Why The Need?

[franklinmonroe]

... 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 agree and I'm a Tyndale's translation reader, too! (That's what you meant, isn't it?)

 

[Keith M]

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

Yes, you do. And other BB members have the right to expect threads to be kept on topic. For once, instead of promoting your own agenda, why don't you respect the right of others to have a civil discussion without it being hijacked to a divisive KJVO argument?

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

No, you certainly didn't mention the term KJVO. But you DID say...

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.

If you're not promoting the KJVO myth, then what "one version" are you referring to? There's a strike against your own credibility, Sal.

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

You flatter yourself, Sal. I certainly DON'T haved a fetish about you. This false accusation is yet another strike against your credibility.

fetish

1. An object that is believed to have magical or spiritual powers, specially such an object associated with animistic or shamanistic religious practices.
2. An object of unreasonably excessive attention or reverence; made a fetish of punctuality.
3. Soimething, such as a material object or a nonsexual part of the body, that arouses sexual desire and may become necessary for sexual gratification.
4. An abnormally obsessive preocupation or attachment; a fixation.
- The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

1. No, I certainly don't believe you have any magical or spiritual powers, Sal.
2. No, I certainly don't give you axcessive atention or reverence.
3. NO WAY!
4. No, I don't have an obsessive preoccupation or attachment for you.

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.

My, my, my, Sal. Such a personal attack because I mentioned you were apparently trying to hijack the thread. Your "one version" comments, based on your track record, could only be taken by any reasonably intelligent person as a plug for the KJVO position. You really don't deal with truth or opposition to your position very well, do you, Sal? There's another strike against your own credibility.

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

Your meaning isn't very well articulated here, Sal. Are you intimating that I try to turn every thread into a KJVO thread? If that's what you're saying, then your accusation is absolutely false and has no basis whatsoever. There's another strike against your own credibility. You do more to damage your own credibility than anyone else ever does.

When God's word is attacked by those who hold the errant "one version" or KJVO position, I defend the word against such attacks. I have always defended God's word against KJVO attacks, and I have no intention of stopping now.

 

[franklinmonroe]

... I'm just saying that all the versions we have are causing more harm than good, IMHO.

According to Ken Connelly in his The Indestructible Book before Wycliffe there were 40 Old & Middle English translations (mostly of the Psalms), and another 26 translations after (including Wycliffe's and its revisions). Connelly claims another 212 editions of the Bible (complete or in part) from 1525 to 1611. Then (p.181) --

Between the publication of the KJV in 1611 and the ASV in 1901, there were no less than 522 attempts by translators, revisors, or editors to discover the exact meaning of the original text of the Bible and express it pricisely in current English. ​

I believe that adds up to 800 English translations in one form or another before 1901 (with none included from the most recent 108 years). How many of those caused harm? I don't think the facts of history support your opinion.

 

[Jim1999]

I think the problem is more attitude about versions than how many versions we have available.

I benefit from all that I have read.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Keith M]

I think the problem is more attitude about versions than how many versions we have available.

I benefit from all that I have read.

Cheers,

Jim

Amen, Bro. Jim! Preach it!

 

[Baptist4life]

I don't think the facts of history support your opinion.

....................Still doesn't change the FACT that all the different versions are causing confusion in my Bible study group, and that is a fact where I live.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

....................Still doesn't change the FACT that all the different versions are causing confusion in my Bible study group, and that is a fact where I live.

I find that interesting. We normally have 3-4 different translations at our Sunday night Bible study and never had any confusion.

 

[tinytim]

If anything, the written word in many translations enhances our Bible Study.. a lot of times, I just project e-sword onto the wall, and dive in. If there is a question about a verse, I click on "compare" and all of my 39 versions of that verse is on the wall.. we read through them and get a real sense of what God was fully saying. I have everything from NASB and ESV on the most literal Word for Word end to The Message on the loose paraphrase end.

Try it sometime...

Hello there (tiny doing a Billy Mays impersonation)
TinyTim here... And I want to share with you something that revolutionized the way I did Bible Study...

e-sword!
www.e-sword.net

e-sword is a computer program that has many versions of the Bible, many commentaries, and dictionaries... plus many extras...

Now, what would you expect to pay for all of these valuable resources...
$500?,
$299.50?
$99?

Well for an unlimited time, get this, you don't have to pay!!!
That's right, it is .....


KABOOOM FREE!
But you have to click now..

And by doing so, you not only get one KJV.. you get the KJV 1611 FREE!
That's right, FREE. along with many commentaries, dictionaries, and extras... like 2000 sermon illustrations...

What could be better?... OH yeah, THEY ARE FREE!!!

Now back to our program !

 

[annsni]

....................Still doesn't change the FACT that all the different versions are causing confusion in my Bible study group, and that is a fact where I live.

Can you explain the confusion? In our church we use many different versions and I've been in studies where people have the KJV, NKJV, NIV, ESV, NASB, Living and Amplified Bibles. I think we also here and there have had Chinese and Spanish Bibles. We've never had an issue. Sometimes we will talk about the different choices of words in the different versions and talk about which word most gives the sense of the verse but most of the time it's more for just clarity - certainly not confusing. The ONLY time I've seen confusion with multiple versions is in brand new Christians. So we usually make sure they have the same version as the majority of the class/church or what the pastor uses for his sermons. It's been KJV in the past but right now through Romans, he's using the NIV. So for now, we're giving out NIVs. But it's really rare that we find confusion with the different versions. Is your church mostly new, young believers?

 

[Baptist4life]

I guess I should have been more clear. The confusion comes from different versions translated from different texts ie: NIV or HCSB compared to NKJV or KJV, Missing verses, etc.


This most often leads to a "why does YOUR Bible have those verses and mine doesn't?" discussion. Which leads to a "doubting" of whether their particular version is "right" or is your version "right" to either add or leave out those verses. "They either should be in there" Or "they shouldn't be in there".................. either way breeds DOUBT about the Bible and "can we trust it."



No, our church is NOT mostly new Christians, but our Bible studies are open to people from all over the area, not just our members, and I would guess that maybe 50% are from different churches, using about every version you can think of.



Example, during Christmas various readings from Luke 2 were given. One version said Joseph was espoused to Mary, one said betrothed, one engaged, one pledged, I believe....anyway......one version, I don't remember which stated it this way............." Joseph was engaged to Mary, who was pregnant"............

It was brought up that this made it look like Joseph and Mary had had sexual relations and Joseph was the father of the baby. This led to a discussion, and more confusion, about different translations. All in all, the Bible study gets side tracked by questions about which versions are correct and which ones ADD or LEAVE OUT things.



That was probably confusing, but a small idea of what happens when you have 15-20 people at the same table reading from 10 different versions.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I


one version, I don't remember which stated it this way............." Joseph was engaged to Mary, who was pregnantt"............

How does that differ from 'To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.'?

 

[Jim1999]

This is where the leader comes in and should explain the differences...Confusion should be displaced.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

This is where the leader comes in and should explain the differences...Confusion should be displaced.

Cheers,

Jim

I see these things as great teaching opportunities. I like different versions being in Bible study.

 

[Baptist4life]

This thread is up to 10 pages, and we're getting nowhere FAST! :tongue3: I guess we'll just "agree to disagree". I still feel that TOO MANY versions are out there and not needed. We have some mainstream versions, the NIV, NKJV, KJV, NASB, and I think those are ENOUGH in the English language. Any more only causes, IMHO, confusion and doubt. As I stated before, new versions ARE necessary but they should be in another language so non English speaking people can have God's Word in their own language.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

As I stated before, new versions ARE necessary but they should be in another language so non English speaking people can have God's Word in their own language.

I generally agree - there are plenty of English versions - lets get busy reaching the rest of the world.

 

[tinytim]

B4L... a confusion arose in our association one time because of ignorance to the way the word has been translated.. . Some churches wanted to make other churches KJVO..

So the leadership of the association offered a "history of the Bible" class in which the instructor was well versed in the way the Bible has been handed down to us. He started at the beginning, explained the process of translation... etc.

In the end.. NO KJVO showed up to the class.. they didn't want to "study to show themselves approved"... they took the easy way out... Willing Ignorance.

IF you congregation is ignorant to the fact of how versions are made, and it sounds like they are since they are questioning that verses are missing... (BTW... look at the bottom of the page.. it is there.. just honest), then it may be tiime for an education on how the Bible is translated.

Educating people is hard.. it will not be easy.. it is much easier to take the one version only route..

But that is not historical truth...

And you don't want to be accused of lying to your brothers and sisters when you stand before God just because it was the easy way out...

Encourage learning.. and when you do, the confusion will go!

God is not the author of confusion.. people who are willingly ignorant are.

 

[Baptist4life]

I generally agree - there are plenty of English versions - lets get busy reaching the rest of the world.

Hallelujah! We FINALLY agree on something! :godisgood: Maybe we should end it there? :smilewinkgrin:

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Hallelujah! We FINALLY agree on something! :godisgood: Maybe we should end it there? :smilewinkgrin:

We also agree on the superiority of the Byzantine text body and the importance of formal equivalence in translation work.

 

[annsni]

I guess I should have been more clear. The confusion comes from different versions translated from different texts ie: NIV or HCSB compared to NKJV or KJV, Missing verses, etc.


This most often leads to a "why does YOUR Bible have those verses and mine doesn't?" discussion. Which leads to a "doubting" of whether their particular version is "right" or is your version "right" to either add or leave out those verses. "They either should be in there" Or "they shouldn't be in there".................. either way breeds DOUBT about the Bible and "can we trust it."

Well, then they're not fully reading their Bibles - or are not getting good teaching because all of the verses are there. There is nothing in any of the KJVs that are not iin the MVs. "Look at the footnote. The text is there but because there's question as to whether or not this text was originally there, after discoveries of manuscripts since 1611, the translators chose to put it in the footnote. So let's move on...." is all that needs to be taught.

No, our church is NOT mostly new Christians, but our Bible studies are open to people from all over the area, not just our members, and I would guess that maybe 50% are from different churches, using about every version you can think of.



Example, during Christmas various readings from Luke 2 were given. One version said Joseph was espoused to Mary, one said betrothed, one engaged, one pledged, I believe....anyway......one version, I don't remember which stated it this way............." Joseph was engaged to Mary, who was pregnant"............

It was brought up that this made it look like Joseph and Mary had had sexual relations and Joseph was the father of the baby. This led to a discussion, and more confusion, about different translations. All in all, the Bible study gets side tracked by questions about which versions are correct and which ones ADD or LEAVE OUT things.



That was probably confusing, but a small idea of what happens when you have 15-20 people at the same table reading from 10 different versions.

Hmm - I don't see that as saying that they had sexual relations because Mary in her own words says that they didn't "How will this be since I am a virgin" it says in Luke 1:34 in the NIV and ESV (don't have the others handy to see them right now). I don't think you can misconstrue that at all. I still don't get the confusion. I've been a believer for 35 years and have been using translations other than the KJV for the majority of that time and have never seen much confusion other than the initial question. Once people understand the translational issue, it's never been a problem. Even the Chinese who started coming to our church last year do fine in different versions.

 

[franklinmonroe]

This thread is up to 10 pages, and we're getting nowhere FAST! :tongue3: I guess we'll just "agree to disagree"...

What did you hope to accomplish? Did you have a practical solution to rid the world of several hundred published English Bible texts?

... I still feel that TOO MANY versions are out there and not needed. We have some mainstream versions, the NIV, NKJV, KJV, NASB, and I think those are ENOUGH in the English language. Any more only causes, IMHO, confusion and doubt...

Certainly you are welcome to your opinion. Again in a practical sense, how would the 'unneeded' Bibles be selected? And how many? Why not three, or five? Who can be trusted to take away our Bibles? What if the first one to be eliminated was to be the KJV?

Rather than the four you have identified, why not Matthew's, Coverdales's, Great, and Geneva (chronologically some of the earliest complete English Bibles translated mostly from the original languages)? What would be the objective criteria?

... The confusion comes from different versions translated from different texts ie: NIV or HCSB compared to NKJV or KJV, Missing verses, etc...

Interestingly, two translations you have choosen (NIV & NASB) are based upon a different Greek text (than KJV, NKJV) and would continue to perpetuate the "confusion" problem you seem to experience now with "missing" verses between versions (you said so yourself above about the NIV). The fact is, your choices aren't even a logical solution to your own problem.