What is the best Bible?

One that is read daily.

Joshua

 

Best for what???

 

By "The English Bible" do you mean the New English Bible, Revised English Bible or the English Standard Version?

 

ESV. Best translation from best mss using best philosophy. Translators and adivsors are a who's who among the best conservative scholars.

 

I'll put a KJV vote in.

 

i'll pick the KJV, the version which was:

1. based from manuscripts that has best answered questiones for corruption;

2. translated by a set of linguistic scholars belonging to a wide range of beliefs - Aglicans and Puritans, Calvinists and Arminians, believers and unbelievers. that indeed minimized to the largest degree biases from pre-translation beliefs, and has assured plain simple translation as against interpretation; and

3. rejected by everyone at its release, but has come to be the most widely used translation for 3 centuries now. and at modern times has been challenged by the popping up of many other versions. just like the story of the church, which at the beginning was desperately tried to be destroyed but as she dominated, was challenged by the popping up of different religions.

 

The witness of blood...

In every generation I would look for the Bible which has the following of the martyrs of that age such as the Old Itala, Waldenses, Geneva, KJV (modern missions).

HankD

 

It is interesting that, so far, 75% of responders prefer a Byzantine based bible (KJV, NKJV). There may be hope for Baptists yet! It seems most have not been taken in by the modernist approach to textual criticism!

 

NASB

 

How many of that 75% do you think can give you a coherent and valid reason why they prefer the selection they made? In other words, are they informed choosers?? The only reasons so far offered in this thread in support of the 75% are weak, invalid reasons. Haven't we all seen enough of these on here to know that such is the case of most of "KJVOnlyism"? There are exceptions ... people like yourself who can give a well-reasoned basis for their belief. But they are the exceptions.

I would agree there is hope for the Baptists yet ... but in a different way

I think the issue of best still must be addressed in terms of "Best for what." For study?? NASB or secondarily ESV. For reading?? NIV. For kids?? NIV. For people who grew up with the KJV?? KJV. In other words, there can be anyone of a number of answers and reasons given for "the best" and there is no one right answer.

[ June 27, 2002, 01:19 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

DocCas said:

It is interesting that, so far, 75% of responders prefer a Byzantine based bible (KJV, NKJV). There may be hope for Baptists yet!

Self-selected opinion polls have approximately the same statistical significance as a blank piece of paper.

 

NASB

 

I can understand the KJV being "way too hard" for you to read (the American education system being what it is) but could you please give me a few of those "dozens of errors" you seem to have found? Thank you.

 

I'm sorry if I misunderstand, but this sounds more than a little elitist. Do only CT advocates "give coherent and valid reasons why they prefer the selections they make?" Are only CT advocates "informed choosers"??

Perhaps MT/TR advocates have thought through the issues and believe their choice is best?

 

LOL! Yep! I noticed that too. Just a little more "poisoning the well" and ad hominem. If we prefer the Byzantine textform we are "incoherent" and our reasons for choosing bibles based on the Byzantine textform are "invalid."

Ho hum. Same ol', same ol'.

 

Yes you and Thomas did misunderstand. My point was to emphasize what Thomas has mentioned before -- that many people who hold a KJV/TR position do not have valid reasons for doing so. As I said in the post (if you read it again), there are exceptions, people like Thomas who do give thought out and valid reasons for why they believe what they do. I suppose Thomas missed that too. In fact, let me quote verbatim what I said earlier to save you the trouble of looking back on teh first page. I said to Thomas:

My point was to say that most people who hold a KJVOnly position argue with such things as Ps 12:6-7 which both Thomas and I here (as well as others in many places) have shown to be an invalid reason. Your yourself Chris have stood against bad reasons for being TR preferred.

I am sorry that you misunderstood. I was explicit in what I said, even to the point of including my oft repeated assertion that Thomas has valid reasons for what he believes. As I said, he is in the vast minority of people that share his position.

 

[ June 27, 2002, 08:37 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

Reading a little closer without your presuppositions would have prevented you from such argumentations. I praised you Thomas for your well reasoned belief. How did you miss that??

I said nothing about elitism, poisoning the well, or ad hominem attacks. Those are cheap easy charges, especially here when there is clearly no such thing. In fact, you have agreed with me about invalid arguments many times (as much as you hate to admit it). You yourself have encouraged people to get better reasons to argue for a position. In other words, in other places, you have said exactly what I said. You just like the way it sounds coming from you better than from me.

My problem is not with your position or your arguments for your position. My problem is with the people who have bad arguments, bad reasons.

Read a little closer to prevent jumping to (unwarranted) conclusions in the future.

[ June 27, 2002, 08:40 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]