Why do you use the Bible translation you use?

[37818]

There are known bad manuscripts the so called critical text Bibles use.

 

[Logos1560]

There are known bad manuscripts the so called critical text Bibles use.

What are the specific standards and measures that are used to determine which manuscripts are to be considered "bad" and are those same exact standards/measures applied consistently and justly?

 

[Aaron]

My short answer is a King James Version. More often than not it follows, I have found that it follows what is understood to be the common readings of the original texts Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek texts. In general added words by the translators are given in italics. And the keeping of the singlar and plural old English pronouns to agree with the original langauges.

My second choice is the New King James Version.

My third choice American Standard Bible 1995 edition. (I have the 1977 edition)

My fourth choice New International Version 1985 edition (out of print). (I have the 1978 edition)

History and nuance are lost to its language as a society degrades, and Western society certainly is degrading. I like the nuances of the language of the KJV too.

 

[Conan]

There are known bad manuscripts the so called critical text Bibles use.

Not when they follow the Original Text their not. The TR sometimes follows the wrong manuscrips.
Somtimes the Majority of all manuscripts may be mistaken.

I think the editors of critical text bibles made bad decisions when looking at variants. Unfortunately translators are told to use texts made by critical text people that make primative bad decisions and wrong choices.

Lets not blame the manuscripts. It's the editors that make the bad choices.

 

[Reformed1689]

I use the ESV because it is in the heritage of the Tyndale Tradition, BUT uses the best available manuscripts that we have today while preserving the alternate readings found in the TR.

 

[Van]

My short answer is a King James Version. More often than not it follows, I have found that it follows what is understood to be the common readings of the original texts Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek texts. In general added words by the translators are given in italics. And the keeping of the singlar and plural old English pronouns to agree with the original languages.

My second choice is the New King James Version.

My third choice American Standard Bible 1995 edition. (I have the 1977 edition)

My fourth choice New International Version 1985 edition (out of print). (I have the 1978 edition)

I use the ones that seem to be the most accurate translation of the original texts. Thus I use the NASB (both the 95 and the 20) as my primary study bible with various study notes.

The KJV and NKJV and WEB are reliable comparison bibles.

The NET has great footnotes.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

I use the ones that seem to be the most accurate translation of the original texts. Thus I use the NASB (both the 95 and the 20) as my primary study bible with various study notes.

The KJV and NKJV and WEB are reliable comparison bibles.

The NET has great footnotes.

What happened to the LEB? It was on your most favored translations list for a long time.

 

[37818]

What are the specific standards and measures that are used to determine which manuscripts are to be considered "bad" and are those same exact standards/measures applied consistently and justly?

How accurate that a copy is made is one factor. When possible against copies of a similar age. The whole point that the New Testament documents are in the hundreds and some over a thousand, there are more copies to check against for accuracy.

 

[37818]

Not when they follow the Original Text their not. The TR sometimes follows the wrong manuscrips.

And that is known how? The two opposing standards, the more common readings of the text, aka the Majority Text , and the notion that older is always better aka typical for the Critical Text.

 

[Logos1560]

How accurate that a copy is made is one factor. .

Without any specific measures/standards, labeling a manuscript as "bad" may be only a subjective opinion.

There may be many if not all the same-type variations and differences [additions, omissions, changes] found in the few Greek NT manuscripts used by Erasmus as in the unidentified manuscripts that you call "bad."

 

[37818]

Without any specific measures/standards, labeling a manuscript as "bad" may be only a subjective opinion.

There may be many if not all the same-type variations and differences [additions, omissions, changes] found in the few Greek NT manuscripts used by Erasmus as in the unidentified manuscripts that you call "bad."

How is it determend that older manuscripts tyically have more errors in them?
Dating the Oldest New Testament Manuscripts

 

[Van]

What happened to the LEB? It was on your most favored translations list for a long time.

The list is not exhaustive.

 

[Logos1560]

And that is known how?

It is known by comparison to the known Greek NT manuscript evidence. It is known that Erasmus added some readings from the textually-corrupt Latin Vulgate to his edited Greek NT text. The Textus Receptus has some conjectures or readings found in no known Greek NT manuscripts. The varying Textus Receptus editions have some readings that are not common to the majority of Greek NT manuscript copies. It may have as many as 1800 minority readings.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

The list is not exhaustive.

But you were such a fanboy of the LEB that it is surprising that you didn't even mention it.

 

[Van]

But you were such a fanboy of the LEB that it is surprising that you didn't even mention it.

I do not think I was a "fanboy" of the NIV, NLT, or ESV because of their agenda driven translation choices. OTOH, I do not recall posting a thread of LEB flaws, so I probably did not find its choices egregious.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

I do not think I was a "fanboy" of the NIV, NLT, or ESV

I said the LEB.

 

[Van]

I said the LEB.

So did I...

 

[37818]

It was in, I beleive, 1968 that I bought my first Greek New Testament text with an apparatus. It was a Nestle's text, not Aland. What I discovered typically, where the KJV had a different reading from other Bible versions, the KJV typically followined the Majority reading and the others typically followed the oldest reading. Of course there where exceptions on both sides of the issue.

 

[JesusFan]

But that does not tell the whole story. There are many times the KJV is more accurate in it's Greek Text than all of the popular Modern Versions. That means despite the disadvantage of archaic modern english, it still has value in it's underlying Greek Text. What to do when an English user of a modern text has an error? He could consult the KJV, which usually has the correct underlying Greek Text. No, the KJV's Text is not always right. It does contain some errors. But most modern translations have more errors in their underlying Greek Text than the KJV does.

Most of the time all three Greek Text's agree. Textus Receptus, Majority Text, Nestle Aland.
The next highest number of agreements is the Textus Receptus, Majority Text.
Then the Majority Text, Nestle Aland.
Then the Textus Receptus, Nestle Aland.

The Nkjv would be the edition tom use if one really wanted to stay in the TR tradition, as does update and correct the Kjv.

 

[JesusFan]

So name a perfect one.

The Originals