Versions that are Invalid:

[Ed Edwards]

Typo, there.

Ya' shoulda' said, "I'm not a member of any organized group.

I'm a Baptist." :tonofbricks:




:thumbs: :smilewinkgrin:

Ed

That sounds too much like Will Rogers /1920's humorist/:

I'm not a member of any organized party.

I've been a Democrat all my life.

 

[jshurley04]

Drivel?

It's not surprising to continue to witness such liberties being taken with the Word of God, all in the name of reaching those who may not respond otherwise. Once editors began to introduce other versions to begin with, it should be expected such drivel would follow.

That is simply disgusting, that you would call the Word of God drivel. Whether you liked the translation or not does not matter, the translation is still the Word of God. This statement is extreemly offensive and spits on ALL translations of God's Word!

Seems that the aim to make the scriptures more accessable and understandable have only contributed to confusion and sin.

I would challenge you to prove your statement true. You will not be able to prove it and this is simply the statement of a Judiazier who seeks to bind us to your level of immaturity. Those who are spiritually immature need rules and laws and seek to force those same rules and laws on those who are spiritually mature and walking in the liberty of Christ.

 

[Cutter]

Are you happy with the RSV rendering of Isaiah 7v14 - "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Imman'u-el." -

compared to the KJV (and most other renderings) rendering of "almah" as "virgin" instead of "young woman"?

I would prefer the KJV's "virgin" to "young woman," but one cannot argue with the fact that she was young woman. The New Testament in the RSV does bare out the fact that she was a virgin.

1971 was chosen because of the introduction of the Living Bible.

 

[Rippon]

In 1950 the NWT New Testament was released . By 1961 the whole Bible was made public . You have the choice of either year Cutter .

 

[Cutter]

Whether you liked the translation or not does not matter, the translation is still the Word of God.

Let me get this straight. You actually believe every translation thus far and every future translation will or has maintained the integrity of God's Word?

And you call me immature! :laugh:

 

[Cutter]

In 1950 the NWT New Testament was released . By 1961 the whole Bible was made public . You have the choice of either year Cutter .

Forgive me. I do not understand your post.

 

[EdSutton]

As for when It began I would say 1971 with The Living Bible.

May I suggest you still might want do a bit more "correcting", in the Math Dep't.

The Cotton Patch" Version dates back into the 60s, which is before the time you mention (1971). Dr. Clarence Jordan, who did the "Cotton Patch" Version, died suddenly on October 29, 1969 of a heart attack. Predates 1971.

And no one, so far, has mentioned Anglican clergyman J. B. Phillips, who did what is commonly known as the 'Phillips' paraphrase. He started work on this during WWII, and did much of this paraphrasing, at least of the epistles, when spending time in bomb shelters during the London Blitz. He published his paraphrase of the Epistles in 1947, the year before I was born, as Letters to Young Churches. Incidentally, C. S. Lewis was a fan and one of his backers. And Christian notables including such as Os Guinness, Chuck Swindoll, and the late(s) Ray Stedman, and Corrie ten Boom are/were big fans of Phillip's paraphrase, as well. Phillips published the whole NT as The New Testament in Modern English in 1958. Predates 1971.

And if one actually wants to actually go back to 'paraphrase' (in the precursors of today's English), one can scarcely omit the paraphrased folk songs of Caedmon, probably the first to paraphrase Scripture stories into what would have been considered "folk language", all the way back in the 7th Century. Nor should one overlook the paraphrases of the KJV by such as Daniel Whitby (1703) or Edward Harwood (1768). Certainly predate 1971.

And I'll not even attempt to mention all the multiple renderings of Scripture into "modern language", in English, because I would undoubtedly miss some. I will mention six - Richard Weymouth (WEY- 1903), Charles B. Williams (Williams' NT- 1937), Charles K. Williams (NT in Plain English - 1952), Gerrit Verkuyl (Berkeley - 1959), William F. Beck (Beck - NT, 1963 ), and Robert G. Bratcher (NT, TEV - 1966). More that predate 1971.

Or are you suddenly suggesting that all these are permissible and '"valid" versions, now?? C'mon, let's get the record straight.

Ed

 

[Rippon]

Thanks EdS. for the helpful information .

I think the last update of the J.B. Phillips version was in 1972/73 .

I had mentioned on an old thread that Henry Hammond ( in 1663 ) produced a paraphrase of the New Testament . It was printed alongside the KJV . What do you think of that Cutter ?

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Let me get this straight. You actually believe every translation thus far and every future translation will or has maintained the integrity of God's Word?

And you call me immature! :laugh:

You actually believe that every version before 1971 is valid and every version after is invalid?

 

[Cutter]

No, I guess my problem has been I have tried to reach a compromise with all of the people that believe any version is the Word of God. This thread bears out the fact that people do not care if you are flexible enough to allow other options, by posters wanting to confuse and pontificate those willing to open their minds and hearts to that possibility. It is obvious by my post I have never studied nor investigated all of the various versions because, frankly there has been no need to, when I have been satisfied that what I hold in my hands is God's Word. Those who are more scholarly love to call people on their ignorance such as myself. I suppose there is some kind of rush that comes with that behavior. Never mind, I'll just go back to my KJV and let all of you guys read whatever you want.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

No, I guess my problem has been I have tried to reach a compromise with all of the people that believe any version is the Word of God. This thread bears out the fact that people do not care if you are flexible enough to allow other options, by posters wanting to confuse and pontificate those willing to open their minds and hearts to that possibility. It is obvious by my post I have never studied nor investigated all of the various versions because, frankly there has been no need to, when I have been satisfied that what I hold in my hands is God's Word. Those who are more scholarly love to call people on their ignorance such as myself. I suppose there is some kind of rush that comes with that behavior. Never mind, I'll just go back to my KJV and let all of you guys read whatever you want.

And many of us will join you with your KJV. Your desire to learn more is admiarable, just don't be so quick to make decisions. There are good, solid, trustworthy English translations all throughout the history of the English language. There are also poor translations. Part of the effort here is to learn the difference between the two.

BTW, the KJV is an excellent place to end up. I don't think anyone would consider that a poor choice.

 

[jshurley04]

Invalid Versions

Let me get this straight. You actually believe every translation thus far and every future translation will or has maintained the integrity of God's Word?

And you call me immature!

Yes I do, it is a little thing the scriptures teach called preservation. Because God, in His omnipotence, knew that language would change and move over time just as the English language has over the last 400+ years. So, actual immaturity is that which believes not nor applies properly the scriptural teaching of preservation.

 

[jshurley04]

Great Choice

BTW, the KJV is an excellent place to end up. I don't think anyone would consider that a poor choice.

It is a great choice and a most worthy translation, just don't throw rocks at those of us that have come away from [inflammatory remark removed] KJVO.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Now that we have nearly reached 100 votes, I can tell:

Here are the three KJVs that I mentioned:
KJV1611 Edition 8%
KJV1762 Edition 8 %
KJV1873 Edition 9%

All three of these are valid.
But none of them is the most used
subfamily of KJVs: the KJV1769 Editions

:saint: Ain't i naughty

 

[Ed Edwards]

Versions that are Invalid poll to 21 Sept 2007:

Geneva Bible of 1587 -------------------------11
KJV1611 Edition -------------------------------08
KJV1762 Edition -------------------------------08
KJV1873 Edition -------------------------------09
The Message by Peterson -------------------- ***62
NASB = New American Standard Bible --- 21
Reader's Digest Bible ------------------------- ***71
NIV = New International Version ----------- 27
BWT = New World Translation ------------ ***86
ESV = English Standard Version ----------- 23

Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 101
(so the number is very close to the percentage)

The Three stars (***) denote enough votes to
make that Version considered INVALID - i.e.
not a good translation.

 

[EdSutton]

Versions that are Invalid poll to 21 Sept 2007:

Geneva Bible of 1587 -------------------------11
KJV1611 Edition -------------------------------08
KJV1762 Edition -------------------------------08
KJV1873 Edition -------------------------------09
The Message by Peterson -------------------- ***62
NASB = New American Standard Bible --- 21
Reader's Digest Bible ------------------------- ***71
NIV = New International Version ----------- 27
BWT = New World Translation ------------ ***86
ESV = English Standard Version ----------- 23

Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 101
(so the number is very close to the percentage)

The Three stars (***) denote enough votes to
make that Version considered INVALID - i.e.
not a good translation.

Although I'm still not going to vote in the poll, for reasons I've already posted, I wonder if anyone has voted that the Geneva Bible, the KJV 1611, the KJV 1762, and the KJV 1873, and the Reader's Digest Bible are the five versions that are "invalid"? Is this an acceptable position to anyone? The other five are "valid", Comments, anyone? I'll post the "why" of this later.

Ed

 

[Ed Edwards]

Click on the number of votes (any vote) Voila! you
too can see who voted how

This Ed runs to check it for himself.

About three people
admited to POSTING BACKWARDS.

 

[EdSutton]

Versions that are Invalid poll to 21 Sept 2007:

Geneva Bible of 1587 -------------------------11
KJV1611 Edition -------------------------------08
KJV1762 Edition -------------------------------08
KJV1873 Edition -------------------------------09
The Message by Peterson -------------------- ***62
NASB = New American Standard Bible --- 21
Reader's Digest Bible ------------------------- ***71
NIV = New International Version ----------- 27
BWT = New World Translation ------------ ***86
ESV = English Standard Version ----------- 23

Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 101
(so the number is very close to the percentage)

The Three stars (***) denote enough votes to
make that Version considered INVALID - i.e.
not a good translation.

Although I'm still not going to vote in the poll, for reasons I've already posted, I wonder if anyone has voted that the Geneva Bible, the KJV 1611, the KJV 1762, and the KJV 1873, and the Reader's Digest Bible are the five versions that are "invalid"? Is this an acceptable position to anyone? The other five are "valid", Comments, anyone? I'll post the "why" of this later.

Hmmm! Interesting that no one has yet commented on my post. Seems they are avoiding this one, like the plague. So I'll add two little 'qualifiers', and offer to supply an 11' pole. (Since no one seems to want to touch this with a 10' pole.)

Here is the 'qualifier' #1. My question has absolutely nothing to do with the question of the Greek NT text, as to whether the best text is (or should be) the TR; the so-called "Majority Text", a la Hodges/Farstad et al.; the Westcott/Hort text; the Nestle/Aland/Black/Metzger et al. text, or any and all variations of any of the above, for the purposes of this question. Let us assume for our purposes, here, that all the Greek NT texts are exactly the same, and there is not one difference in any of them, for that takes away from my real question, since the Greek NT text has no real bearing on it.

'Qualifier' #2. Since The Message is effectively a "paraphrase", virtually in its entirety, as opposed to any sort of "translation" (good or bad), I will remove this version from my question. Here is the re-worded question. Is there any one person who is (or is not) willing to say (and if so, why or why not) that the Geneva Bible; the KJV 1611; the KJV 1762; the KJV 1873; and the Reader's Digest Bible are "invalid" versions, while the NASB; the NIV; the NWT; and the ESV are the four versions in Ed Edwards' poll that are "valid" versions?

I could further "qualify" the question, but that would affect the integrity of the question, FTR.

I do eagerly await this. BTW, this is a completely legitimate question, and not merely some whim. As I said, in the original posting of my quoted response, I will give the "why" later.

Ed Edwards - Where are you on this one? Care to jump in?? You are the one who first said on the BB that "Two Eds are better than one." How about it robycop3, Rippon, C4K, franklin monroe, whoever???

"C'mon in! The water's fine!!"

Ed

 

[David Michael Harris]

Not sure why you have a New World translation Ed, I would bin it if I were you.

As to the rest they all have their value.

It's just that some have greater value for today. In the sense of being useful in sharing the Gospel with people of today.

Now if I bumped into a Geoffrey Chaucer an older one might come in handy :thumbs:

 

[EdSutton]

Not sure why you have a New World translation Ed, I would bin it if I were you.

As to the rest they all have their value.

It's just that some have greater value for today. In the sense of being useful in sharing the Gospel with people of today.

Now if I bumped into a Geoffrey Chaucer an older one might come in handy :thumbs:

While I fully realize what you mean, I do posess a copy of this translation, but it must remain for the purposes of my question. I could perhaps even eliminate two others, one on each "side" of valid or invalid position, but that would only serve to "skew" the answer. Sorry! I cannot go further, at this time. And "value" is not the question that is in view. That question is "valid " or "invalid".

Care to "jump in"?? As opposed to just touching the water with a bare toe?

BTW, if you happen to actually "bump in to Chaucer", I'm outta' here! :laugh: :laugh:

Ed