Versions that are Invalid:

[Ed Edwards]

Ah fun, some spoilers.
However, stats being stats, they don't RUIN the results:

With seventeen votes in, those 'translations' that are invalid
(with 75%+ of the votes) are:

NWT = New World Translation
Reader's Digest Bible
The Message by Peterson

With 17 votes in, those Translations that are valid
(with under 15% of the vote) are:

Geneva Bible of 1587
KJV1611 Edition
KJV1762 Edition
KJV1873 Edition
NASB = New American Standard Bible
NIV = New International Version
ESV = English Standard Version

So my point is proved:
Any reasonable group of Christians and figure out
among themselves what is & what is not a Valid
Translation.

(caveat 1: I am only bound by what my Local Church
decides on this matter. I am not going to stay
in a Local Church which doesn't agree with me
on these and other matters)

(Caveat 2: Spoilers are known by name [I have a
friend who won't vote so can see who voted how]
A. I will not forget
B. I will forgive, if asked)

 

[Dr. Bob]

Invalid? That is problematic for me.

I do not like Good News for Modern Man, Living Bible, certainly the JW's edition. But does even an intentionally-mistranslated word make them "invalid"?

As I see it, they all are English translations (good, bad or ugly) and some vastly superior to others. But I can read John 3:16 in the JW Bible, the Catholic Confraternity or New Jerusalem, Today's English Version, and even in the paraphrases and still see God's truth proclaimed.

And that which proclaims truth is not "invalid". Incomplete, admixture of error? Yeppers. But not "invalid".

I did not vote since it would not allow "none" as an option.

 

[EdSutton]

Ah fun, some spoilers.
However, stats being stats, they don't RUIN the results:

With seventeen votes in, those 'translations' that are invalid
(with 75%+ of the votes) are:

NWT = New World Translation
Reader's Digest Bible
The Message by Peterson

With 17 votes in, those Translations that are valid
(with under 15% of the vote) are:

Geneva Bible of 1587
KJV1611 Edition
KJV1762 Edition
KJV1873 Edition
NASB = New American Standard Bible
NIV = New International Version
ESV = English Standard Version

So my point is proved:
Any reasonable group of Christians and figure out
among themselves what is & what is not a Valid
Translation.

(caveat 1: I am only bound by what my Local Church
decides on this matter. I am not going to stay
in a Local Church which doesn't agree with me
on these and other matters)

(Caveat 2: Spoilers are known by name [I have a
friend who won't vote so can see who voted how]
A. I will not forget
B. I will forgive, if asked)

I believe you misused "valid" and 'invalid" as to what you meant in the cases of the Geneva, King James versions, etc.

Signed- Language Cop

 

[EdSutton]

rsr, you've got to be kidding with your response, right? You surely don't believe that the "BWT" :laugh: ; Reader's Digest Bible; and 'The Message' are 'good' Bibles, and while the other seven are not good ones, do you? For that is how your votes have been recorded. :type: :tonofbricks: Medic!! Over here!!

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

Invalid? That is problematic for me.

I do not like Good News for Modern Man, Living Bible, certainly the JW's edition. But does even an intentionally-mistranslated word make them "invalid"?

As I see it, they all are English translations (good, bad or ugly) and some vastly superior to others. But I can read John 3:16 in the JW Bible, the Catholic Confraternity or New Jerusalem, Today's English Version, and even in the paraphrases and still see God's truth proclaimed.

And that which proclaims truth is not "invalid". Incomplete, admixture of error? Yeppers. But not "invalid".

I did not vote since it would not allow "none" as an option.

I agree with you, here, Doc! But I would phrase it slightly differently. I believe any and all versions are "valid", wherever and whereas they are faithful and present accurate renderings of the text. :thumbsup: I believe any and all versions are "invalid", wherever and whereas they are not faithful and present inaccurate renderings of the text.

That is where I stand, and found no reason to vote on a question that was too limiting, to me.

Ed

 

[Snitzelhoff]

There is a quirk of the BB's polling software.
You can set the poll so the vote of each person is
shown. But it has a problem, only the person who has
NOT voted can see how folks voted; the person who
has voted cann NOT see how folks voted.
Strange, eh?

Be sure to read how who is voting what
BEFORE you vote :BangHead:

You may not have realized this, but you can still see who voted how after you vote. Click on the numbers in blue beside the bars.

Michael

 

[Deacon]

From the translators of the King James Version [link]:

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 their's of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God: as the King's speech which he uttered 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. For it is confessed, that things are to take their denomination of the greater part; and a natural man could say, Verum ubi multa nitent in carmine, non ego paucis offendar maculis, etc. A man may be counted a virtuous man, though he have made many slips in his life, (else there were none virtuous, for in many things we offend all,) also a comely man and lovely, though he have some warts upon his hand; yea, not only freckles upon his face, but also scars. 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 apostolick men, that is, men endued with an extraordinary measure of God's Spirit, and privileged with the privilege of infallibility, had not their hand? The Romanists therefore in refusing to hear, and daring to burn the word translated, did no less than despite the Spirit of grace, from whom originally it proceeded, and whose sense and meaning, as well as man's weakness would enable, it did express.

I put my vote along side Dr. Bob's; "none of the above"

Rob

 

[Ed Edwards]

You may not have realized this, but you can still see who voted how after you vote. Click on the numbers in blue beside the bars.

Michael

You are correct, I didn't realise that.
Live & learn A LOT :godisgood:

Thank you Sibling Snitzelhoff -- I can use all the help I can get.

 

[Jim1999]

But, can you see what I didn't vote for?

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Ed Edwards]

But, can you see what I didn't vote for?

Cheers,

Jim

Yes, God bless you.

Yes I can see what you didn't vote for.
What I cannot see is why you didn't vote:
Did you not know anything about the entry so had
no opinion? That isn't likely. Did you choose to join
the others who boycotted my pretentous poll?
Could be. Did you have an eclectic approach to
your non-vote? That could happen also.
Then there is always the ever popular:
NONE OF THE ABOVE.

 

[Jim1999]

I didn't understand the question...........lol

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Ed Edwards]

Oops -- there I go again, polling in glossalalia

 

[Jim1999]

"He that biteth tongue whilst singing Hallelujah speaketh in stuttering tongue."
James 1:3 (MV)

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Ed Edwards]

With 25 votes in, those 'translations' that are invalid
(with 75%+ of the votes) are:

NWT = New World Translation
Reader's Digest Bible
The Message by Peterson

With 25 votes in, those Translations that are valid
(with under 20% of the vote) are:

Geneva Bible of 1587
KJV1611 Edition
KJV1762 Edition
KJV1873 Edition
NASB = New American Standard Bible
NIV = New International Version
ESV = English Standard Version

Humm, hasn't changed a bit

 

[El_Guero]

that is scary . . . 25%- of your particpants think the NWT is valid?

:BangHead:

With 25 votes in, those 'translations' that are invalid
(with 75%+ of the votes) are:

NWT = New World Translation
Reader's Digest Bible
The Message by Peterson

With 25 votes in, those Translations that are valid
(with under 20% of the vote) are:

Geneva Bible of 1587
KJV1611 Edition
KJV1762 Edition
KJV1873 Edition
NASB = New American Standard Bible
NIV = New International Version
ESV = English Standard Version

Humm, hasn't changed a bit

 

[Ed Edwards]

that is scary . . . 25%- of your particpants think the NWT is valid?

:BangHead:

Nope. You read something wrong.
Only 4% of my 25 participants think the NWT is valid.
These 4% are probably spoilers

 

[El_Guero]

Whew!

That is better than the other poster that said 75%+ said that nwt was invalid . . . tho't maybe you were letting in the heretics . . .

:1_grouphug:

 

[TC]

oops. I voted backwards. I checked the ones I think are valid only to see that the question was which are invalid. The Message, Readers digest, and NWT are invalid and the rest are valid.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Sorry, I had to make the vote 'backwards'.
By actively voting for invalid (not valid), I made
sure that those who weren't familiar with a particular
version would not 'bad tag' the version.

 

[Keith M]

Re: Invalid Versions

Ed, I also feel the Clear Word Translation (CWT) of the Seventh Day Adventists and the Joseph Smith Translation (JST) of the Mormons are not valid Bible versions, although these selections are not in the poll.