"valid" versions

[mark1]

HP: Certainly you may. Here would be my response.


The context of the Psalm clearly indicates two groups of individuals being addressed. From verse 3-9 David addresses the wicked and speaks clearly to their final destruction. David cries out to God to let “every one of them pass away that they may not see the sun.” He proclaims that God is going to destroy ‘all’ of them and wash His feet in their blood. Is anyone suggesting for a minute that God is going to wash His feet in the blood of innocent babies, millions of which are the product of the abortionist’s knife? God help us!

Starting with verse 10-11, David shifts his focus from the wicked and onto the righteous. He states, “10 The righteous shall rejoice when he seeth the vengeance: he shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked.
11 So that a man shall say, Verily there is a reward for the righteous: verily he is a God that judgeth in the earth.

One thing is clear. David is not trying to establish a dogma of original sin in this text in the least, but rather is simply contrasting the wicked with the righteous. He in NO way insinuates or states that the righteous are as the wicked, neither in birth nor in life.

In simple terms, David was just expressing in poetic terms that the wicked appeared to be wicked from the earliest light of moral agency, and that as soon as they were able to understand and communicate, even from a very early age, they appeared to him to be engaging in wickedness. Nothing in this passage establishes any such idea as original sin as some would attempt to indicate.

Please If I may, let me add that we must look at scripture as having grown in the word. Let us look at Psalms 58, more closely. It says they have teeth, we know they must have some age to have teeth. It also, says they are young lions, which suggests they are young "warriors". It says they are estranged from the womb, which only means they are separated from the mother, and go "astray". Some are using the words "as soon as they are born" and making it the context of the whole passage. There is more to the passage, that we must consider also.

Psalms 58:
3: The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.
4: Their poison is like the poison of a serpent: they are like the deaf adder that stoppeth her ear;
5: Which will not hearken to the voice of charmers, charming never so wisely.
6: Break their teeth, O God, in their mouth: break out the great teeth of the young lions, O LORD.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Mark1: Psalms 58:
3: The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.
4: Their poison is like the poison of a serpent: they are like the deaf adder that stoppeth her ear;
5: Which will not hearken to the voice of charmers, charming never so wisely.
6: Break their teeth, O God, in their mouth: break out the great teeth of the young lions, O LORD.

HP: I believe your points are valid. Having raised six children I can attest that the description here is not one of the infants I raised from the womb, nor do I believe it is the case of any infant. One has to wrest the passage free from all sensible interpretation to somehow massage it to be presented as a proof text for OS.

Who are the righteous he refers to in the same chapter?? It is obvious that he is comparing two distinctly different groups of individuals, not trying to establish OS for every child born into the world.

Where are those that always speak of context as being so important? The context stands out loud and clear for those with an open mind looking at the text, and it is not establishing a universal principle such as the notion of OS in the least.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Ann, reason with me for but a moment. If in fact those that proclaim the notion of Augustinian original sin (and I say Augustinian due to the fact he is the well recognized father of the notion of original sin as now held by much of the Church world) are wrong, and that sin is as Scripture states clearly it is, the transgression of known commandments of God, could the translators have been in error when they purposefully added force to the doctrine of OS by stating that which was NOT before within the pages of Holy Writ? When the translators took the liberty to change the Word of God to read “a sinner from birth,” obviously attempting to do what they say as to make clearer the thoughts they believed David was expressing, does the possibility exist that they were in error in doing so? Could have they by their actions in fact altered a doctrine of Scripture even if done so by well meaning intentions? I certainly believe such is the case.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

If some will kill believers in the last days believing they do God a service, is it any stretch of the imagination that some so called translators might just change a few verses ever so slightly as to support what they believe is the original thought(s) of the authors?
With literally thousands of changes, omissions and word changes, is it within the realm of possibilities that something is gradually happening to the once trusted Word of God? I certainly believe that there is.

With over 100 sects of the Church of God alone, is it beyond the realm of possibilities that some of the division is over the interpretation of Scripture? If you seated one from each sect within the differing sects of just the Church of God, do you just suppose that the final document might in fact be seen by some as being altered to fit or more closely align with some well intentioned individuals that might believe in their hearts that they had a better handle on the original authors ideas than their fellow believers that believe differently? Are we really thinking openly and fairly about this issue when we speak as if though there are no doctrinal differences induced into the proliferation of differing translations as some on this list have implied? We need to stand back and take a reality check.

 

[EdSutton]

I predict this thread is unlikely to last for another 7 pages reaching post #132, and is almost certain to never reach page 20 at post #192.

Let's see if I can be made to appear as "a false prophet", here.

HP: By thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.

I fully admit I was incorrect, here, and was a "false prophet", in that sense. The reason for that is that, for some reason, I mistakenly mentally placed this thread in the Bible Versions/Translations Forum, where I have absolutely zero doubt, this thread would still be around, having long since gone to the great graveyard of closed "KJVO" threads, in that particular forum. Incidentally, I was intending to post to this effect, that I had been wrong in my assessment, when I read your own post, here.

However your post, above, also brings to mind something else I read, recently in this forum. I believe you were replying to a post by Gerhard Ebersoehn, when you (Heavenly Pilgrim) said this: (It's post # 190, BTW.)

Finally I have really witnessed one calling into question the salvation of others.

To assume without proof that changes that are made are for immoral purposes, may or may not be the case, and is a rash accusation for you to make. God alone will judge the motives of those involved. Without clear selfish motivation, no moral intent can be established. Ignorance may be the lone culprit, or simple deception, lack of sound judgment, or a variety of different causes may be at the heart of the changes. Certainly pride, arrogance, and many other self-interest may indeed lay at the roots of some changes, and may in fact be immoral in nature, but to simply call all changes as immoral is beyond moral reason to me.

However, I also recall a couple of other posts, as well. Again, these happen to be your own posts.

That is one of the two corrupted manuscripts first intoduced (sic) into the modern versions by those two Mary worshippers, Hort and Wescott. (post # 123)

The Roman Catholic church is behind the publishing of the modern versions. They are trying to shoot down the protestant bible. This started over 100 years ago with two catholics, (that were pretending to be protestant) named Hort and Wescott. They introduced the corrupted texts vaticanus and sinaiticus, into a revised translation called the RSV. (post # 127 - To be fair, you are summarizing and/or citing from one 'Jack' Chick and/or Barry Burton, here. However, the manner in which you are so doing certainly shows that you are agreeing with him/them, in this.)

Uhhhhhhh --- and what was that you said again in this post? (Incidentally, this was without crediting as to where the quote was from! I believe that source was the Bible, if my memory is essentially correct.) Oh, yeah! I do remember! And here is that actual quote from my Bible.

37 For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned. (Matt. 12:37 - NKJV)

I rest my case on this, for now, except to say one more thing.

Messers Westcort and Hort has absolutely nothing to do with the RSV, per se, unless they somehow did so from beyond the grave, as both were deceased, for more than 35 years (1901, 1892) before any work on the RSV, was even started (1937).

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

With over 100 sects of the Church of God alone...

I suggest a big chunk of these "over 100" are from 'splits' among those who were at one time, a part of the Worldwide Church of God, although I have not done any specific research on this.

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

Jesus was put on the tree, killed, and taken off the tree AND buried all in the same 12-hour day. I doubt it was Friday - Wednesday sounds more likely:

By our way in 2008, of reckoning time, Thursday!

Ed

 

[antiaging]

I fully admit I was incorrect, here, and was a "false prophet", in that sense. The reason for that is that, for some reason, I mistakenly mentally placed this thread in the Bible Versions/Translations Forum, where I have absolutely zero doubt, this thread would still be around, having long since gone to the great graveyard of closed "KJVO" threads, in that particular forum. Incidentally, I was intending to post to this effect, that I had been wrong in my assessment, when I read your own post, here.

However your post, above, also brings to mind something else I read, recently in this forum. I believe you were replying to a post by Gerhard Ebersoehn, when you (Heavenly Pilgrim) said this: (It's post # 190, BTW.)However, I also recall a couple of other posts, as well. Again, these happen to be your own posts. Uhhhhhhh --- and what was that you said again in this post? (Incidentally, this was without crediting as to where the quote was from! I believe that source was the Bible, if my memory is essentially correct.) Oh, yeah! I do remember! And here is that actual quote from my Bible.I rest my case on this, for now, except to say one more thing.

Messers Westcort and Hort has absolutely nothing to do with the RSV, per se, unless they somehow did so from beyond the grave, as both were deceased, for more than 35 years (1901, 1892) before any work on the RSV, was even started (1937).

Ed

Ed, get your facts straight before proclaiming things.
Bishop Brooke Westcott and Dr. Fenton Hort were the leaders of the revision committee of 1881 which came up with the revised version of the bible, RSV.
Most modern versions are taken from the revised greek text which they wrote.
Taken from LET'S WEIGH THE EVIDENCE, page 77.

They did not believe that the bible itself was reliable.
Quotes from their autobiographies:
Mr. Hort --"Evangelicals seem to me perverted rather than untrue. There are, I fear, still more serious differences between us on the subject of authority, and especially the authority of the bible."

Mr. Westcott--letter to the archbishop of Canterbury 1890, March4
"No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history".

These two guys did not believe in the truth or authority of the scripture itself. It is no wonder they did not feel guilty for corrupting it, with vaticannus and sinaiticus the corrupted manuscripts.

More quotes by Mr. Hort, from the autobiography
"But the book that most engaged me is Darwin... my feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable"

Hort said..." I have been persuaded for many years that Mary-worship and Jesus-worship have very much in common..."

Hort said--- "But you know that I am a staunch sacerdotalist"
definition--belief in the sacraments
[Hey Ed, that is he believed in salvation by works which is error. Roman catholics teach salvation by works of sacraments.]

Hort--"The popular doctrine of substitution is an immoral and material counterfeit."
[That seems to mean he did not accept Christ's atonement for sin on the cross. Hey Ed, seems to me the guy was not even saved.]

Quotes by Mr. Westcott from the autobiography:
"I wish I could see to what forgotten truth Mariolatry bears witness."

They both believed in Mary worship like I said and Hort believed in sacraments for salvation. Works salvation is error; it contradicts salvation by faith in Ephesians.

One more quote by Hort
written to Mr. John Ellerton, July 6, 1848
"The Romish view seems to me nearer, and more likely to lead to the truth than the evangelical...We dare not forsake the sacraments or God will forsake us.

Hey Ed, I agree with Chick, they were catholics pretending to be protestant, and seems to me both were not even saved.

Chick calls them closet catholics in his online tract "The Attack"
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0031/0031_01.asp

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Hey Ed, I agree with Chick, they were catholics pretending to be protestant, and seems to me both were not even saved.

And you also believe that Catholics agents are watching our every move through our televisions.

Chick calls them closet catholics in his online tract "The Attack"
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0031/0031_01.asp

This source really hurts your credibility. It would take a book to point out all the errors in that tract.

And I am one who believes in the superiority of the Byzantine textual body.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

ED: However, I also recall a couple of other posts, as well. Again, these happen to be your own posts.
Quote:
That is one of the two corrupted manuscripts first intoduced (sic) into the modern versions by those two Mary worshippers, Hort and Wescott. (post # 123)

Quote:
The Roman Catholic church is behind the publishing of the modern versions. They are trying to shoot down the protestant bible. This started over 100 years ago with two catholics, (that were pretending to be protestant) named Hort and Wescott. They introduced the corrupted texts vaticanus and sinaiticus, into a revised translation called the RSV. (post # 127 - To be fair, you are summarizing and/or citing from one 'Jack' Chick and/or Barry Burton, here. However, the manner in which you are so doing certainly shows that you are agreeing with him/them, in this.)

HP: You certainly are having a hard time keeping your facts straight. You say that these are my posts but they are not. I would appreciate you setting the record straight. Thanks. :thumbs:

 

[annsni]

HP: Psalm 51:5 is Scriptural support that it is speaking directly concerning the sin of David’s mother. “In sin did my mother conceive me.” How much more support does one need?

Matthew Henry speaks of this:


(2.) He confesses his original corruption (v. 5): Behold, I was shapen in iniquity. He does not call upon God to behold it, but upon himself. "Come, my soul, look unto the rock out of which I was hewn, and thou wilt find I was shapen in iniquity. Had I duly considered this before, I find I should not have made so bold with the temptation, nor have ventured among the sparks with such tinder in my heart; and so the sin might have been prevented. Let me consider it now, not to excuse or extenuate the sin—Lord, I did so; but indeed I could not help it, my inclination led me to it’’ (for as that plea is false, with due care and watchfulness, and improvement of the grace of God, he might have helped it, so it is what a true penitent never offers to put in), "but let me consider it rather as an aggravation of the sin: Lord, I have not only been guilty of adultery and murder, but I have an adulterous murderous nature; therefore I abhor myself.’’ David elsewhere speaks of the admirable structure of his body (Ps. 139:14, 15); it was curiously wrought; and yet here he says it was shapen in iniquity, sin was twisted in with it; not as it came out of God’s hands, but as it comes through our parents’ loins. He elsewhere speaks of the piety of his mother, that she was God’s handmaid, and he pleads his relation to her (Ps. 116:16, 86:16), and yet here he says she conceived him in sin; for though she was, by grace, a child of God, she was, by nature, a daughter of Eve, and not excepted from the common character. Note, It is to be sadly lamented by every one of us that we brought into the world with us a corrupt nature, wretchedly degenerated from its primitive purity and rectitude; we have from our birth the snares of sin in our bodies, the seeds of sin in our souls, and a stain of sin upon both. This is what we call original sin, because it is as ancient as our original, and because it is the original of all our actual transgressions. This is that foolishness which is bound in the heart of a child, that proneness of evil and backwardness to good which is the burden of the regenerate and the ruin of the unregenerate; it is a bent to backslide from God.

from http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-....html#2&Matthew&Henry&Select.x=26&Select.y=12

It has been common knowledge that man is sinful from birth. No, a child has not done anything wrong yet but still carries the sin that is passed on from father to child. That is Biblical.

 

[annsni]

Ann, reason with me for but a moment. If in fact those that proclaim the notion of Augustinian original sin (and I say Augustinian due to the fact he is the well recognized father of the notion of original sin as now held by much of the Church world) are wrong, and that sin is as Scripture states clearly it is, the transgression of known commandments of God, could the translators have been in error when they purposefully added force to the doctrine of OS by stating that which was NOT before within the pages of Holy Writ? When the translators took the liberty to change the Word of God to read “a sinner from birth,” obviously attempting to do what they say as to make clearer the thoughts they believed David was expressing, does the possibility exist that they were in error in doing so? Could have they by their actions in fact altered a doctrine of Scripture even if done so by well meaning intentions? I certainly believe such is the case.

I am not going to argue the fact of original sin. Man inherits sin - that is Scriptural. That is not what I've done but what Adam had done. I inherit money and I make my own. Either way, I have money. A man could be 100% perfect in this life yet still warrant death in hell because of the fact that he is a sinner from birth. We disagree on this issue and I do not wish to get into a whole discussion on it, honestly. I know I won't convince you. You won't convince me.

What I believe is that the King James Version of the Bible states the same things that the ESV, NIV, NASB and others do. I grew up with the King James Version and still found original sin in there. It wasn't until I was older that I was able to get another version (because I now had my own money) and I still see the same doctrine in them. Nothing has changed. We are sinners due to Adam's fall and what we do. We are saved by what we do not do - it is God's working in us. That is truth and can be found in all of the modern versions today.

 

[EdSutton]

Apologies to both Heavenly Pilgrim and antiaging

HP: You certainly are having a hard time keeping your facts straight. You say that these are my posts but they are not. I would appreciate you setting the record straight. Thanks. :thumbs:

Heavenly Pilgrim is entirely correct in this, as to the posts, anyway. I apologize for mistakenly attributing posts # 123 and # 127, which actually are posts made by antiaging to him, instead. Probably also shows why I should not really compose posts when I am overly tired, as well.

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

I believe the KJV beats all other versions hands down is the scholarship of those compiled to complete the KJV.

I, at least, find nothing to particularly disagree with here, considering this is your own point of view. I certainly would not question the 'scholarship' of the KJV translators, although I would likely find multiple doctrinal points, I might disagree with.

The two are not the same thing, by any stretch. The late Pope John Paul II could speak 7 languages fluently, and could speak to some degree, and comprehend more than he could fluently speak, in another dozen or more, and had two earned academic doctorates. I certainly would not question his scholarship, but to my knowledge, I do not ever recall advocating or agreeing with his basic doctrines, at least in a public forum. And I certainly have advocated very few teachings promulgated by the Roman Catholic church, apart from her stance against abortion and the belief in an inspired Scripture, despite the fact that I believe she tends to make this belief "of no effect, by their traditions."

I personally believe it would be all but impossible if not impossible to assemble such a group of men with like qualifications today or at any time during the time duration the modern translations have been written.

I suggest this is opinion, at best, which may or may not be a correct assessment. But it is your opinion, which is OK. However, upon exactly what do you base this contusion?

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.​

​

[/font][/color][/b]

That certainly takes faith to believe. With the numerous omissions and changes that have been made in the modern versions, are we now to believe that after 1800 years that God decided to re-word some things and to omit other things that He once said, and that all are “the Inerrant and Perfect written Word of God preserved by Divine Appointment?”

Reason would indicate to me that either some are indeed right and others wrong and as such are imposters of the truth to one degree or another. Let everyone be assured in their own mind. They all cannot be the Word of God if in fact there are glaring inconsistencies, omissions, and changes to words nowhere substantiated in any of the manuscripts, between them.

Your opinion, here would seem to be at best, at variance with that of the KJV translators, to whom you had just ascribed unequalled scholarship, if I read it right. Yet your conclusions, here, are not in line with theirs, it would seem.

Now to the latter we answer; that we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God. As the King's speech, which he uttereth in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King's speech, though it be not interpreted by every Translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, everywhere.

No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it. For what ever was perfect under the Sun, where Apostles or Apostolic men, that is, men endued with an extraordinary measure of God's spirit, and privileged with the privilege of infallibility, had not their hand?

For to whom ever was it imputed for a fault (by such as were wise) to go over that which he had done, and to amend it where he saw cause?

Some peradventure would have no variety of senses to be set in the margin, lest the authority of the Scriptures for deciding of controversies by that show of uncertainty, should somewhat be shaken. But we hold their judgment not to be so sound in this point.

Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is no so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded. [Excerpted from The Translators to the Readers (with updated spellings), the Preface to the 1611 Edition of the KJV, my emphases]

It appears to me, that the KJV translators are more in line with the conclusions of Ed Edwards, above than with those of Heavenly Pilgrim, which follow those of Ed Edwards. Either that, or you, Heavenly Pilgrim, are personally claiming to possess superior "scholarship" and "qualifications" (or be familiar with those who do so) to the KJV translators. Which one is it?

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

Messers Westcort and Hort has absolutely nothing to do with the RSV, per se, unless they somehow did so from beyond the grave, as both were deceased, for more than 35 years (1901, 1892) before any work on the RSV, was even started (1937).

Ed, get your facts straight before proclaiming things.
Bishop Brooke Westcott and Dr. Fenton Hort were the leaders of the revision committee of 1881 which came up with the revised version of the bible, RSV.
Most modern versions are taken from the revised greek text which they wrote.
Taken from LET'S WEIGH THE EVIDENCE, page 77.

If I 'bold' this response in blue, I wonder if it will be read and comprehended? (I seriously doubt it, but will make the attempt, anyway. [SIGH!])(My emphases added to differentiate, BTW, not that I am 'raising my voice.') Your own source that you take this from, Mr. Barry Burton, titles his book as LET'S WEIGH THE EVIDENCE. (My alter ego, Language Cop, here is demonstrating the proper method of identifying a book, in text, which is by the underlining of the title, FTR.) Hence, Mr. Barry Burton uses words for the title, that I fully agree with. Let's indeed weigh the evidence.

I will start by asking if you actually read my post? Or did you just 'skim' over it, and assume I am supporting the late Professors Westcott and Hort, here? I assume the latter, based on your response. The Revised Version, a.k.a. 'English' Revised Version, and known as the RV or ERV, is indeed of the 1881 vintage. The associated 'American' Edition of this is the American Standard Version (ASV) of 1901, coincidentally also the year of the death of Dr. Westcott, at the age of 76. Dr. Hort who was actually three years younger that Dr. Westcott, had died nine years earlier in 1892, at the age of 64.

You, however, said in post # (and here repeated the incorrect statement, no less), not the RV, but the RSV. These are two different Bibles. The Revised Standard Version (RSV) is not the same as the RV. Any 'start' of the RSV did not begin until 1937.

Secondly, I would note that while Dr. Westcott and Hort were the ones to produce the W/H Greek NT, it is a stretch to say they were any 'leaders' in calling for the 1881 Revised Version, or were the leaders of the Revision Committee, any more than was their long-time fast friend, Dr. Lightfoot. I might suggest that the two had a bit more influence than may have had 'Yogi,' who is not your 'average bear' either, on the translation, considering their contribution of the W/H text. However, the fact that they were but two of the 49 on the two NT Companies, which also included Drs. Thayer, Schaff, Charles Hodge, Trench, Tregelles, Moulton, and Scrivener, among these 49, none of whom were exactly "shrinking violets", coupled with the fact that the overall Chairman (as well as the English N.T.Chair) was Dr. C. J. Ellicott, tells me that they were not the leaders, as you have implied.

Incidentally, just as with the 1611 group, I am not sure the 1881 English Group had any Baptists, among their numbers, although I could be wrong on this. None of the English names stand out as being Baptists, to me anyway. However, the American group did have some Baptists among them, in this case.

They did not believe that the bible itself was reliable.
Quotes from their autobiographies:
Mr. Hort --"Evangelicals seem to me perverted rather than untrue. There are, I fear, still more serious differences between us on the subject of authority, and especially the authority of the bible."

Mr. Westcott--letter to the archbishop of Canterbury 1890, March4
"No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history".

These two guys did not believe in the truth or authority of the scripture itself. It is no wonder they did not feel guilty for corrupting it, with vaticannus and sinaiticus the corrupted manuscripts.

More quotes by Mr. Hort, from the autobiography
"But the book that most engaged me is Darwin... my feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable"

Hort said..." I have been persuaded for many years that Mary-worship and Jesus-worship have very much in common..."

Hort said--- "But you know that I am a staunch sacerdotalist"
definition--belief in the sacraments
[Hey Ed, that is he believed in salvation by works which is error. Roman catholics teach salvation by works of sacraments.]

Hort--"The popular doctrine of substitution is an immoral and material counterfeit."
[That seems to mean he did not accept Christ's atonement for sin on the cross. Hey Ed, seems to me the guy was not even saved.]

Quotes by Mr. Westcott from the autobiography:
"I wish I could see to what forgotten truth Mariolatry bears witness."

They both believed in Mary worship like I said and Hort believed in sacraments for salvation. Works salvation is error; it contradicts salvation by faith in Ephesians.

One more quote by Hort
written to Mr. John Ellerton, July 6, 1848
"The Romish view seems to me nearer, and more likely to lead to the truth than the evangelical...We dare not forsake the sacraments or God will forsake us.

Hey Ed, I agree with Chick, they were catholics pretending to be protestant, and seems to me both were not even saved.

Chick calls them closet catholics in his online tract "The Attack"
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0031/0031_01.asp

I do not recall saying anything about agreeing with either individual, either here, or elsewhere. If I did, please show me where.

I was merely correcting the historical misinformation put forth. And I have done so, one again.

Now let me add this, as well. I do not know exactly how many manuscripts and or extant versions Drs. Westcott and Hort may or may not have used in compiling their W/H text. That number does seem to be relatively few. (And they were only two men, who were doing this, and all by 'quill and ink' as well, at that time, as even the fountain pen, was yet to be made a practical reality, being patented in 1884.) Likewise the same is to be said of Mr. Erasmus, and his texts, which came to be the basis for the TR. One man was very limited, in this endeavor. Communications and geography also all played a big part in these earlier ventures.

By contrast, the UBS texts, of today, and the Majority/Byzantine type texts, as well , utilize many more sources, not to mention have had many individuals working on them, as well. I assure you that Messers Aland, Black, Metzger, Wikgren, and Martini, et al, for the UBS texts, and Messers Pierpont & Morgan, et al., and Hodges & Farstad, et al., for two differing MT texts had at their ready and utilized far more resources than those who preceded them, by a great factor. The Hodges/Farstad text, for one example, was compiled from and referenced to over 400 texts, by its claim. (This sure beats the dozen or so, available to Erasmus, IMO, as does the number available to Aland, et al., beat small handful at the disposal of W/H.) Every compiled text, unlike a single manuscript, is "eclectic" by definition. This includes every TR as well as every other compiled Biblical text, ever made. It is a misrepresentation to claim a single "text."

And it is precisely because of my own preference for (and fealty to) the Majority texts, in the NT, that I reject some of the more undefendable aspects of the TR editions [and hence, the versions based solely on it (Which particular edition of the 'TR' are 'we' claiming, BTW, considering there have been well over 30, at a minimum? Similar does not equal identical!)], including the majority of I Jn. 5:7, and Ac. 8:37, to name two of the most common examples. I am simply not willing to argue both ways, to support any preconceived idea, only because some undefined "most of" "it" agrees with where I would like to wind up. I would prefer not to find that there are still some "hard to understand" Scriptures. However, fidelity to the Scriptures compels me (unlike Marcion, the Heretic, who solved his difficulties by 'chopping them out') to deal with them by searching them out, as a Berean.

Ed

 

[steaver]

Hi guys,

I don't bother much with the bible version debates these days, been there, done that. I have my own personal convictions from the exhaustive study and debate that I have done on this in the past.

But i have a question. My daughter, age twenty three, wants to get a new bible. She does not want the KJV, she says she just isn't mature enough for it. She has read from it and likes how it speaks boldly, but just has too much trouble with the old English and sentence structure. She says maybe when she is older she will understand the old English better, but for now she wants something more modern speaking.

My question is, what version would be a good choice for her that is as accurate as the KJV is to the Greek word for word translation yet easier for one like her to read and understand from? She suggested the popular NIV, but is there anything closer to the KJV than this? The NIV is more an interpretation than a word for word translation. I have been told that the NKJV is worse than the NIV, to not be fooled by the title.

Any help would be appreciated! :jesus:

 

[Amy.G]

Hi guys,

I don't bother much with the bible version debates these days, been there, done that. I have my own personal convictions from the exhaustive study and debate that I have done on this in the past.

But i have a question. My daughter, age twenty three, wants to get a new bible. She does not want the KJV, she says she just isn't mature enough for it. She has read from it and likes how it speaks boldly, but just has too much trouble with the old English and sentence structure. She says maybe when she is older she will understand the old English better, but for now she wants something more modern speaking.

My question is, what version would be a good choice for her that is as accurate as the KJV is to the Greek word for word translation yet easier for one like her to read and understand from? She suggested the popular NIV, but is there anything closer to the KJV than this? The NIV is more an interpretation than a word for word translation. I have been told that the NKJV is worse than the NIV, to not be fooled by the title.

Any help would be appreciated! :jesus:

Hi Steaver,
I am not a bible scholar, but I have used the NIV, NASB, NKJV and NLT. I don't know where you got your information about the NKJV, but it is not correct. I have used this version for years and it is my favorite. It is almost identical to the KJV, but is understandable. It was both an update of the KJV and a new translation. It is translated from the same family of manuscripts as the KJV while using the KJV as the basis for it. My next favorite translation is the NASB. I do not like the NIV at all. The NLT is good for devotional type reading, but I do not think it is good for serious study.

My advice is the NKJV. I use the King James Commentary with it and the two work perfectly together.

 

[steaver]

Hi Steaver,
I am not a bible scholar, but I have used the NIV, NASB, NKJV and NLT. I don't know where you got your information about the NKJV, but it is not correct. I have used this version for years and it is my favorite. It is almost identical to the KJV, but is understandable. It was both an update of the KJV and a new translation. It is translated from the same family of manuscripts as the KJV while using the KJV as the basis for it. My next favorite translation is the NASB. I do not like the NIV at all. The NLT is good for devotional type reading, but I do not think it is good for serious study.

My advice is the NKJV. I use the King James Commentary with it and the two work perfectly together.

Thanks Amy,

I have not researched the NKJV for myself. It was just something I heard on one of these type debates, probably from one who hated all new versions no doubt. I will look into it.

I studied from the NIV the first two years of my discipling. After awhile it just left me a bit wanting. When I began in the KJV my education on the word of God really accelerated. Just my personal testimony everybody. Use whatever version you feel is keeping you grounded in sound doctrine and giving you spiritual growth.

God Bless! :thumbs:

 

[Amy.G]

I studied from the NIV the first two years of my discipling. After awhile it just left me a bit wanting. When I began in the KJV my education on the word of God really accelerated. Just my personal testimony everybody. Use whatever version you feel is keeping you grounded in sound doctrine and giving you spiritual growth.

God Bless! :thumbs:

That is sort of my story as well. I started with the NIV and like you said, was left wanting, then switched to the NKJV and I began to learn FAR more. Now I'm not putting down the NIV. Many godly people that I know use it. This was just my own personal experience.
I have tried to use the KJV, but spent most of my time in commentaries or dictionaries or both. The NKJV is what suits me best. My husband uses it as well, so we are both on the same page, so to speak. :laugh:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Steaver, here is a must read on the NKJV. http://www.av1611.org/nkjv.html