What Version of the Bible do you read

[Askjo]

The KJV can be difficult to understand correctly, if ONE is not familiar with word-meanings changed over time; the actual historical context, and the terminology used.

From a poetic viewpoint it is no harder than reading Shakespeare or even Milton.

Cheers,

Jim

Why did we have Bible dictionaries, Bible commentaries, Bible handbooks, etc,.? No one can understand the Bible - 100%! Some did not understand the NIV or Nasb or KJV or whatsoever, and they used Bible tools for their reading/study.

 

[Marcia]

Idol worshipers and goddess worshipers produced their modern versions. You purchased it from them and used it.

Really? Who were these idol worshipers I purchased my Bible from?

Suppose, when you are outside anywhere, you see mud and grass on the ground there, then you walked in mud and get dirty? You can SEE how dirty you are. Right? That is visible.

On other hand, Gnostics, Catholicized makers, unbelievers and lax Christians produced their modern versions and sent them to many Christian Bookstores. You went to a bookstore and purchased a bible there. How blind you are! That is invisible

You never showed proof that the MVs are Gnostic. I know what Gnosticism is - I speak on it when I speak on the New Age. I do not see it in the MVs at all. Please give examples of this.

 

[Ed Edwards]

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0310923077/?tag=baptis04-20

// The NIV translation is one easiest Bibles to understand at a grade reading level of 7.8 //


Footnote #3 here says:
http://www.glbaptistchurch.com/niv_quiz_glbc.html

// Flesch-Kincad Research Company. The NIV reading grade level was 8th. //

Here is an interesting place I got when I searched Google for:

"Flesch-Kincaid Research Company" -"King James Bible"
(i.e. there was no reference to the phrase 'King James Bible'

http://www.faithwriters.com/article-details.php?id=75094

Don't think for a second your kids won't be able to read the Bible and understand it or even be able to memorize verses! The following research and information comes from Gail Riplinger's "New Age Bible Versions" that utilized data from the Flesch-Kincaid research company's Grade Level Indicator, found in Chapter 11, pages 195-217.

Needless to say, I'll not research Gail Riplinger's book, she tends NOT to provide good references nor indexes (to find something).

Oh well, I have a copy of that book.

I cannot find this: http://flesch-kincaid.org/
or other indication that there is a Flesch-Kincaid research organization.
(other than the above mentioned KJVO places)

Gail Riplinger's "New Age Bible Versions" Chapter 11, page 195-217 does mention Flesch-Kincaid But gives no clue as to where, when, why -- nothing to help a person find out what she is talking about (if anything).

As far as I can determine (and I'll look at any evidence to the contrary):

Gail Riplinger made it up and 298 KJVO sites have quoted Gail.
Fun Facts: The misspelling "Flesch-Kincad" is quoted by 3 KJVO sources

Here is an interesting page on Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flesch-Kincaid_Readability_Test

I'll look into those web sites. Recall that when I took graduate work I also used some Readability Test. I remember using a Sociology Graduate textbook - grade level was Grade 35 If Grade 14 is a Bachelor Degree and Grade 16 is a Master's degree, and Grade 24 is a Doctor's Degree -- then what is Grade 35? Tee Hee

 

[Ed Edwards]

Really? Who were these idol worshipers I purchased my Bible from?

Those dirty, blood-sucking, money-grabbing, Baptists
What ever happened to reading the translation of baby-baptizing, king James worshiping Anglicans?

You never showed proof that the MVs are Gnostic. I know what Gnosticism is - I speak on it when I speak on the New Age. I do not see it in the MVs at all. Please give examples of this.

The Gnostics were Third century (0201-0300) scape goats Tee Hee

 

[Jim1999]

Careful on the baptism thing and Anglicans. Queen Elizabeth I was immersed. If a person requests immersion, the vicar must provide for it. Most of the older Anglican Churches have a full baptistry under the floor.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Ed Edwards]

The "Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level" given on this page:

http://www.englishproofreading.ca/kincaid.htm

Is the same formula as given on page 196 of Gail Riplinger's NEW AGE BIBLE VERSIONS (God And Riplinger Publishing, 1993).

However, Gail also says:

(All complete sentences, whether terminating in a period, colon, or semi-colon, and all incomplete phrases ending in a period were calculated as 'sentences'.)

Tee Hee, like my pastor said "Paul sure did write long sentences". Sorry. Sentence Fragments. Not Sentence.

 

[Amy.G]

What ever happened to reading the translation of baby-baptizing, king James worshiping Anglicans?

Why do so many feel the need to denigrate the KJV translators?

I have done some reading on these men and they were highly respected and brilliant men. Do you also denigrate William Tynedale of whom most of KJV is directly copied from?

Why is ok to question the character of the KJV translators but it's not ok to question the character of MV translators?

 

[sag38]

Why the need to denigrate the modern version translators? There's been a whole lot more of that in this thread?

 

[Marcia]

Why do so many feel the need to denigrate the KJV translators?

I have done some reading on these men and they were highly respected and brilliant men. Do you also denigrate William Tynedale of whom most of KJV is directly copied from?

Why is ok to question the character of the KJV translators but it's not ok to question the character of MV translators?

Amy, who started the denigration? Did you see the posts about the Bible I read - that it was "preserved by idol worshipers and Goddess worshipers?" And that I bought it from "idol worshipers?" Did you see that?

Oh, yeah, I'm "blind" as well. See a few posts above.

Have you seen posts here telling me and others that I am not reading God's word? How would that make you feel? Talk about respect! There is none at all; in fact, it's worse than that. It's outright false accusation.

Anyway, the above is not denigrating anyone, it's making a point. While some may say the MVs are from idol worshipers (a false statement), he's making the point that the KJV was from Anglicans. The KJVOs here who denigrate scripture won't talk facts.

 

[Amy.G]

Amy, who started the denigration? Did you see the posts about the Bible I read - that it was "preserved by idol worshipers and Goddess worshipers?" And that I bought it from "idol worshipers?" Did you see that?

Oh, yeah, I'm "blind" as well. See a few posts above.

Have you seen posts here telling me and others that I am not reading God's word? How would that make you feel? Talk about respect! There is none at all; in fact, it's worse than that. It's outright false accusation.

Anyway, the above is not denigrating anyone, it's making a point. While some may say the MVs are from idol worshipers (a false statement), he's making the point that the KJV was from Anglicans. The KJVOs here who denigrate scripture won't talk facts.

You're right. The insults should stop, on both sides. I didn't mean to sound like I was taking sides.

 

[SaggyWoman]

I read whatever is available.

 

[franklinmonroe]

Jesus spoke to Paul in Hebrew who must have been fluent in Greek ( Acts 26:14). Paul delivered the message to people in Jerusalem in Hebrew ( Acts 21:40, 22:2)

Jesus was talking about Torah, Neviim, Ketuviim which rule out LXX ( Luke 24:44)
Jot and Tittle can be found only in Hebrew ( Mt 5:18) ...

Well unfortunately, this is exactly the sort of non-sequitur response I was anticipating from you. Why would you reply with "Jesus spoke ..." when the discussion was about what Jesus read? The order of the OT contents, remember? And why bring up Paul? Maybe they could both speak Hebrew, but that has nothing to do with what I wrote about scrolls. Jesus probably spoke Aramaic, too.

Not that your comment was even relevent here, but Jesus statement does not of itself "rule out" the LXX of anything. Again, the Tanakh (Torah-Neviim-Ketuviim) did not exist as a single volume in any language at the beginning of the 1st Century.

And finally, the same point I made before about the Lord's words recorded by Luke, the words recorded in Matthew are NOT Hebrew words ("jot" & "tittle" in English) but are preserved in the Greek terms "iota" & "keraia".

 

[Askjo]

I understand that people can understand the KJV. I have nothing against it but it is written in archaic English of the 17th century. That is not the current language and it is difficult for some people.

The TODAY people still read the 17th Century KJV and use it during they have difficult reading or not.

The TRUE story

A preacher's brother who has awful difficult reading, read the KJV, but he can't read very well for many years. He studied the Bible and prepared a lesson for teaching in children's class. He had the ABILITY to read the Bible. He improved his reading later. No difficult! He still used the OLD KJV. I never forget this story because I WAS THERE.

 

[EdSutton]

Well unfortunately, this is exactly the sort of non-sequitur response I was anticipating from you. Why would you reply with "Jesus spoke ..." when the discussion was about what Jesus read? The order of the OT contents, remember? And why bring up Paul? Maybe they could both speak Hebrew, but that has nothing to do with what I wrote about scrolls. Jesus probably spoke Aramaic, too.

Not that your comment was even relevent here, but Jesus statement does not of itself "rule out" the LXX of anything. Again, the Tanakh (Torah-Neviim-Ketuviim) did not exist as a single volume in any language at the beginning of the 1st Century.

And finally, the same point I made before about the Lord's words recorded by Luke, the words recorded in Matthew are NOT Hebrew words ("jot" & "tittle" in English) but are preserved in the Greek terms "iota" & "keraia".

Being as you mentioned reading, why won't some one version ONLY type answer the question about the text Jesus read from in Luke 4:16-23?

The words Jesus read, and proclaimed to be Scripture exactly correspond to no known Hebrew text. In addition, they do not match the LXX, either. So what exactly text was there at the synagogue? Jesus did pronounce it to be Scripture. I will presume He knew what He was talking about!

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

The TODAY people still read the 17th Century KJV and use it during they have difficult reading or not.

The TRUE story

A preacher's brother who has awful difficult reading, read the KJV, but he can't read very well for many years. He studied the Bible and prepared a lesson for teaching in children's class. He had the ABILITY to read the Bible. He improved his reading later. No difficult! He still used the OLD KJV. I never forget this story because I WAS THERE.

What exactly is this anecdotal story supposed to prove?

BTW, I would be willing to invest and wager a couple of nickels that this reading was more likely from 18th Century KJV, a la the revision of Dr. Blaney, than from any early 17th Century KJV, a la the 1611 Gothic font or 1612 Roman font editions.

Ed

 

[Eliyahu]

Why would you reply with "Jesus spoke ..." when the discussion was about what Jesus read? The order of the OT contents, remember? And why bring up Paul? Maybe they could both speak Hebrew, but that has nothing to do with what I wrote about scrolls. Jesus probably spoke Aramaic, too.

He would have spoken in Aramaic where Aramaic was dominant, but mostly in Hebrew. Speaking is a reference for the reading too.

the words recorded in Matthew are NOT Hebrew words ("jot" & "tittle" in English) but are preserved in the Greek terms "iota" & "keraia".

He was talking about the hebrew letters. Matthew was first recorded in Hebrew.

Do you still believe Jesus read LXX?

See the followings:

1) Matthew 1:23 quoted from Isaiah 7:14

Greek NT/ KJV

Ιδου, ηπαρθενοςενγαστριεξεικαιτεξεταιυιον, καικαλεσουσιτοονομααυτουΕμμανουηλ

Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel

LXX

Behold a virgin shall be with a child and bring forth a son, and Thou Shall call His Name Emmanuel


ιδουηπαρθενος
ενγαστριεξεικαιτεξεταιυιονκαικαλεσειςτοονομα
αυτουΕμμανουηλ

Masoretic Text ( Isaiah 7:14)
Thou (feminine You) shall call his name


Masoretic Text and LXX are the same, but NT is different from them.

2) Luke 4:19 quoted from Isaiah 61:1

Greek NT
Κηρυξαι (Preach)
LXX

Καλεσαι (call )

Masoretic Text

קרא

KRA ( Proclaim)

Greek NT is nearer to Masoretic Text than to LXX


3) Acts 8:32-33 quoted from Isaiah 53:7-8

Greek NT
Καιωςαμνοςεναντιοντουκειραντοςαυτοναφωνοςουτωςουκανοιγειτοστομα….. αυτου

LXX

Καιωςαμνοςεμπρσθεντουκειραντος (- )
αυτοναφωνοςουτωςουκανοιγειτοστομα (

Masoretic Text

He is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearer



(quoted from Blueletterbible.com)

LXX used the synonym, but different word.

4) Hebrews 10:5 quoted from Psalm 40:6


Greek NT

Ευδοκησας
(delight in, pleasure)

LXX

Εζητησας

(seek, pursue)

Masoretic Text

Chaphatsta

(pleased to do, delight in)

Masoretic Text is nearer to Greek NT than LXX is

5) Matthew 2:6 – too much different, Hegemosin-Arxnota

6) Matthew 2:15
My son – His son
διοτινηπιοςΙσραηλκαιεγωηγαπησααυτονκαιεξΑιγυπτου
μετεκαλεσατατεκνααυτου

Greek NT : τον υιον μου.

7) Mt 2:18 – couldn’t be found in LXX
(maybe because Jeremiah of LXX is much shorter than MT as we find it in Dead Sea Scrolls)
φωνηενραμαηκουσθη, θρηνοςκαικλαυθμοςκαιοδυρμοςπολυς, ραχηλκλασουσατατεκνααυτης, καιουκηθελεπαρκληθηναι, οτιουκεισι

8) Mt 3:2 – Isaiah 40:3

A) Isaiah 40:3 LXX:
ΦωνηβοωντοςΤηερημωετοιμασαταικαιεσταιπανταΤασκολιαειςευθειανκαιητραχειαειςπεδια

B) NT in Greek ( Textus Receptus=Other Greek Texts, No variance)
Φωνη βοωντος εν τη ερημω ετοιμασατε την οδον Κυριου, ευθειας ποιετε τας τριβους αυτου

Too much different !



My file is not loaded here well, so some of the Hebrew letters are not shown above.

 

[Eliyahu]

I read whatever is available.

Mark 4:
24 And he said unto them,Take heed what ye hear: with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you: and unto you that hear shall more be given.

 

[EdSutton]

Do you still believe Jesus read LXX, as Ed says?

I assume you are referring to me, although you could possibly be referring to Ed Edwards, I guess.

However, EdSutton (that's me) never said Jesus read from the LXX. In fact, I specifically said that the text Jesus read from in Lk. 4 did not correspond to either the LXX or any known Hebrew text. I also, from what little I've been able to find out, believe this corresponds exactly with no other known OT translation, as well.

So, "Exactly what unknown text of the synagogue, did Jesus read from and pronounce to be Scripture?" is still the unanswered question.

There seems to be no real doubt as to how the phrase "και ανεστη αναγνωναι" reads, or the meaning, from what I have seen via Thayer, Wigram, Bible Gateway, UBS-2, and MT (Hodges, et.al., - 2). In addition, with the scroll there for examination, I suggest if Jesus did not read from it (although Luke declares that He did), someone likely would have questioned it, unlike when Scripture is merely referenced.

Ed

 

[annsni]

The TODAY people still read the 17th Century KJV and use it during they have difficult reading or not.

The TRUE story

A preacher's brother who has awful difficult reading, read the KJV, but he can't read very well for many years. He studied the Bible and prepared a lesson for teaching in children's class. He had the ABILITY to read the Bible. He improved his reading later. No difficult! He still used the OLD KJV. I never forget this story because I WAS THERE.

True story - There is also a woman online who is followed by many women who says that her IQ went up 30 points after reading the KJV. Amazing thing, that KJV.

 

[Eliyahu]

I assume you are referring to me, although you could possibly be referring to Ed Edwards, I guess.

However, EdSutton (that's me) never said Jesus read from the LXX. In fact, I specifically said that the text Jesus read from in Lk. 4 did not correspond to either the LXX or any known Hebrew text. I also, from what little I've been able to find out, believe this corresponds exactly with no other known OT translation, as well.

So, "Exactly what unknown text of the synagogue, did Jesus read from and pronounce to be Scripture?" is still the unanswered question.

There seems to be no real doubt as to how the phrase "και ανεστη αναγνωναι" reads, or the meaning, from what I have seen via Thayer, Wigram, Bible Gateway, UBS-2, and MT (Hodges, et.al., - 2). In addition, with the scroll there for examination, I suggest if Jesus did not read from it (although Luke declares that He did), someone likely would have questioned it, unlike when Scripture is merely referenced.

Ed

Sorry, I tried to combine the answers for both of you in one post and stated some other words together, then erased the other part, but your name was still left by mistake.

You are correct in general understanding about the quotations of OT in NT. I preume there might have been either Hebrew OT different from current Masoretic texts, or the disciples mentioned the meanings of the OT instead of Word-to-Word referenceas the Bible was not available to the individuals at that time.