Featured Which bible do you trust?

Dear stillearning:

Comparing trusted versions is something we teach to new believers as they begin to study God's word.

It is a simple way to look at the meanings of original language words without struggling to learn a foreign language - a first step in biblical language skills.

I would encourage you to connect to a congregation that can begin to disciple you.

Rob

 

Are you referring to the unscriptural or non-scriptural KJV-only movement that seems to be trying to destroy the confidence of many in their English translations?

Are you implying that the KJV translators were deceived when they asserted that English-speaking people could put their confidence in more than one English translation? The KJV translators indicated that all the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision could and should be considered the word of God or Scripture regardless of the fact that they had some blemishes and imperfections and the fact that their new translation would also not be perfect.

Surely you do not suggest that people should put their 100% confidence in the abilities of men or in the opinions of men as a consistent application of KJV-only claims would imply. The Scriptures do not state or teach that people should put confidence in only one English translation. The word of God is not bound or limited to the textual criticism decisions and translating decisions of one exclusive group of scholars.

 

Facepalm...

 

Well, I'll bite...should be fun to see what happens

I read Hebrew and Greek, so I don't use one translation, I use multiple translations in my study. I don't see the need for using only one translation. :thumbs:

 

The premise that if you do not limit your Bible study to one translation, you are undermining trust in God's word is questionable. The translation I trust the most is the NASB95, but when I study a passage or verse, I look at several other translations, with the idea this helps me understand the intended message presented in the original autographs.

 

Stilllearning

You wrote, "I have become aware of a conspiracy, that is attacking the foundation of Christianity. This movement, is trying to destroy our confidence in God’s Word."

Nah, you don't mean it. The fact is, Satan and his minions have been doing this since the garden of Eden. First he cast doubt on what God said. Then he blatantly lied about it. Yes, there is a conspiracy, but it is not found in the different bible versions that are accepted by mainstream Christianity, no, it is found in Satan and his minions once again using people to do his work. That version is no good, or this is the only good version, they say.

The fact is, bible study can be productive by comparing the different versions and seeing the different English words that can be used for the Greek and Hebrew, etc. At least you are honest in picking a name for this site, you do have a lot to learn, no offense. God confirms His word thru whatever version I use, and for that I am thankful. You want me to pick one version, but I can't. I will tell you the versions that I use in my study:

KJV, NKJV, ESV, HCSB, NASB, NIV, NET, ISV

 

Ah, and here is the turn. Since KJVO/P advocates cannot logically argue one English translation that stands above all other translations they must argue concerning the textual basis.

I'm a firm believer that the CT is the better apparatus. I've got my reasons and done the work. Plenty of folks disagree. I don't care to discuss it much beyond this.

 

Earlier you were seeming to attack the use of more than one English translation.

It has not been demonstrated from the Scriptures that the scriptural doctrine of preservation directly concerns translations or that preservation was or is somehow transferred to translations. By what process are you claiming that preservation was transferred to translations?

Preservation of the Scriptures concerned preservation of the specific words that God gave by inspiration to the prophets and apostles, and those words were in the original languages. How can different words in different languages be claimed to be a preserving of the actual specific words that God gave to the prophets and apostles?

Many would argue that preservation according to the Scriptures concerned "words", the specific words that God gave to the prophets and apostles. The only way that preservation could be applied to translations would seem to be indirectly and the type preservation would only concern a preservation of the "meaning" in different words.

Are you arguing for "meaning" preservation in translations instead of "word" preservation in the original languages?

 

OK...I'll Bite!

I know I am probably opening myself up to ridicule and criticism because it has happened to me before on this very board but I'll be happy to "occupy my hill" and "take a stand".
The ONLY Bible I have ABSOLUTE confidence and trust in is the King James Bible. My old Godly grandmother gave me one when I first made a profession of faith back in 1969 but I made a huge mistake and quickly shelved it in favor of the Living (so-called)Bible that everyone in my Young Life Club was using. We also used Good News For Modern Man and the Phillips translation. I got nothing but powerless confusion out of any of those!! As I grew up and went thru various "phases" of my life, I was told by friends at BJU that the NASB was the most accurate version and actually purchased one of them as well. That was in the late 70's. Well....by that time I was beginning to come across some information that was compiled that did some comparative analysis of all the different modern versions and the KJV and it became apparent to me that there were more than just a few differences in most of them and that the KJV was the only one that did not omit things or contain footnotes that many times called into question the authority of significant portions of scripture. The "fog" that had shrouded my spiritual growth for years begun to clear up as I began to absorb and memorize scripture out of the KJV I had finally settled on (an old Thompson Chain Reference Bible). Over the years since, I have found that any trouble I have had with the meaning or interpretation of my Bible could be cleared up by the following:
1. Prayer...because the natural man cannot understand scripture and even the spiritual man needs the illumination of the Holy Spirit for his(or her) understanding!
2. A good Websters english dictionary
3. A good Strongs Exhaustive Concordance
4. A good King James dictionary to help with any of the more archaic words that may have fallen out of common usage.

I see no reason to waste my time comparing a dozen or more MV's to my venerable and reliable KJV when they weren't even reliably translated from the same family of manuscripts that the KJB came from. It is like comparing apples to oranges many times. I also reject the Critical Text and the idea of Dynamic Equivalency. The MV's many times don't even read the same way so the comparisons aren't even fair. The proliferation of many multiple translations in our worship services and Sunday schools is, I believe, the cause of much confusion in the church in our day. The Pastor may preach out of one kind (mine preaches mostly from a KJV) and the people in the pew are trying to follow along in who knows how many other different types. The trumpet is blowing an uncertain sound in our generation....very sad. Well...you get the picture. For my money...(so to speak)...I'm for staying with the reliable old KJB.....and nothing else for English-speaking people. That is just my humble opinion...since you asked.

Bro.Greg Perry Sr.:thumbsup::type:

 

But the original KJV does contain marginal notes, many of them, that offer alternative translational choices.

 

I have taken classes in Greek in order to enhance my own, and my family Bible study. I've taught Sunday school before, so it has come in handy for that as well, and I use a Greek NT alongside whatever English translation I have. I prefer the ESV, though I also use the NASB and the RSV. Those are all trustworthy, as is the Holman Christian Standard, about which I was a little skeptical at first.

I figure that if these translations are reliably accurate, in terms of their Greek translation, they are equally reliable for Hebrew. That I have not tackled yet.

 

True...But...

Roger...That may be true but I'm one of those KJV guys that is honest enough to admit that I don't read from an actual 1611 KJB....but rather a more recent (spellings updated) edition (1769 or later) of the KJB that is a faithful update of the 1611. I also know that footnotes, marginal references, and even chapter and verse numbering/divisions are not inspired (though they can be and many times are helpful). My case for the KJB is for it's divine preservation as a part of the textual "family" it is descended from...NEVER that it, as a translation, is any kind of continued or "second work" of inspiration. I know that the translators may have made statements or recomendations about their own work but I submit that even they may have been (and probably were) unaware of the gravity and importance of their own work in the eternal light of things. That tends to be one of the marks of humble, Spirit-filled and led men.....in my opinion. May God bless you and yours with a joyous Christmas brother.

Bro.Gregraying:

 

Wycliffe's Bible

Your knowledge of the history of English translations would seem to be limited. Evidently you are unaware of how different in text the 1395 Wycliffe's Bible is from the KJV. The Wycliffe's Bible was translated from a Latin Vulgate edition of that day, and it had a good number of textual differences from the traditional Hebrew/Greek texts and even more translational differences.

Along with its use at Matthew 3:2, this rendering "penance" is also found other times in Wycliffe's (Matt. 21:29; 21:32; Mark 6:12; Luke 5:32; 13:3, 5; 15:7, etc.). Do KJV-only advocates agree with the rendering "priests" instead of "elders" in Acts 14:23 and Titus 1:5 in Wycliffe's Bible? At Matthew 3:6, Wycliffe's Bible has "and they were christened of him in Jordan." It read "Jesus christened" at Luke 3:21 and “christened“ at Acts 18:8. The rendering "sacrament" can be found in Wycliffe's Bible at Ephesians 1:9, 3:3, 3:9, 5:32; Colossians 1:27, 1 Timothy 3:16, and Revelation 1:20 and 17:7.

Wycliffe's has “deacon” (Luke 10:32) instead of “Levite” and “bishops” (John 7:45, 11:47, 18:3) instead of “chief priests.“ Wycliffe’s has “Christ” (1 Sam. 2:10, 2 Sam. 23:1, Ps. 2:2) where the KJV has “anointed” and “Jesus” (Hab. 3:18) where the KJV has “salvation.“ Wycliffe's has "maiden" instead of "virgin" at Luke 1:27 and “old women in holy habit“ at Titus 2:3 instead of “aged women.” Wycliffe's Bible has the rendering "Calvary" from the Latin Vulgate's Calvariae at Matthew 27:33 and Mark 15:22 where the KJV does not. Wycliffe's Bible has “Isaiah the prophet“ (Mark 1:2), “fruit of light“ (Eph. 5:9), "dread of Christ" (Eph. 5:21), and “eagle“ (Rev. 8:13).

The 1395 edition of Wyclife’s has “five thousand” at 1 Kings 4:32 where the KJV has “a thousand and five.“ At 2 Kings 14:17, the 1395 edition of Wycliffe’s has “five and twenty years” where the KJV has “fifteen years.“ Clearly, many words or renderings in the Wycliffe's Bible are different from those in the KJV.


Wycliffe’s Bible omitted “for thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever“ (Matt. 6:13), "Jesus saith unto them" (Matt. 13:51), "wherein the Son of man cometh" (Matt. 25:13), “spoken by Daniel the prophet“ (Mark 13:14), “But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work“ (Rom. 11:6), and “and in your spirit, which are God‘s“ (1 Cor. 6:10). It added: "taught them of the kingdom of God" (Matt. 21:17), "and he shall increase" (Luke 19:26), “and he saith to his disciples” (John 13:38 or 14:1), “of Jesus“ (Acts 16:7), and “after the purpose of God‘s grace“ (Rom. 4:5).

At Matthew 24:41, this addition is in Wycliffe's: "twain in one bed, the one shall be taken and the other left." The following was added at John 7:28: "I know him, and if I shall say for I know him not, I shall be like to you, a liar." At Acts 14:7, there is this addition: “and all the multitude was moved together in the teaching of them.“ At Acts 15:41, it added: “commanding to keep the hests of apostles and elder men.“ Wycliffe’s has this addition at Acts 18:4: “putting among the name of the Lord Jesus.“ At 2 John 11, it added: "Lo, I before said to you that ye be not confounded in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ." At Revelation 9:11, it added the following: “And by Latin he has the name Exterminans, that is, a destroyer.“ Other differences (additions and omissions) in Wycliffe's could be given. For example, there are additions in the 1395 edition of Wycliffe’s at Proverbs 4:27, 6:11, and 15:5.


Both the early edition of Wycliffe’s Bible and the later edition also have some additions that seem to be explanations of words used in the text. Glenn Conjurske observed: “The glosses in the early version are very plentiful, and most of them are simply definitions or explanations of words” (Olde Paths, Oct., 1994, p. 228). A few examples from the later edition are here offered as evidence. After “delium” at Genesis 2:12, the 1395 Wycliffe Bible added: “that is, a tree of spicerie.” At Exodus 17:13, the 1395 Wycliffe Bible has the following rendering with explanation in the text: “in the mouth of sword, that is, by the sharpness of the sword.” At the end of Numbers 21:3 after “Hormah,“ several words were added in the later Wycliffe’s [“that is, cursing, either hanging up”]. After “great” at Deuteronomy 4:7, the 1395 Wycliffe Bible has this addition: “not in number either in bodily quantity, but in dignity.”

 

Just to throw this in, I've ordered a 1599 Geneva Bible with modern spelling, but it has the original notes.
This was the first bible to have chapter and verse divisions, the first study bible, and the very bible the Pilgrims and Puritans brought to America.

I'm so excited to study from this bible!

 

Lets face it, only a small fraction of people will ever read the bible in the language it was written in.
However each of us can learn simple language skills that will help us discern the meaning that the original author intended.

Basic language skills can help the young believer to avoid simple traps that can ensnare them – such as the King James Only Controversy.

A comparison of versions allows a believer to determine the range a foreign-language word can take.

Simple explanations have been offered for omission and additions to the text of whole verses.
You’ve been here long enough that you should have learned that by now.
Your name 'stillearning' is no excuse for NOT learning.

Rob

 

Your reasoning is faulty. The Scriptures have been preserved in the original languages. Your assertion that God failed to preserve the Scriptures if preservation was not transferred to translations does not hold up and is not actually supported by the two verses to which you appeal.


God never promised to preserve His Word in any language other than the original languages used in the original autographs (Matt. 5:17-18). The phrase “the law or the prophets” (Matt. 5:17) was used to denote the entire Old Testament Scriptures. The specific features “jot“ and “tittle“ at Matthew 5:18 and the “tittle” at Luke 16:17 would indicate the particular original language words of the Scriptures given by inspiration of God. Since the Scriptures indicated the positive that preservation would be in the exact specific words that were given by God in the specific original languages in which He gave them, it did not need to state the negative that preservation did not relate directly to different words that are used in translations. When the positive principle for the preservation of the Scriptures in the original languages given to the O. T. prophets was indicated, there was no need to state again the same principle for the preservation of the additional Scriptures given to the N. T. prophets and apostles. If preservation cannot be limited to the original languages, it could also not be scripturally limited to translation into any other languages. Christ’s comment about the writings of Moses (John 5:46-47) would also refer to Moses’ writings in the original language that had been preserved and could still be read and believed. The Scriptures or oracles of God committed to the Jews or Hebrews were in the original language (Rom. 3:1-2). “The scriptures of the prophets” were in the original language (Rom. 16:26). The prophecy that came in old time would have been in the original language (2 Peter 1:21). The Scriptures given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles were in the original languages (2 Tim. 3:16, 2 Pet. 1:21, Eph. 3:5, Rom. 16:26).

Other verses also demonstrate that preservation would have to concern the Scriptures in the original languages. Those verses (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Rev. 22:18-19) that warn against adding to and taking away from the Scriptures would clearly relate to the doctrine of preservation.

These commands must embrace the Scriptures in the original languages since the very nature of translation requires that words may have to be added or omitted to make it understandable in another language. Thus, these verses were important instructions and warnings given particularly concerning the Scriptures in the original languages. Again it should be obvious that these commands had to be directed concerning the Scriptures in the original languages since it is well-known that in translating words have to be added or omitted for the translation in the other language to make sense. These verses could also be understood to suggest that God gave to men an important role or responsibility in preservation. These commands or instructions would indicate the need and responsibility for the making of exact, accurate copies of the Scriptures in the original languages. These commands also demonstrate that the source being copied was the standard and authority for evaluating the copy made from it. These commands also reveal that the copies were not given by a miracle of inspiration. For a king or whoever copied them to be able to “keep all the words,“ they would have needed to make an accurate, exact, and complete copy of them (Deut. 17:18-19).

In addition, a logical deduction from these verses (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Rev. 22:18-19) would affirm that copies would need to be carefully examined, tried, or evaluated to make sure that no additions were made, that nothing was omitted, and that no words were changed. These verses could be understood to indicate that whatever adds to, takes away, or diminishes (whether intentional or unintentional) would not be the word of God. Any error introduced by a copier, printer, or whomever in copies should be corrected. Just as the source definitely had to be the correct standard, proper authority, and just measure or balance for evaluating the copy so the words in the original language sources would have to be the proper standard and authority for evaluating the different words in a translation made from them (Rom. 11:18, Prov. 16:11, Job 14:4, Deut. 25:13-15, Lev. 19:35-36, Ezek. 45:10, Matt. 7:17, Prov. 11:1, Micah 6:11). The use of any unrighteous divers weights, divers measures, unjust balances, untrue judgments, or double standards in evaluating or trying copies would be wrong according to the Scriptures (Prov. 16:11, 10:10, 11:1, 20:23, Deut. 25:13-15, Ezek. 45:10, Lev. 19:35-36). That the preserved and accurate copies of the Scriptures in the original languages should be the proper standard, measure, and authority for trying or evaluating translations of the Scriptures would be a valid implication or deduction drawn from what several verses of Scripture indicate.