Versions that are Invalid:

[David Michael Harris]

Not really, not a good swimmer.

Some people I know have the NWT to deal with JW's, myself I would not have it in my house and would feel uncomfortable with it there.

 

[EdSutton]

Not really, not a good swimmer.

Some people I know have the NWT to deal with JW's, myself I would not have it in my house and would feel uncomfortable with it there.

Well, you could just wade out to your knees, I guess. Don't worry. There are no hidden waves coming that will 'swamp you' here. And, for the purpose of this question, the 'false doctrines', that I believe one will find in the NWT, are not the issue, but a "side-issue", at most. So, C'mon! Wade on in up to your knees!

Ed

 

[Faith alone]

Did this decision to introduce new versions start in 1611 or some time earlier or later?

Well, actually the first English version was a translation from the Latin Vulgate by Wycliffe in 1385 or so. When Tyndale translated the first English Bible from the original languages (he didn't actually complete the OT before he was executed) in 1526 (NT) he also used Wycliffe's work along with Luther's German translation. The KJV is simply a revision of Tyndale's work - considering all of the other revisions of Tyndale's work at the time. Their intent was to come up with a Bible which combined the best features of the existing Bibles, and they did a pretty good job of it. (Not to say that it was much different than the Bibles which preceded it.)

But the point is that the KJV was not really a new translation. You'd have to consider all of the revisions of the KJV since 1611 to be different translations - which they obviously are not.

Once you change the spelling differences in Tyndale's work, it is 95% the same. I've compared a few passages. They changed it about as much as the changes to the RSV to produce the ESV. I chose the following well-known Bible texts at random:

Tyndale - John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

KJV (today) - John 3:16 For God so loveth the worlde yt he hath geven his only sonne that none that beleve in him shuld perisshe: but shuld have everlastinge lyfe.

Wycliffe - John 3:16 For God louede so the world, that he yaf his `oon bigetun sone, that ech man that bileueth in him perische not, but haue euerlastynge lijf.


Tyndale - Galatians 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

KJV (today) - Galatians 2:20I am crucified with Christ. I live verely: yet now not I but Christ liveth in me. For ye lyfe which I now live in ye flesshe I live by the fayth of ye sonne of God which loved me and gave him selne for me.

WYcliffe - Galatians 2:20 and Y am fitchid to the crosse, that Y lyue to God with Crist. 20 And now lyue not Y, but Crist lyueth in me. But that Y lyue now in fleisch, Y lyue in the feith of Goddis sone, that louede me, and yaf hym silf for me.

None of the above properly translate the perfect passive tense. It should be "I have been crucified with Christ..."


Tyndale - 2 Corinthians 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

KJV (today) - 2 Corinthians 5:17 Therfore yf eny man be in Christ he is a newe creature. Olde thynges are passed awaye beholde all thinges are be come newe.

WYcliffe - 2 Corinthians 5:17 Therfor if ony newe creature is in Crist, the elde thingis ben passid.

Oops. WYcliffe skipped something!


Tyndale - Acts 1:8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

KJV (today) - Acts 1:8 but ye shall receave power of the holy goost which shall come on you. And ye shall be witnesses vnto me in Ierusalem and in all Iewrye and in Samary and even vnto the worldes ende.

Wycliffe - Acts 1:8 but ye schulen take the vertu of the Hooli Goost comynge fro aboue in to you, and ye schulen be my witnessis in Jerusalem, and in al Judee, and Samarie, and to the vtmeste of the erthe.


Tyndale - Ephesians 2:8, 9 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.

KJV (today) - Ephesians 2:8, 9 For by grace are ye made safe thorowe fayth and that not of youre selves. For it is the gyfte of God and commeth not of workes lest eny man shuld bost him silfe.

Wycliffe - Ephesians 2:8, 9 For bi grace ye ben sauyd bi feith, and this not of you; for it is the yifte of God, not of werkis, that no man haue glorie.

Again, Tyndale and the KJV mishandle the perfect passive tense. WYcliffe did OK.

ANyway, I see a few differences between Tyndale's work and the KJV, but not much - once you discount the spelling.

FA

 

[Ed Edwards]

Amen, Faith Alone - you are so RIGHT ON! :thumbs:

Thank you! :1_grouphug: It is a real encouragement to us older folks when you younger folk do some research and make such MEAT posts. Again, thank you.

 

[Ed Edwards]

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:

The quirk has long been fixed. Now everybody (including non-voing members) can see how everybody votes.

 

[Rippon]

Amen, Faith Alone - you are so RIGHT ON! :thumbs:

Thank you! :1_grouphug: It is a real encouragement to us older folks when you younger folk do some research and make such MEAT posts. Again, thank you.

Faith Alone is just 4 years , 7.5 months younger than you Ed . But , I guess he qualifies as among "you younger folk" .

 

[Ed Edwards]

Faith Alone is just 4 years , 7.5 months younger than you Ed . But , I guess he qualifies as among "you younger folk" .

Tee hee, that kind of makes it humorus, eh?

So Brother Faith Alone is a younger elder?

 

[Rippon]

The quirk has long been fixed. Now everybody (including non-voing members) can see how everybody votes.

I was surprised at the number of people who claim that the NIV is invalid . A group of 28 people said it was invalid . A group of 22 folks think the NASB is invalid . And a group of 23 individuals think the ESV is invalid . The above info is disturbing.

It appears that basically the same people have cast their disapproval for the NIV ,NASB and ESV . Four of the posters that I checked haven't even posted for a long time . Ares Man , Cutter , and TCassidy last posted in 07 .Anti-Alex hasn't posted since 06 . I guess their views are invalid .

For those of you who still post on the BB shame on you for demeaning the Word of God by saying those versions are "invalid" .

 

[TCGreek]

I was surprised at the number of people who claim that the NIV is invalid . A group of 28 people said it was invalid . A group of 22 folks think the NASB is invalid . And a group of 23 individuals think the ESV is invalid . The above info is disturbing.

It appears that basically the same people have cast their disapproval for the NIV ,NASB and ESV . Four of the posters that I checked haven't even posted for a long time . Ares Man , Cutter , and TCassidy last posted in 07 .Anti-Alex hasn't posted since 06 . I guess their views are invalid .

For those of you who still post on the BB shame on you for demeaning the Word of God by saying those versions are "invalid" .

I can't agree with you more.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Tee Hee, I knew that would happen (I've had other polls, you know). So I made a 'tamper proof poll'. It still shows significance though 3 people voted backwards on accident (thinking a vote meant 'valid', the votes mean 'invalid' - the higher the vote, the more invalid the version is. It still showed significance though there were some (later kicked off the board) who tried to 'jimmy' the poll. Tee Hee, any group of Christians (including most Baptist churches) can probably make up their mind about which translations are valid and which are not.

 

[robycop3]

Youse kats are making me feel young...I turned 60 last Tuesday.

I have a few non-valid versions around the house, such as the NWT and the old Living Bible, just to be able to "know the enemy". I'm not worried about being correpted by them; I'm not THAT weak.

 

[Amy.G]

I can lay all this to rest.

All versions are invalid except the one that I use! :laugh:

 

[EdSutton]

Everlasting life on the BB

1 yr., 6 mos, and 13 days since the inception of this thread.

This thread gives more BB testimony to eternal life, than do some Christians I know. :tonofbricks: :laugh:

Ed

 

[Havensdad]

It is disturbing to me that more people think the ESV is invalid, than do those who think the 1611 KJV is invalid, when the KJV has KNOWN additions and falsifications.

Personally, I prefer the NET Bible.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Youse kats are making me feel young...I turned 60 last Tuesday.

I have a few non-valid versions around the house, such as the NWT and the old Living Bible, just to be able to "know the enemy". I'm not worried about being correpted by them; I'm not THAT weak.

Congratulations Brother Robycop3 on achieving the age of 60 Years! May you have many more happy returns -- or should that be 'reruns'? So if 'old geezer' is anything other than a total REDUNDANCY -- you are a 'young geezer' :tonofbricks:

My Grandson was four last week. I was telling him: "I'm four also". Sez he: "no GrandPa Ed, you are too old to be 'four' ". To which I say "well, I mean sixty four" which I think he understood -- some kind of hyper-four, yes?

And do you feel the same way about the NLT (new living translation) as thr old Living Translation? Both are rather loosly paraphrased. I think the LT was an easier read than the NLT. I guess I'm really not totally in the 21st Century (2001-2100) yet. I guess when I'm buried

 

[Ed Edwards]

It is disturbing to me that more people think the ESV is invalid, than do those who think the 1611 KJV is invalid, when the KJV has KNOWN additions and falsifications.

Personally, I prefer the NET Bible.

The NET Bible is good. But I could only throw out ten in one thread. So I picked the 10 that I thought might be most well known. I suspect some were saying 'I don't know if the ESV is valid cause I have yet to check it out' rather than 'the ESV is invalid'. I always did try to cut some slack for folk, i guess.

 

[Rippon]

And do you feel the same way about the NLT (new living translation) as thr old Living Translation? Both are rather loosly paraphrased. I think the LT was an easier read than the NLT. I guess I'm really not totally in the 21st Century (2001-2100) yet. I guess when I'm buried

The NLTse ( as was the NLT before it ) is not a loose paraphrase . It is functionally-equivalent . And it is several light years distant from its grandfather -- The Lving Bible -- which was indeed a very loose paraphrase .

 

[Salamander]

It is disturbing to me that more people think the ESV is invalid, than do those who think the 1611 KJV is invalid, when the KJV has KNOWN additions and falsifications.

Personally, I prefer the NET Bible.

I think the only ones who voted the KJB is "invalid" mistakingly thought the poll was asking for the versions they know are valid vs all the other versions they know are invalid.

 

[Ed Edwards]

That may be true for some votes.

But I note that some people consider none of the KJVs listed as the KJB. For them only the Cambridge KJV1769 Edition is the KJB.

 

[Salamander]

That may be true for some votes.

But I note that some people consider none of the KJVs listed as the KJB. For them only the Cambridge KJV1769 Edition is the KJB.

I believe you're trying to speak for others while they remain silent.