Which Bible versions are NOT the Word of God?

[DesiderioDomini]

The above facts will be ignored by KJVO as well, Doc, but not by the rest of us! Thanks for looking that up!

 

[dcorbett]

you didn't address the issue of the missing and altered scriptures...why do you always avoid the real issue by focusing on the messenger instead of the message?

 

[Eliyahu]

dcorbett,
Excellent Post! thanks.

1) If Acts 8:37 is taken as a part of genuine Bible, no one can claim Infant Baptism.

2) If 1 Tim 3:16 is translated from the absolute majority, theos, then no one can deny Deity of Christ.

3) Heb 4:12 is talking about the knife used inside the temple by the priests when they slaughter the animals, with double edges, which was powerful ( symbolically even today to help us to cope with enemies of God, to repent for ourselves). It is powerful.


But I wouldn't say KJV is perfect, though it is the best of all Bibles available in English.

The problems with KJV that I have found so far are:

1) It didn't distinguish between Hell(gehenna) and Hades, which cause some serious confusion in doctrinal issues.

2) It used the general term for Ashera by calling grove.

There can be some more points to be improved in KJV, though I would not find fault with some scribal errors, which seems to be childish criticism, IMO.

 

[TCassidy]

Originally posted by dcorbett:
you didn't address the issue of the missing and altered scriptures...why do you always avoid the real issue by focusing on the messenger instead of the message?

You didn't post anything that supports your assertion that the scriptures have been altered or that some are missing. The writer, and apparently you, seem to assume the KJV is the baseline, but that assumption is without any evidentiary support at all. I could make the same case against the KJV you use. It is different from the AV1611 so the KJV you use has altered scriptures and is therefore, according to your theory, not the preserved word of God in English.

 

[Boanerges]

Originally posted by TCassidy:
I believe commentaries such as TLB and the Message should not be considered God's word for the purposes of formulating doctrine. However, they are God's word in that they are "scripture . . . able to make thee wise unto salvation." They are a poor example of the translator's art, but I would hesitate to consign them and their users to fires of hell.

I would not want to condemn the users, but I would be a bit nervous if I was the so called "translator" of the Message.

 

[Boanerges]

Originally posted by Dr. Bob:
Don't be obtuse, pioneer. The difference is clear. In a paraphrase (written by men, not translated directly from God's Word) there can be accurate presentations of doctrine or inaccurate. This even happens in some poor translations!

Good News for Modern Man (TEV) was an example. Because of the writer's disdain for the blood of Christ, they intentionally paraphrased verses to reflect incorrect doctrine.

But I have not read a single translation that didn't have, say, the Romans Road in clear enough language that a person could see himself as a sinner, a need to repent and turn in faith to God through the death/burial/resurrection of Christ.

They might intentionally mess up about hell or such, but the Gospel is still there.

Which poses the question, how much leaven is too much? Junque translations, in my opinion, make good door stops only.

 

[IveyLeaguer]

Boanerges:

Which poses the question, how much leaven is too much? Junque translations, in my opinion, make good door stops only.

A little leaven is too much, according to Paul the Apostle.

So what is leaven in this context? I would say translation (language) issues, or even MSS issues, on the whole, are not leaven. There is honest, inadvertent error in rare cases, but not enough to distort or manipulate the Word. GOD HAS PRESERVED HIS WORD.

Leaven would be a distortion, misrepresentation, or manupulation of the scriptures introduced by Satan through men. What!! You don't honestly expect Satan to just stand by and not attempt to twist and distort what God has said, do you?

The thing is, God has graciously blessed us with more than a handful of good versions of His Word. We take for granted what a wonderful gift that is. As far as I'm concerned, if there is a little leaven in a Bible version, it is unfit for instruction and I want no part of it, except to expose it. Not because there is nothing correct in it, but because THERE IS NO NEED for me to touch it. I don't listen to Jesse Duplantis, Joyce Meyer, or Robert Schuller not because there is nothing they can teach me about God, but because there is leaven in their teaching. Similarly, I won't read or study The Message because I want nothing to do with Eugene Peterson's thought process.

 

[IveyLeaguer]

IveyLeaguer:

A little leaven is too much, according to Paul the Apostle.

So what is leaven in this context? I would say translation (language) issues, or even MSS issues, on the whole, are not leaven. There is honest, inadvertent error in rare cases, but not enough to distort or manipulate the Word. GOD HAS PRESERVED HIS WORD.

Leaven would be a distortion, misrepresentation, or manupulation of the scriptures introduced by Satan through men. What!! You don't honestly expect Satan to just stand by and not attempt to twist and distort what God has said, do you?

The thing is, God has graciously blessed us with more than a handful of good versions of His Word. We take for granted what a wonderful gift that is. As far as I'm concerned, if there is a little leaven in a Bible version, it is unfit for instruction and I want no part of it, except to expose it. Not because there is nothing correct in it, but because THERE IS NO NEED for me to touch it. I don't listen to Jesse Duplantis, Joyce Meyer, or Robert Schuller not because there is nothing they can teach me about God, but because there is leaven in their teaching. Similarly, I won't read or study The Message because I want nothing to do with Eugene Peterson's thought process.

Alright then, how much leaven is too much for you?

If you're not KJVO, there has to be a 'point of saturation' for you unless you accept ALL available versions as the Word of God.

 

[robycop3]

Obviously, a "bible" that doesn't follow its sources being translated, close as language differences permit, is bogus.

As for the sourses themselves, that issue has been debated since long before any of us were born, and its resolution is still in the future. But I believe GOD is well able to care for His own word, and to present/provide it as He chooses.

 

[Keith M]

Originally posted by robycop3:
Obviously, a "bible" that doesn't follow its sources being translated, close as language differences permit, is bogus.

As for the sourses themselves, that issue has been debated since long before any of us were born, and its resolution is still in the future. But I believe GOD is well able to care for His own word, and to present/provide it as He chooses.

What he said!

 

[Dr. Bob]

Amen. A translation (any, in any language) finds "derived inspiration" ONLY as it remains true to the Greek. Don't fret about the small variations in blended Greek texts for now.

So I could look at John 3:16 in the JW's translation, which is about as corrupt and slanted as they get, and still say that John 3:16 is the inspired Word of God, powerful for salvation.

Why? It is accurately translated. A thousand other verses are not. But John 3:16 is.

My "saturation point" would be reached quickly with any translation that had continued (and most often intentional) errors and mistranslations so that they could not be reliable.

Hence, I opt to read, study and enjoy only a handful of English translations and revel in the Greek instead. Then I get to make my OWN translation . . and others can criticize it!

 

[Marcia]

I would say The Message contains some of God's word but I would not feel honest in saying it is God's word because in too many places words are added or changed by Petersen. I see a difference in stating it these two ways.

 

[IveyLeaguer]

Amen. A translation (any, in any language) finds "derived inspiration" ONLY as it remains true to the Greek. Don't fret about the small variations in blended Greek texts for now ... So I could look at John 3:16 in the JW's translation, which is about as corrupt and slanted as they get, and still say that John 3:16 is the inspired Word of God, powerful for salvation. Why? It is accurately translated. A thousand other verses are not. But John 3:16 is.

Very well put, and I agree. It is His Word that God uses, His Word that has power, the Seed of Matthew 13, regardless of what it may be surrounded by or contained in.

My "saturation point" would be reached quickly with any translation that had continued (and most often intentional) errors and mistranslations so that they could not be reliable.

Same here. And I appreciate the difficulty of defining that 'saturation point'.

Hence, I opt to read, study and enjoy only a handful of English translations and revel in the Greek instead. Then I get to make my OWN translation . . and others can criticize it!

Me too, except for the Greek part, and I refer to the translations routinely. I often and quickly go to the Greek and Hebrew but through reference works. And I have my 'own translation' ongoing but it really isn't mine, it's just my compilation drawn from the "best of" the handful of translations I respect the most. And almost always after I've researched the Greek. What versions make up your 'handful'? Mine are KJV, NASB, ESV, NIV, & HCSB. A half dozen or so others I hold in highest regard.

BTW, I'm considering this reference right now, http://www.hendrickson.com/html/product/639804.trade.html?category=all, the Interlinear Whole Bible by Jay Green of Hendrickson Publishers, what do you think of it?

 

[Dr. Bob]

I looked at the single-volume edition (huge and smallest print you've seen) and figured I was too old and weak to hold it up and too feeble to read that with my tri-focals.

So have the 4-volume (3 OT, 1 NT) The readability of the NT is phenomenal - best greek font I've seen in a long time. Jay has his own quirks in word choices, but hey, so do I.

I still would opt for Ricker-Berry as it is complete with lexicon, etc.

 

[Thomas]

I tend to shy away from any paraphrase, like the origional Living Bible and the Message.

Some Bibles shoud not be taken, in any way as God's word. They are manipulated to prove a particular groups theology. These would include the JW's, New World Translation, and the Adventists's Clear Word, which mixes the bible with their "prophet", Ellen G. White's non orthodox theology. If you have to change the word, in order to prove the theology, there is a problem.

 

[IveyLeaguer]

I still would opt for Ricker-Berry as it is complete with lexicon, etc.

Appreciate it, thanks.

 

[IveyLeaguer]

I tend to shy away from any paraphrase, like the origional Living Bible and the Message.

Some Bibles shoud not be taken, in any way as God's word. They are manipulated to prove a particular groups theology. These would include the JW's, New World Translation, and the Adventists's Clear Word, which mixes the bible with their "prophet", Ellen G. White's non orthodox theology. If you have to change the word, in order to prove the theology, there is a problem.

Would certainly agree with that. Are there others you cannot consider God's Word? And does manipulation of any kind by men disqualify a version?

 

[IveyLeaguer]

I would say The Message contains some of God's word but I would not feel honest in saying it is God's word because in too many places words are added or changed by Petersen.

In other words, manipulated?

I see a difference in stating it these two ways.

Not quite sure what you mean, exactly.

 

[AVL1984]

My list would be the same as Roby's.

Bro Tony

Ditto here, Bro. Tony:thumbsup:

 

[IveyLeaguer]

[My list would be the same as Roby's.
Bro Tony]

Ditto here, Bro. Tony:thumbsup:

You mean this?

robycop3:

Some "bibles" I would not use or recommend:

"Good As New"(We have a thread about that one)

"New World Translation"( is an altered version,made to follow JW doctrines, does not follow any known Scriptural manuscripts in many key doctrines, full of poor and false renderings, I.E. "the word was *A* god", John 1:1

Cotton Patch Bible(The name says it all)

TNIV (Sacrifices mucho translation accuracy for "political correctness")

"People's Bible" (Close to "Good As New" in worthlessness)

There are some others such as the RV or "Message" that are barely better than no Bible at all, but these are so inaccurate that I seriously doubt if they've led very many, if any at all, to the Lord.