Why The Need?

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Also, why not address the second part of my last post? As a mod, I would think it your responsibility to treat EVERYONE with the same respect, and make sure other posters do the same. I have been flabbergasted by the un-Christlike way people are talked to and treated on this "Christian" forum! And I'm not talking about just myself. There a many others being treated badly. There is even a whole thread about it. I have been told to develop a "thicker skin" to "lighten up" etc. I'm sorry, but I don't think either of those things should be necessary on a "Christian" forum where Christians are supposed to be discussing things.



Perhaps, if you are guilty of those things, or overlooking others who are guilty too, then you should remove yourself from being a moderator. WHY is it so obvious to the newer people on here, but seemingly non-existent to the "regulars"? I post on a lot of other forums and NONE are as unfriendly as this one, even non-Christian ones! Something to think about.....................seriously!

You seem to only want to hear one side and view anything that disagrees with you as an attack.

I have never shown any disrespect for you or been unfriendly to you. I simply question your point of view.

Can you point out one single instant where I have been unfriendly, mean, or un-Christlike in a post?


BTW, please not that your OP started the discussion when it made the KJV the basis for comparison.

veryone knows I PREFER the KJV. YOU may prefer the NKJV or the NIV or maybe the NASB. My question is this: The biggest argument I get FOR the MV's is "the KJV is antiquated and hard for a modern speaking person to understand" or something close to that, so WHY does there need to be SO MANY different MV's? A local Bible website lists at least TWENTY different versions in English! If you cannot understand God's Word in an NIV, then another version won't help. The NIV puts it about as plain and simple as I've seen. I truly believe that all these versions does nothing but cause problems and fighting amongst Christians. THAT is the reason I'm against so many MV's.

 

[franklinmonroe]

... the number of new versions in the last 50 years is staggering. Why the need for so many?...

It is true that there have been a lot of new versions in the past 100 or so years. However, it does not seem to be disproportional when compared with the explosion of ALL published material beginning with major advancements in printing related technologies of the 20th century. You might be surprised to discover the number of different versions originating in the years 1680 - 1880, despite the hardships of publishing during this era. Why so focused on the past 50 years?

 

[Mexdeaf]

Everyone knows I PREFER the KJV. YOU may prefer the NKJV or the NIV or maybe the NASB. My question is this: The biggest argument I get FOR the MV's is "the KJV is antiquated and hard for a modern speaking person to understand" or something close to that, so WHY does there need to be SO MANY different MV's? A local Bible website lists at least TWENTY different versions in English! If you cannot understand God's Word in an NIV, then another version won't help. The NIV puts it about as plain and simple as I've seen. I truly believe that all these versions does nothing but cause problems and fighting amongst Christians. THAT is the reason I'm against so many MV's.

Just as a point of history, even when there was essentially only one English version- the KJV- there were "problems and fighting amongst Christians."

 

[Amy.G]

My interest in this thread has nothing to do with KJVO. Surely after 2 1/2 years on this board, people know I'm not KJVO.

My interest is in contending for the faith once delivered. It concerns me that the main goal of bible publishing today seems to be for nothing more than big profits. Maybe I'm wrong about that, but I think it's a possibility. And if money is the motivation, then God's word takes a back seat and it is possible that correct doctrine can be compromised.
Just as Franklin posted a few weeks ago about a new version called "The Voice", which I personally thought was a complete distortion of God's word.

When talking about the many versions published in the early days of the English bible, I'm not convinced they were really different "versions" since they used Tynedale's work as their text. They were basically Tynedale's translation but had different notes in the margins. Is that really a different version?

I'm not saying that we should take away anyone's right to print whatever they want. I'm just saying we should not accept everything that comes down the pike as valid just because it's called a bible.

JMHO.

 

[Baptist4life]

My interest in this thread has nothing to do with KJVO. Surely after 2 1/2 years on this board, people know I'm not KJVO.

My interest is in contending for the faith once delivered. It concerns me that the main goal of bible publishing today seems to be for nothing more than big profits. Maybe I'm wrong about that, but I think it's a possibility. And if money is the motivation, then God's word takes a back seat and it is possible that correct doctrine can be compromised.
Just as Franklin posted a few weeks ago about a new version called "The Voice", which I personally thought was a complete distortion of God's word.

When talking about the many versions published in the early days of the English bible, I'm not convinced they were really different "versions" since they used Tynedale's work as their text. They were basically Tynedale's translation but had different notes in the margins. Is that really a different version?

I'm not saying that we should take away anyone's right to print whatever they want. I'm just saying we should not accept everything that comes down the pike as valid just because it's called a bible.

JMHO.

:applause: :applause: :applause:

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

When talking about the many versions published in the early days of the English bible, I'm not convinced they were really different "versions" since they used Tynedale's work as their text. They were basically Tynedale's translation but had different notes in the margins. Is that really a different version?

.

Bishop's, Geneva, and KJV are not just adjustments to Tyndale, there are true translations in their own right.

Marketing comes into play - that is why even the KJV is done in a variety of formats and study notes. However I think it is painting with a broad brush to say that the multiplicity of versions is just to make more money. After all, Bible publishers are still making a fortune on the KJV as well. Only a few ministries give KJVs away, the rest are making a profit.

I'm just saying we should not accept everything that comes down the pike as valid just because it's called a bible.

I don't know of anyone here who calls a version valid just because it is called a Bible. Do you really think that folks think that way?

 

[Amy.G]

Bishop's, Geneva, and KJV are not just adjustments to Tyndale, there are true translations in their own right.

I have read that they all are based on Tyndale's translation. Maybe I misunderstood.

Marketing comes into play - that is why even the KJV is done in a variety of formats and study notes. However I think it is painting with a broad brush to say that the multiplicity of versions is just to make more money. After all, Bible publishers are still making a fortune on the KJV as well. Only a few ministries give KJVs away, the rest are making a profit.

I never said any of that. I have no problem with publishers selling bibles. I have no problem with various study bibles. I never said that the multiplicity of versions in ONLY to make money. Did you even read my post? I said it's a concern I have. It's something we should consider. I am not so naive to think that it's impossible.

I don't know of anyone here who calls a version valid just because it is called a Bible. Do you really think that folks think that way?

I didn't say it was anyone here. But yes, people (in general) flock to new versions. The same marketing techniques that are used to sell bibles are used to sell toothpaste. If they can convince you that what you have is inferior to their new and improved product, they've got you. Bible sales is big business. Make no mistake about that.

 

[Baptist4life]

People in my church are free to use whatever Bible version they like, and they do! What this leads to is the exact opposite of what everyone says that all these versions are good at.............clarifying God's Word.

In our current Bible study we're all using different versions. Total confusion! No one can agree on what a particular verse is saying.....some read one way, some read another.......some don't have the verse, etc. That is NOT beneficial, and causes doubt amongst the people on just who's version is right? Don't you think Satan loves that?

And I AM NOT promoting one version over another, I'm just saying that all the versions we have are causing more harm than good, IMHO.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I never said any of that. I have no problem with publishers selling bibles. I have no problem with various study bibles. I never said that the multiplicity of versions in ONLY to make money. Did you even read my post? I said it's a concern I have. It's something we should consider. I am not so naive to think that it's impossible.




.

Amy, here is your quote

It concerns me that the main goal of bible publishing today seems to be for nothing more than big profits.

You state this as fact, or at the very least your strong opnion.

Would you hold this same 'goal' for all those who print various study Bibles, formats, and bindings of the older versions.

The problem with this argument is that it appears to judge the hearts of men for doing what they do. Is Bible marketing abused? Of course it is, but is that the main goal? I think that is hard to prove.

 

[Amy.G]

Amy, here is your quote



You state this as fact, or at the very least your strong opnion.

My quote says the I am concerned. Is that wrong?

Would you hold this same 'goal' for all those who print various study Bibles, formats, and bindings of the older versions.

Yes. Read my thread about "out of control".
Study bibles are great. I have several. But printing bibles to appeal to every individual under the sun? Duct tape bible? Sports bibles? Really C4K, this is ridiculous.

The problem with this argument is that it appears to judge the hearts of men for doing what they do. Is Bible marketing abused? Of course it is, but is that the main goal? I think that is hard to prove.

I'm not trying to prove anything. Just saying it's something to be aware of.
I'm not judging hearts either. Just stating my opinion. I think you are judging my heart though.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I think you are judging my heart though.

I am sorry that you feel that way. What did I say to make you feel that I was judging your heart?

I have been discussing the topic of the OP - not any individual.

 

[franklinmonroe]

I have read that they all are based on Tyndale's translation. Maybe I misunderstood...

In a sense, nearly all English Bibles owe a debt to Tyndale; but especially these: Tyndale's own (1526 & 1534), Matthew's, Bishops', KJV, ERV, RSV, ASV, NRSV, NKJV, and finally now the ESV.

Early English translations 'borrowed' extensively from previous versions for various reasons: sometimes I think it was just to expedite the process (could have been a marketing concern), sometimes because they simply couldn't really improve upon the difficult passages, and sometimes just to retain a familiar 'sound' for their potential readership (also a marketing ploy). But also as a result, they retained a lot of really good renderings. Be aware that these early versions are very different in places as well.

 

[Salamander]

The facts are that only one version has withstood all the controversies over the years. Some will taught a fav version over another, but only one withstands that "fav" thing, too.

Some one may prefer another version as it seemingly "speaks" to them more, but the problem ensues when delineations from the harmony exist and then, we should all revert back to that which is proven, tried, and true.

Y'know.....:godisgood:

We don't need to play the game of trying to update the Bible to the intrinsic nature of an ever evolving language. Why is this? The English maintains its root meanings devoid of any corruptions which comes from modernizations in vernacular. Those modernizations are usually slang in nature and also relate to immoral indications as the society is degrading into apostacy.

I know my remarks are not well taken, and B4life is justified in his feelings, but why is it the MV proponents operate from the bitternesses they contracted from "KJVO's" that were somewhat venomous?

Why be so irrational? My comments are rational and guess what? They're RIGHT!:laugh: :thumbs:

 

[Keith M]

When talking about the many versions published in the early days of the English bible, I'm not convinced they were really different "versions" since they used Tynedale's work as their text. They were basically Tynedale's translation but had different notes in the margins. Is that really a different version?

Amy, if you really think all the older translations after Tyndale were basically the same with different notes, why don't you take a look at some of the older translations? You can find many of them online at http://www.study;oight.org.

I'm not saying that we should take away anyone's right to print whatever they want. I'm just saying we should not accept everything that comes down the pike as valid just because it's called a bible.

JMHO.

I agree with you in this respect, Amy. Even though there are many legitimate Bible translations out there we still find some I wouldn't consider to be the Bible - the Klingon Version, the Cotton Patch Version, the New World Translation (Jehovah's Witnesses), the Joseph Smith Translation or Inspired Version (Mormons) and the Clear Word Translation (Seventh-Day Adventists) I wouldn't really consider "Bibles." The NWT, the JST and the CWT, I believe, were "translated" so errant cults could finally have "Scripture" that agrees with their false teachings. These deliberate mistranslations were done with an agenda in mind, and that was to make "Scipture" say what it had never said before. As for the Klingon Version (no one actually speaks this fictional language) and the Cotton Patch Version (C'mon, Atlanta and Birmingham in the Bible? Ya gotta be kidding!), I believe they were merely attempts to make a few bucks for their writers and/or publishers.

 

[Keith M]

The facts are that only one version has withstood all the controversies over the years. Some will taught a fav version over another, but only one withstands that "fav" thing, too.

Some one may prefer another version as it seemingly "speaks" to them more, but the problem ensues when delineations from the harmony exist and then, we should all revert back to that which is proven, tried, and true.

Y'know.....:godisgood:

We don't need to play the game of trying to update the Bible to the intrinsic nature of an ever evolving language. Why is this? The English maintains its root meanings devoid of any corruptions which comes from modernizations in vernacular. Those modernizations are usually slang in nature and also relate to immoral indications as the society is degrading into apostacy.

I know my remarks are not well taken, and B4life is justified in his feelings, but why is it the MV proponents operate from the bitternesses they contracted from "KJVO's" that were somewhat venomous?

Why be so irrational? My comments are rational and guess what? They're RIGHT!:laugh: :thumbs:

Sal, this isn't a KJVO thread, so let's keep it that way. If you want to promoite KJVOism, go to another thread or start one yourself. Your "only one version" comments seem to be designed to hijack this thread just as you've hijacked many others in the past. Let it go, Sal!

 

[Salamander]

Sal, this isn't a KJVO thread, so let's keep it that way. If you want to promoite KJVOism, go to another thread or start one yourself. Your "only one version" comments seem to be designed to hijack this thread just as you've hijacked many others in the past. Let it go, Sal!

You "let it go", I have every right as a BB member to post in any forum on BB open to Baptists.

As far as the "hijacking"? I hadn't mentioned KJVO in that fashion.

You've got a strange feddish about me, you know?

I remarked on the issue of why so many versions. I excercised my member privilege with a response. Deal with the response and get off your high-horse. Of course your's may be so high that it will take a stepladder:tongue3:

Better vhange this or you might get accused of making every topic a "KJVO" hijacking

I'd rather defend God's word and be accepted by God than deny God's word and be accepted by KJVOs.

 

[Marcia]

Even though there are many legitimate Bible translations out there we still find some I wouldn't consider to be the Bible - the Klingon Version, the Cotton Patch Version, the New World Translation (Jehovah's Witnesses), the Joseph Smith Translation or Inspired Version (Mormons) and the Clear Word Translation (Seventh-Day Adventists) I wouldn't really consider "Bibles." The NWT, the JST and the CWT, I believe, were "translated" so errant cults could finally have "Scripture" that agrees with their false teachings. These deliberate mistranslations were done with an agenda in mind, and that was to make "Scipture" say what it had never said before. As for the Klingon Version (no one actually speaks this fictional language) and the Cotton Patch Version (C'mon, Atlanta and Birmingham in the Bible? Ya gotta be kidding!), I believe they were merely attempts to make a few bucks for their writers and/or publishers.

This is a good post! :thumbsup:

To be frank, I love all the different Bibles! I have several and am grateful to be in a country where I can own several.

There may be a lot of marketing going on, but we live in a capitalist country. I was raised to think that was a good thing. It has its bad side but we can't complain about too many Bibles unless we want to go to socialism.

 

[Jim1999]

You forgot the Bible in Cockney. Then, it was made in that socialist England. It must have a devious end, indeed. Nevermind it was written to encourage the youth of East London to read the Bible.

"And so Jesus made a Jim Skinner for 5,000 geezers with just five loaves of Uncle Fred and two Lillian Gish...." One sample of Cockney.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Deacon]

Blessinz of teh Ceiling Cat be apwn yu, srsly.
The LOLCat Bible Translation Project is dedicated to translating the entire Bible into lolspeak.

Lottsa likkum$ in maekin dees version!

*********************

So liek teh Ceiling Kitteh lieks teh ppl lots and he sez 'Oh hai I givez u me only kitteh and ifs u purrz wit him u wont evr diez no moar, k?'

Cuz teh Ceiling Kitteh not snd hiz son 2 take all yur cookies, but so u cud maek moar cookies 4EVAR!

U beleevz him u getz cheezburgrs, but els you get invisibul error.
John 3:16-18 LOLCat Bible

Rob

 

[robycop3]

You "let it go", I have every right as a BB member to post in any forum on BB open to Baptists.

As far as the "hijacking"? I hadn't mentioned KJVO in that fashion.

You've got a strange feddish about me, you know?

I remarked on the issue of why so many versions. I excercised my member privilege with a response. Deal with the response and get off your high-horse. Of course your's may be so high that it will take a stepladder:tongue3:

Better vhange this or you might get accused of making every topic a "KJVO" hijacking

Sal, we have so many versions cuz there've been many TRANSLATORS, & the language changes with time.

And there was little-to-no controversy until KJVO was created.

Now, can you prove only ONE of these versions is valid, to the exclusion of all others? Of course you can't, & neither can I, nor anyone else.