What is the best Bible?

[Rev. Joshua]

Howsabout this...we reframe the question into multiple questions:

1. What's the best Bible for people who prefer the Alexandrian textform?

2. What's the best Bible for people who prefer the Byzantine textform?

3. What's the best Bible for people who want access to both?

Joshua

 

[DocCas]

Originally posted by Rev. Joshua Villines:
Howsabout this...we reframe the question into multiple questions:

1. What's the best Bible for people who prefer the Alexandrian textform?

ESV

2. What's the best Bible for people who prefer the Byzantine textform?

KJV

3. What's the best Bible for people who want access to both?

Uh, both?

 

[Rev. Joshua]

There, see, that wasn't so hard.

In all seriousness, I use my GNT (UBS IV) for alternate readings, and it only takes a second to see what the attestations for different readings are. In edition, my NRSV and REB (my preferred dynamic equivalence translations) have the other ancient authorities read phrase for some alternate readings (but not all of the Byzantine ones in my experience).

Do any of the the Byzantine-based modern study Bibles offer footnotes giving the Alexandrian reading (that way a reader could have the best of both worlds)?

Joshua

 

[TomVols]

Are only CT advocates "informed choosers"??

Yes. You're catching on Chris! Just kidding with you friend!

 

[TomVols]

Originally posted by DocCas:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Rev. Joshua Villines:
Howsabout this...we reframe the question into multiple questions:

1. What's the best Bible for people who prefer the Alexandrian textform?

ESV

2. What's the best Bible for people who prefer the Byzantine textform?

KJV

3. What's the best Bible for people who want access to both?

Uh, both? </font>[/QUOTE]You mean, a parallel Bible with ESV and KJV! Copyright the idea, add your study notes, and call it the Cassidy Study Bible

Seriously, though, what made you choose the ESV as superior to the NASB as far as question 1?

 

[Rev. Joshua]

I have a parallel NT with Greek (UBS 3 - no textual apparatus), KJV, Amplified, NIV, Rheims, NRSV, NAB, and NAS. I call it the Schizophrenics NT

. It's from Oxford UP and does come in handy.

Joshua

 

[TomVols]

HA! If it's the schizophrenic's NT, then it's in the right hands (Sorry Joshua, you left the door wide open for that one)

Actually, the NKJV has a lot of notes in the margins/bottom giving the alternative readings, with bias of course.

Speaking of parallel Bibles, I'd love to carry one, but the things are just too darn heavy. You'd need a wheelbarrel to carry them around.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

They do have one on CD. (you probably already know that, & was just tellin Josh a joke, but the boy scout in me must do a good deed)

http://www.bereanbookshelf.com/SAMPLE%20PAGES%202.htm

 

[DocCas]

Originally posted by Rev. Joshua Villines:
Do any of the the Byzantine-based modern study Bibles offer footnotes giving the Alexandrian reading (that way a reader could have the best of both worlds)?

NKJV does.

 

[Chris Temple]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
Your yourself Chris have stood against bad reasons for being TR preferred.

Yes, you're right. But I also stand against bad reasons for being CT preferred as well.

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.

I am sorry I misunderstood; but I think you were much less than "explicit".

 

[Pastork]

On the issue of people who prefer the MT often offering poor arguments, I agree that this is often true, especially of those in the KJV only crowd who misuse so much of the data. And I say this as one who supports the MT position. However, I would also point out that most of the people out there using CT based translations couldn't offer any arguments at all for their preference. Even most pastors I know with seminary training are uninformed as to the real issues and are incapable of saying anything more than "it is based on the 'oldest and best' manuscripts" in defense of the CT. Why so much ignorance of the issues? There are a number of reasons, I think, but I would be interested in hearing from you all about why you think this is the case.

Pastork

 

[Janetta Hampton]

I use the KJV because it is the one I was taught from initially. I choose to use it now because I found that many of the newer versions leave entire verses out. I never had trouble understanding it because I studied in prayer. I think that too many people try to understand God's word on their own. Wisdom and knowledge come from Him.

 

[kman]

Originally posted by Pastork:
On the issue of people who prefer the MT often offering poor arguments, I agree that this is often true, especially of those in the KJV only crowd who misuse so much of the data. And I say this as one who supports the MT position. However, I would also point out that most of the people out there using CT based translations couldn't offer any arguments at all for their preference. Even most pastors I know with seminary training are uninformed as to the real issues and are incapable of saying anything more than "it is based on the 'oldest and best' manuscripts" in defense of the CT. Why so much ignorance of the issues? There are a number of reasons, I think, but I would be interested in hearing from you all about why you think this is the case.

Pastork

I tend to agree.

I've enjoyed reading some of Dean Burgons works.
Any CT supporter might give one of his books a twirl sometime and see whatcha think!

Although the KJV-Only crowd try to claim Burgon as a champion, I have no doubt if he were around today he'd take most of the out to the woodshed for a good spanking. He recognized the TR needed correcting and wasn't "perfect". I'm not sure if he would be considered a Majority Text advocate or not..but probably something close.

-kman

 

[Pastor Larry]

I agree that we should correct those who use bad reasons for choosing any text or version. I pointed out the invalid reasons of the TR/KJV supporters because that is primarily where it exists. Most people who use an NIV don't condemn those who use the KJV. They don't give all kinds of bad reasons for why they use the NIV. Most haven't been taught that the KJV is a perversion and they should stay away from it. In fact, most probably do not even know this is an issue. When I talk about versions in my church (as I have had opportunity to do in teh last couple weeks talking about Christian liberty), I get some strange looks from people who have no idea what the issue is.

I wish all people could give logical and coherent reasons for why they choose the version they do. Thomas can certainly do this, as can Chris, Tom, myself, and others here. It is possible to be on either the majority textsside or the eclectic text side and have good and valid reasons for it. It is possible to be on either side and have bad reasons.

I think ultimately, for the person in the pew, it is largely a non-issue. I have taught my people some of the basics. I will discuss it personally with any of them as deep as they want to go. But there comes a time when there are better, more relevant things to talk about, IMO.

Chris, I am sorry you misunderstood. I should have said "tried to be explicit." My explicitness was adding the part about Thomas having good reasons so that he would know that I was not doing exactly what you and he accused me of. Hopefully, you are clear on where I am coming from.

[ June 28, 2002, 04:20 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

[Pastork]

Pastor Larry,

As a fellow pastor, I would agree with most of your comments on the issue. I would only want to nuance one point. Although I agree that one is more likely to find amongst KJV-only advocates a more strident and uncharitable spirit as well as a penchant for bad argumentation, I would note that one may find just as uncharitable an attitude amongst some of those on the other side of the issue. I am glad to see, however, that you are careful not to treat those of the MT position as guilty by association. I for one am just as critical of the KJV-only position as any CT person I know. Anyway, thanks for being so fair-minded

.

Pastork

 

[BrotherJesse]

Doc, I may not know all the errors, but I read in the beginning of my NRSV Bible that the KJV had dozens of typoes and errors.

 

[DocCas]

Originally posted by BrotherJesse:
Doc, I may not know all the errors, but I read in the beginning of my NRSV Bible that the KJV had dozens of typoes and errors.

Then I am sure you will have no problem at all listing just a few of them for us.

[ June 28, 2002, 06:47 PM: Message edited by: DocCas ]

 

[BrianT]

Why don't you list some for them, DocCas?

Brian

 

[DocCas]

Because I don't support anybody's attack on the bible.

 

[Chris Temple]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
Chris, I am sorry you misunderstood. I should have said "tried to be explicit." My explicitness was adding the part about Thomas having good reasons so that he would know that I was not doing exactly what you and he accused me of. Hopefully, you are clear on where I am coming from.

No problem, and I sure do,