|
Post by Thane on Nov 3, 2005 7:46:48 GMT -5
What translations do yall use. Just a curiosity question. Me, I use 3 different ones, NASB for study, NIV to follow along with in church, and CSB to just sit and read with.
|
|
|
Post by lovelace on Nov 3, 2005 8:28:36 GMT -5
To be honest with you, I like the KJV Bible. I go to a Con temp. Church that they use the NKJV Bible and KJV. I haven't been there enough to see what is lost in the NKJV. From what we have went over the last two months..there is a word here or there. I am sure Bryan knows all the fallacies and would like to see the difference. I would be curious to know how different the Hebrew Language is compared to the English in translation to the KJV.
Another question for scholars! What year was the first bible translated from Hebrew to English and whom originally put the Bible together from the letters?
Glory to God, Mike
|
|
|
Post by pitbull on Nov 3, 2005 8:54:39 GMT -5
lovelace, The first Bible in the English language was Wycliff’s Bible (1382) but it was based entirely off the Vulgate. The following are from the Byzantine Greek New Testament: · Tyndale’s Bible (1528) · Coverdale's Bible (1535) – used the TR as well as the Vulgate, Luther’s German Bible, and Zwingli’s Zurich Bible · The Matthew's Bible (1537) · The Great Bible (1539) – updating printing errors of the Matthew’s Bible · The Geneva Bible (1560) – first to use verse divisions · The Bishops' Bible (1568) · Authorized King James Version (1611)
There has not been a translation based off this same foundation since the KJV Bible. The NKJV Bible was supposed to be, but Dr. Gray and others left when they found that about half the "translators" were bringing in the Alexandrian Greek family of manuscripts [foundation for the Catholic translations, New World Translation, as well as NIV, NASB, CEV, etc.]. They left out of protest and hence the NKJV Bible is a "marriage" of the two different and incompatible families of manuscripts.
What else makes me reject the NKJV? The NKJV removes "obsolete words", such as "repent". They take it out 44 times! And how does the NKJV make it "much clearer"? In Matthew 21:32 they use "relent". Matthew 27:3 it's "remorseful" Or Romans 11:29 they change "repentance" to "irrevocable". The term "new testament" is NOT in the NKJV! (See Matt. 26:28, Mark 14:24, Luke 22:20, 1 Cor. 11:25, 2 Cor. 3:6, Heb. 9:15,) The NKJV replaces "new testament" with "new covenant" (ditto NIV, NRSV, RSV, NASV). An obvious assault at the written word! The word "d**ned", "d**nation" is NOT in the NKJV! They make it "much clearer" by replacing it with "condemn" (ditto NIV, RSV, NRSV, NASV). "Condemned" is NO WHERE NEAR AS SERIOUS as "d**ned"! d**ned is eternal! One can be "condemned" and not "d**ned". Romans 14:22 says, ". . . Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth." Webster defines "condemned": to declare to be wrong, but the much more serious and eternal "d**n": "to condemn to hell". The word "devils" (the singular, person called the "devil" is) is NOT in the NKJV! Replaced with the "transliterated" Greek word "demon" (ditto NIV, RSV, NRSV, NASV). The Theosophical Dictionary describes demon as: ". . . it has a meaning identical with that of 'god', 'angel' or 'genius'". Even Vines Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words (p.157) defines "demon" as “an inferior deity, WHETHER GOOD OR BAD". Consider the following: · The NKJV removes the word "Lord" 66 times! · The NKJV removes the word God 51 times! · The NKJV removes the word "heaven" 50 times! · In just the New Testament alone the NKJV removes 2,289 words from the KJV! · The NKJV makes over 100,000 word changes, which comes to over eighty changes per page and about three changes per verse! A great number of these changes bring the NKJV in line with the readings of such Alexandrian perversions as the NIV and the RSV. Where changes are not made in the text, subtle footnotes often give credence to the Westcott and Hort Greek Text.
And the pattern continues throughout the New Testament. Remember that the Bible says that God protects even the smallest letters and the smallest parts of those letters, let alone the entire word [Matthew 5:18; 24:35]! This is main reason that I reject the NKJV Bible.
|
|
|
Post by pitbull on Nov 3, 2005 8:57:20 GMT -5
lovelace, Before I forget your second question, the earliest known complete 66 book Bibles were: · The Syrian Penutsta Version (150 AD) · The Itala (or Italic) Bible (157 AD) – used by the Vaulios [or Waldensians] For both of these translation, the Hebrew Masoretic Text is used for the Old Testament and the Byzantine Greek Text was used for the New Testament, just like was done for the KJV Bible, but has not been done since.
|
|
|
Post by lovelace on Nov 3, 2005 9:57:41 GMT -5
Excellent Bryan! Do you have most of this stored in articles or a bible software on your computer?
Thank you and God Bless, Mike
|
|
|
Post by marksunter on Nov 3, 2005 11:01:31 GMT -5
I think its funny we have different bible versions.... Its like the discussion of what religion is right or best.....this is what I do at parties to start trouble...I say...you guys know that only catholics go to heaven.......starts a big fight, and I get to sit back and take in the entertainment. try it , its fun.
|
|
|
Post by pitbull on Nov 3, 2005 12:53:32 GMT -5
lovelace, These are from notes of mine that I have stored up over the years studying various Biblical doctrines. It allows me to cut and past the info when needed. Plus, I can read it better than my own handwriting.
|
|
|
Post by pitbull on Nov 3, 2005 12:56:15 GMT -5
marksunter, Your comment made no sense to me at all. You think it is funny that the market is flooded by many different "translations" of the Bible, which in turn has caused mass doctrinal confusion over the past century?
You think it is fun to sin by created division by making comments like that? I will tell you a little secret - there will be no Catholics, Protestants, Pentecostals, or Baptists in Heaven. Only those who have repented and trusted Christ as Lord and Savior. That is it.
I pity you if you think that is eternal salvation to joke about.
|
|
|
Post by marksunter on Nov 3, 2005 13:24:40 GMT -5
please dont pity me, I have found my place in the world and with God, thats good enought for me. As for what you do and dont understand, humer is a good thing. please dont dont sit two high on that two legged stool.
It is very interesting to me that there are so many version of the bible. I dont take that as division or mass doctrinal confusion, I take it as different interpretations. I am not bent on judging or telling anyone my view is correct. I am sure if my heart is open, then if I read any version of any bible, god will speak to me. Are you not open to other religious liturature, The kuran, budist teaching, and others. I think you might be missing the point. I am happy to listen and read anything and in any way God wants to speak to me. there are many ways to the lord, not just one...
by the way, I think you might be right about the baptists not going to heaven.
peace out
|
|
|
Post by Rickey Dale Crain on Nov 3, 2005 14:12:39 GMT -5
Many ways to the Lord.....only one way..Jesus...He said it numerous times.....
you either believe or reject the Bible...you cannot have it both ways.....either the Bible is 100% true or it is made up of a bunch of liars including Jesus himself..
He is either the Christ or he is a lying lunatic who thought himself God..
rdc
|
|
|
Post by Doug Parrish on Nov 3, 2005 14:23:20 GMT -5
I've answered this very question on other boards, but I'll reply anyway since Thane asked. I've discussed this several times with Bryan via email. We don't 100% agree on this, but we're both very cordial in our disagreement. (Brother, no you are NOT my enemy because you tell me the truth!) :')
KJV for what I feel is the pre-eminent English translation of God's Word, definitely for scripture memorization, meditation on the Word, drawing closer to God.
NIV because of the historical notes that come with it. (I learned a lot about the city of Ephesus just by reading the preface to the book of the Ephesians.)
NKJV to sometimes take a term that's unclear to me in Shakesperian English and figure out what it means in relatively modern English.
American Standard or NAS, can't remember which, for the same reason as NKJV...I never did too good on those Shakespeare tests in high school..... "her hap was" translates roughly into "it just so happened that she..."
|
|
|
Post by marksunter on Nov 3, 2005 14:37:00 GMT -5
yes RDC, but apparently there are many bibles, do we accept them all, Im sorry, different translations of the bible (there is only one bible) so do we accept them all or none, or is there a right one. maybe I am reading this wrong but Bryan seems to beleive there is only one right translation. So this becomes quite difficult. so help me out.
|
|
|
Post by Shane Gaydon on Nov 3, 2005 19:35:53 GMT -5
I use the King James Bible. I believe that it is the infallible, inerrant Word of God in the English language.
|
|
|
Post by Shane Gaydon on Nov 3, 2005 21:21:11 GMT -5
The following is from Sam Gipp's The Answer Book.
QUESTION: Isn't the devil behind all the confusion and fighting over Bible versions?
ANSWER: Undoubtedly.
EXPLANATION: It is a great irony that many of the critics of the Bible claim rather indignantly that the devil is behind the battle over the King James Bible. In this they are correct. But somehow they have managed to assume that it is the people claiming perfection for the Bible who the devil is guiding. Is this a correct assumption? Let us consider the history of the battle.
From the time of its publication in 1611 the King James Bible has grown in popularity. Although not mandated by the King to be used in the churches of England, it did, in a matter of a few years, manage to supplant all of the great versions translated before it. Though it was not advertised in the Madison Avenue fashion of today's versions, it soon swept all other versions from the hearts and hands of the citizenry of England and its colonies.
With the conquest of the British Empire behind it, it crossed the Atlantic to the United States. Landing here it overwhelmed the double foothold of the Roman Catholic Church planted previously under the flags of Spain and France.
It then began to permeate young America with its ideals. Its truths led to the establishment of an educational system, based on Scripture, that was unparalleled in the world. It instilled in men the ideals of freedom and personal liberty, thoughts so foreign to the minds of men that their inclusion in our Constitution could only be described as an "experiment" in government.
It commissioned preachers of righteousness who, on foot and horseback, broke trails into the wilderness and spread the truth of the gospel and of right living. In its wake was left what could only be described..."one nation, under God..." This accomplished, it set out for the conquest of the heathen world. Bible colleges (Princeton, Harvard, Yale) were founded. Mission societies formed. And eager young missionaries began to scour the globe with little more than a King James Bible and God's Holy Spirit.
But these activities did not go unnoticed by Satan. He who had successfully counterfeited God's church, ministers and powers certainly could not be expected to let God's Bible roam the world unchallenged. Through agents such as Brook Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort, he published his own translation in 1884. (The New Testament had been published in 1881.) Though there had been sporadic personal translations between 1611 and 1884, this new translation, called the Revised Version, was the first ever to be designed from its outset to replace God's Authorized Bible. It failed to replace God's Bible, but the arguments of its adherents were the first shots fired in a nearly 400-year battle for the hearts and minds of God's people concerning the authority and fidelity of Scripture.
In 1901 another round was fired in the form of the American Revised Version, later called the American Standard Version. (An intentional misnomer since it never became the "standard" for anything.) This version, other than being the darling of critical American scholarship, met a dismal end when, twenty-three years later, it was so totally rejected by God's people that its copyright had to be sold. (Does this sound like God's blessing?)
The ASV was further revised and republished in 1954 as the Revised Standard Version. This sequence of events has repeated itself innumerable times, resulting in the New American Standard Version of 1960, the New Scofield Version of 1967, the New International Version of 1978, and the New King James Version of 1979 to name a few.
The process has never changed. Every new version that has been launched has been, without exception, a product of Satan's Alexandrian philosophy which rejects the premise of a perfect Bible. Furthermore, they have been copied, on the most part, from the corrupt Alexandrian manuscript (although a few have been translated from pure Antiochian manuscripts after they were tainted by the Alexandrian philosophy).
THIS then was Satan's battle in print, BUT by no means was it his exclusive onslaught. He used a standard military "two-pronged'' attack.
While popularizing his Alexandrian manuscripts via the press, he began to promote his Alexandrian philosophy in and through Christian Bible colleges.
Soon sincere, naive, young Bible students attending FUNDAMENTAL Bible colleges began to hear the infallibility of the Bible challenged in their classrooms. In chapel services the Bible's perfection was much touted. But then, the very same speakers would debase, degrade, and even mock the English Bible, always assuring their students that they were not a "liberal" or "modernist" because they believed that the Bible was infallible in "the originals"Äthat non-existent, unobtainable, mystical entity which ALL apostates shield their unbelief behind.
Soon stalwartness gave in to acceptance and fidelity to a perfect Bible became fidelity to one's "Alma Mater". Young graduates, disheartened and disarmed by their education, found themselves in pulpits across America parroting the professor's shameful criticism of the Word of God. They readily accepted new versions hot off the Alexandrian presses.
Then, when some Christian approached them claiming to believe the Bible (one you could hold in your HAND, not a lost relic from bygone days) was word perfect (a belief they had once held before their education stole it from them) they felt threatened. They try to dispel this "fanatic', this "cultist" . Finally they look this faith filled Christian in the eye and piously ask, "Don't you feel that the devil is using this Bible version issue to divide and hinder the cause of Christ?"
"Undoubtedly," comes back the answer. "But I'm certainly glad it's not MY CROWD that he's using." (!) Whose side are YOU on?
Additional Note:
Here's something that you need to think about. If we King James Bible believers have our way, a Preacher would stand in a pulpit to read Scripture and everyone else in the church would read from the same Bible. Isn't that UNITY?
But if the Bible-correctors have their way everyone would read from a different bible. That's confusion. And who is the author of confusion (I Cor. 14:33)?
|
|
|
Post by marksunter on Nov 3, 2005 22:18:56 GMT -5
dang shane, good post.
|
|