences throughout the NT).

That is good information. It throws additional light on the subject of Greek textforms.

 

[Yeshua1]

There are two primary New Testament textforms, the Byzantine and the Alexandrian.

However it is probably an error to say either of those is seriously corrupted. It is true that certain manuscripts representing those different textforms are corrupted, but that does not imply the entire textform is corrupt.

Codex Sinaiticus, the most popular of the Alexandrian manuscripts, certainly shows corruption, especially in the Gospels, but the same can be said about the most popular of the Byzantine representitives, any number of texts going under the term "Textus Receptus."

In my (not entirely humble) opinion the most accurate textform presently in print is "The New Testament in the Original Greek: Byzantine Textform," 2005, compiled and arranged by Maurice A. Robinson and William G. Pierpont (Chilton Book Publishing: USA, 2005).

Next would be "The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text." Compiled by Zane C. Hodges and Arthur L. Farstad. Thomas Nelson, 1982.

[Edited to add] I received an email from Dr. Robinson, the editor of "The New Testament in the Original Greek: Byzantine Textform" which reads, in part:
That is good information. It throws additional light on the subject of Greek textforms.

Thre is a modern language Kjv now out, as well as the NKJV!

 

[Yeshua1]

Ditto. I have 2 NASB'S that I like. Several kjv's from Local Church Bible Publishers and a Turquoise kjv from Church Bible Publishers. I have an ASV from Prolific Industries and several other translations both paper and electronic. I like the NASB very much.....I do NOT think it is too wooden.

Zap, don't worry about leaving the KJV-ONLY fold. A simple reading of The Translators to the Reader in the kjv should clear things up about what they thought they were doing and it wasn't double inspiration.

But before you leave, think long and hard about it. Pray about it. If you know that your reading a non-kjv bible will cause trouble, then you should leave.

Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk

How do you like th quality of the local Church bible?

 

[Yeshua1]

There are two primary New Testament textforms, the Byzantine and the Alexandrian.

However it is probably an error to say either of those is seriously corrupted. It is true that certain manuscripts representing those different textforms are corrupted, but that does not imply the entire textform is corrupt.

Codex Sinaiticus, the most popular of the Alexandrian manuscripts, certainly shows corruption, especially in the Gospels, but the same can be said about the most popular of the Byzantine representitives, any number of texts going under the term "Textus Receptus."

In my (not entirely humble) opinion the most accurate textform presently in print is "The New Testament in the Original Greek: Byzantine Textform," 2005, compiled and arranged by Maurice A. Robinson and William G. Pierpont (Chilton Book Publishing: USA, 2005).

Next would be "The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text." Compiled by Zane C. Hodges and Arthur L. Farstad. Thomas Nelson, 1982.

[Edited to add] I received an email from Dr. Robinson, the editor of "The New Testament in the Original Greek: Byzantine Textform" which reads, in part:
That is good information. It throws additional light on the subject of Greek textforms.

The Critical Greek text, and those 2 that you mentioned are all to be seen as the word of God in Greek unto us, as they do agree on all major doctrines of the Bible!

Think the Critical text was really corrupted crowd have bought/took the Ole KJVO koolade!

 

[Rippon]

ow do you kujthe bibding doneon the Local Church bible?

Do you ever read your posts? You know you can go back and edit them.

 

[Yeshua1]

Do you ever read your posts? You know you can go back and edit them.

Just did, thanks!

 

[TCassidy]

The Critical Greek text, and those 2 that you mentioned ,

You seem to have created a false dichotomy. The over emphasis on the Alexandrian Texrform, and the redacting of the manuscripts representing that textform, from divergent sources, is what created the Critical text.

Think the Critical text was really corrupted crowdhave bought/took the Ole KJVO koolade!

I think you may have jumped to an unwarranted conclusion regarding the foundations of, and the descent of, the Critical text. The Critical text is a construct.

To quote Wilber Pickering, writing in "The Identity of the New Testament Text," page 21, where he quotes Dr. Merrill M. Parvis (University of Chicago Divinity School, Federated Theological faculty), "We have reconstructed text-types and families and sub families and in so doing have created things that never before existed on earth or in heaven. We have assumed that manuscripts reproduced themselves according to the Mendelian law. But when we have found that a particular manuscript would not fit into any of our nicely constructed schemes, we have thrown up our hands and said that it contained a mixed text." (M.M. Parvis, "The Nature and Task of New Testament Textual Criticism," The Journal of Religion, XXXII (1952), 173.)

In other words, the Critical text is a constructed text that has no historical reality but rather is a combination of the variant readings from a variety of manuscripts that have no other relation to one another which came into existence only in the mind of the redactor and was then put on paper. (In all fairness the TR, in its present form, is based on a similar, but lesser by several orders of magnitude, redacting done first by Erasmus (although even Hort said Erasmus didn't do any modern, scientific textual criticism but merely passed along the universally accepted text), then by a number of editors, culminating with F. H. A. Scrivener's TR presently published by the Trinitarian Bible Society.)

Unlike the Critical text, the Byzantine textform can be shown to have existed and been in virtually constant usage by the Greek speaking church for over 1,000 years. And the necessary editing was limited to the selection, by application of rational rules of textual criticism, between two equally attested variant readings.

And none of this has anything at all to do with KJVOism. In fact, I made an earlier reference to Dr. Maurice Robinson, Retired Research Professor of New Testament Greek at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary and editor of The Greek New Testament According to the Byzantine Textform, who stated quote forcefully, regarding KJVOism, "I consider [KJVOism] illogical sophistry, conspiracy theories, and agenda-driven propagandistic blather."

And, of course, he is correct.