-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Which translation to use?
- Thread starter noregrets1987
- Start date
See blue bold above. Amen to that! :thumbs:Rubato 1 said:Go with the AV and an 1828 Webster's Dictionary. That's what worked for Whitfield, Edwards, Finney, Moody (and many other non-baptists), as well as Torrey, Spurgeon, and maybe I left out a few. Don't let anyone tell you they can't understand it. First of all, that's no excuse, study; Secondly, they can understand it, especially if they would spend as much practice at reading it as they do practicing the moves on their Nintendo Wii, etc., etc...
Anyway, there is no beating the old English.
Before you can answer this question in your own heart, however, you need to decide whether or not God did indeed preserve his word for this age. Is a varrying degree of accuracy in man's perception the best we can get, or did God preserve His word to this generation? If you settle that issue with God's help, the next question may come easily.
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
Rubato 1 said:
Askjo said:
Ed notes a variance among folks on just which Bible is the real/true/inspired/inerrant AV, who authorized the AV, etc.
Anyway, Ed notes that there are some words in the 1828 Webster's Dictionary that are usually NOT understood the same as the same words are understood/used today. These words can be a point of misunderstanding to 21st Century persons. Sadly, even some mentors even have the same misunderstanding.
If I may.
You could use the RSV,NIV,TLV,TNIV,NTLV,WV,CEV,MESSAGE,THE WORD,THE BOOK,NASB,HCSB,NET,ESV,NKJV,NWT or a host of others. OR ! If you are at all like myself that all looks like one rediculous pile of confusing letters that don't really mean anything. In which case I would agree with Rubato 1, and suggest the KJV. However I wouldn't worry about the Websters 1828 just yet as they are usually fairly expensive.
Also if I may, I would suggest that you read the New testament through two or three times before you start on the Old Testament, as it will give you greater insight into the Old Testament when you do begin studing it.
"He daily loadeth me with benifits" Man how awesome is God!
Ok then I'll be waiting on the stones:tonofbricks:
Here is a link that should help you make your decision. It says NIV but use any Bible that you are considering and remember follow the directions precisely.
http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/nivquiz.htm
You could use the RSV,NIV,TLV,TNIV,NTLV,WV,CEV,MESSAGE,THE WORD,THE BOOK,NASB,HCSB,NET,ESV,NKJV,NWT or a host of others. OR ! If you are at all like myself that all looks like one rediculous pile of confusing letters that don't really mean anything. In which case I would agree with Rubato 1, and suggest the KJV. However I wouldn't worry about the Websters 1828 just yet as they are usually fairly expensive.
Also if I may, I would suggest that you read the New testament through two or three times before you start on the Old Testament, as it will give you greater insight into the Old Testament when you do begin studing it.
"He daily loadeth me with benifits" Man how awesome is God!
Ok then I'll be waiting on the stones:tonofbricks:
Here is a link that should help you make your decision. It says NIV but use any Bible that you are considering and remember follow the directions precisely.
http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/nivquiz.htm
Last edited by a moderator:
franklinmonroe
Active Member
I had no serious problems passing this test using Young's Literal Version, The New Testament In Its Original Order, Geneva Bible, Darby's, NKJV, the Bishop's Bible, KJV2, Coverdale's, KJV3, Third Millenium Bible, Tyndale's, Wycliffe's, People's New Testament, the AV7, and some others.2serve said:
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
I recommend versions that are complete translations. A translation is NOT complete without Translator Footnotes. If there are no Translator Footnotes, then something is being hidden (occult).
The KJV1611 Editions had Translator Footnotes (actually side notes).
Later KJVs omitted the Translator Footnotes; though many included the Translator Footnotes.
Unfortunately many of todays electronic Bibles omit the Translator Footnotes.
The Translator Footnotes give clues as to what the original text was talking about and document source language variations.
I do NOT consider any Bible missing the Translator Footnotes as authoritative, inspired, inerrant, or acceptable for use.
The KJV1611 Editions had Translator Footnotes (actually side notes).
Later KJVs omitted the Translator Footnotes; though many included the Translator Footnotes.
Unfortunately many of todays electronic Bibles omit the Translator Footnotes.
The Translator Footnotes give clues as to what the original text was talking about and document source language variations.
I do NOT consider any Bible missing the Translator Footnotes as authoritative, inspired, inerrant, or acceptable for use.
AntennaFarmer
Member
Ed Edwards said:
Please don't attack Bibles Ed.
Last edited by a moderator:
I do NOT consider any Bible missing the Translator Footnotes as authoritative, inspired, inerrant, or acceptable for use.[/QUOTE]
"All SCRIPTURE is given by insperstion of God..."
My appologies the AV doesnt say that "all footnotes are given by the inspiration of God" Though you may be right god may have inspired the NOTES.
OK I'll be waiting on the stones:tonofbricks:
"All SCRIPTURE is given by insperstion of God..."
My appologies the AV doesnt say that "all footnotes are given by the inspiration of God" Though you may be right god may have inspired the NOTES.
OK I'll be waiting on the stones:tonofbricks:
Ed Edwards said:
I agree that one should not attack Bibles. However, I also do not think that Ed Edwards is guilty of doing that, in any way. His wording here definitely does leave something to be desired here, IMO, but I would suggest that I have seen him 'defend' many different translations and versions as the fully inspired, inerrant, Word of God, equally on many different occasions in my two years on the Baptist Board, including the Geneva Bible; the KJV 1611; the KJV 1769 revision; the HCSB; the NKJV; and the NASB, and perhaps even the Tyndale version, if my memory over several thousands of posts (I have made 6000 of them, alone) is correct, without attempting to look through tens of thousands of posts.AntennaFarmer said:
Not that he necessarily needs or even wants me to defend him, but I strongly suggest that he is far more honest, in this, than some I have seen on this forum.
One example of dishonesty, would be more than one individual who has loudly procalimed the primacy and 'defense' of the 1611 KJV, and promptly quoted from the KJV-1769 revision to 'prove' the 'defense' of the KJV-1611. A second would be the eliding of the Apocrypha by some on this board, who claim to proclaim the 'primacy' of the 1611 KJV. Like a majority on this board, I would guess, I do not accept the Apocrypha as 'Scripture'. But it is less than honest to ignore its presence in virtually every version and edition of the Bible in the English language before the last two centuries. A third example of dishonesty would be some of the oft repeated errors (and outright lies) some have made about texts, translators, translations, etc.. [If one desires, needs, and requests it, then I will provide a couple, that I have even called, if need be. (But I really do hope that I am not asked to hunt through multiple posts to find the examples of where I have done so, for even that would probably require searching through, at the minimum, more than 1000 posts. Nevertheless, it could be done.)]
I do understand his point, as well, about translator footnotes, etc..
Why do some continue to want to ignore them, when the translators themselves thought they were important enough to include? They are found in my Bible. And I do get some ideas of the "whys" of a reading from them. At least half a dozen individuals who, were any of them alive today, namely Desiderius Erasmus, Theodore Beza`, John Wycliffe, William Tyndale, Myles Coverdale, and John Rogers all would have had multiple doctorates at least offered to be conferred on them, IMO, for their efforts and scholarship, and all of whom were instrumental in early English Bible work, thought it important enough to give their "whys", as did Dr. Rainolds and the rest of the KJV translators, also a practice followed by later translators.
When one ignores this fact (or deliberately omits it), this is either "occult", in that it is hidden, as Ed Edwards has stated, or in the alternative, "Gnosticism", in that one has assumed and/or claimed superior knowledge to what had been revealed, as EdSutton is now stating.
And frankly, I normally try and avoid both the occultists, and the Gnostics!
If you want to join that "crummy crowd", then all I can say is, "Go for it!", and "Hang in there!"
Just don't look for me to be among those joining you. And I doubt Ed Edwards will be found there, either.
Ed
Last edited by a moderator:
"All SCRIPTURE is given by insperstion of God..."2serve said:
My appologies the AV doesnt say that "all footnotes are given by the inspiration of God" Though you may be right god may have inspired the NOTES.
OK I'll be waiting on the stones:tonofbricks:[/quote]No stones necessarily, but welcome to the Baptist Board. :wavey:
I will say that you might want to consider doing a little more "proof-reading" before posting, and/or editing after posting, though.
The first sentence is actually a quote from Ed Edwards, which does not show, as quoted.
And
The word is "inspiration", not 'inspertion', in the (here, unidentified) text.
A little hint: Identify the text and version; then there is no question.
Ed
Pastor_Bob
Well-Known Member
I have been preoccupied of late with a couple of fruitless, frivolous threads. However, I have been keeping an eye on this thread and am now prepared to offer my advice, for what it is worth.noregrets1987 said:
Before you pick up any Bible and begin reading, pray and earnestly ask the Holy Spirit to open your ears of understanding and open your eyes to the truths contained therein.
Ps 119:18 Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law.
Ps 119:34 Give me understanding, and I shall keep thy law; yea, I shall observe it with my whole heart.
Ps 119:73 ...give me understanding, that I may learn thy commandments.
And perhaps my most oft used passage when challenging young people to read the Word of God:
Proverbs 2:1 My son, if thou wilt receive my words, and hide my commandments with thee;
2 So that thou incline thine ear unto wisdom, and apply thine heart to understanding;
3 Yea, if thou criest after knowledge, and liftest up thy voice for understanding;
4 If thou seekest her as silver, and searchest for her as for hid treasures;
5 Then shalt thou understand the fear of the LORD, and find the knowledge of God.
Your best option may be a parallel Bible with a few different versions on the same page. If you desire the beauty of the KJV, it is there. If you want the "archaic" words updated to modern usage, you'll find that as well. I have purchased Waite's Defined Bible for those who needed help understanding some of the more difficult words. That is a personal choice of mine. I personally use a KJV Thompson Chain Reference that was given to me several years ago at my ordination.
Regardless, seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit each time before you read.
Last edited by a moderator:
AntennaFarmer
Member
EdSutton said:
I have observed that Ed Edwards is in the habit of saying exactly what he intends. I would imagine that you are also fully aware of the connotations (and denotations!) of the word "occult".
The English text of the Holy Bible is the translation. That is to say: The words the translator chose for the translation are contained in the text. Footnotes are a supplement.
To suggest that removing supplementary material invalidates God's Word is just plain wrong.
I would like to address some issues raised in your paragraph regarding "dishonesty". That is a topic for another thread, however.
...A.F....
franklinmonroe
Active Member
Good advice, Pastor_Bob!Pastor_Bob said:
franklinmonroe
Active Member
I think there are at least two kinds of notes. I agree that notes addressing peripheral issues are supplimental (examples: coversions of weights and measures, information on traditional dress, commentary, etc.). However, I also believe that the translator's notes referring to individual words or phrases are an integral part of the whole translational work, and should be kept intact (affixed to their text). These notes serve as a virtual 'apperatus', giving the readers clues as to what documents were considered, and insight as to how the translator arrived at certain choices.AntennaFarmer said:
Last edited by a moderator:
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
Amen, Brother FranklinMonroe -- Preach it!