Which bible version why ?
- Thread starter Mantvydas
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
M
I prefer either the NASB or the NKJV, but am ok with most of the versions as long as it doesn't turn God into a woman or is edited for political correctness (such as removing references to homosexuality and such). The NASB and NKJV are literal word-for-word translations from the Greek and Hebrew as opposed to the NIV, which is paraphrased--phrase by phrase translation (also from the Greek and Hebrew). The authorized King James was translated from the Latin vulgate, so it's a translation of a translation. I have my preferences, for the above stated reasons, but am not willing to get into a fight over it--kinda like kids squabbling over whether apple juice or orange juice is best.
Good day sir!
Being a Filipino, I personally have no problem in understanding or dealing with the words "Abroad" "tell" and "number" as they are used in the KJV. This is by far learned into a prayerful study of God's Word. Remember, our KJV in 2 Timothy 2:15 telling us that we are to study. In our Sunday School, my teacher told us two (2) basic things that is necessary to understand God's Word:
1. Use of Dictionary.
2. Study the word in its context.
So what is needed. I use the Dictionary to look the word meaning. In consideration, I may well look at the Meriam-Webster, the Oxford, Free Dictionary or the 1828 Webster all available online. Taking you to the Dictionary of the word "abroad" can mean "over a wide area" or "generally in a wide area not to confine to a narrow limits as in open air". Having said that, Genesis 15:5 in the KJV could be interpreted as:
The LORD leads Abraham into an open area(abroad) where he could visibly look the vast heaven with numberless stars at night. To "number" is obviously to count. To "tell" per Dictionary is to count or number. Thus Abraham in this case was shown that he can't number or count stars which in turn be his descendants.
Abroad was still used by the revisers per RV and ASV though others used the word "outside". Here is my take of the word "outside" as against "abroad" in the KJV, RV and ASV.
Per NASB etc. the meaning would become less clear to my guess.
Why? Consider, where is that "outside" where to Abraham was brought forth by the Lord? In the dungeon? in the forest? In the city or place where there is disturbance seeing the vast sky? So, I would prefer the rendering of the KJV over new versions.
Thank you sir. God bless!
Being a Filipino, I personally have no problem in understanding or dealing with the words "Abroad" "tell" and "number" as they are used in the KJV. This is by far learned into a prayerful study of God's Word. Remember, our KJV in 2 Timothy 2:15 telling us that we are to study. In our Sunday School, my teacher told us two (2) basic things that is necessary to understand God's Word:
1. Use of Dictionary.
2. Study the word in its context.
So what is needed. I use the Dictionary to look the word meaning. In consideration, I may well look at the Meriam-Webster, the Oxford, Free Dictionary or the 1828 Webster all available online. Taking you to the Dictionary of the word "abroad" can mean "over a wide area" or "generally in a wide area not to confine to a narrow limits as in open air". Having said that, Genesis 15:5 in the KJV could be interpreted as:
The LORD leads Abraham into an open area(abroad) where he could visibly look the vast heaven with numberless stars at night. To "number" is obviously to count. To "tell" per Dictionary is to count or number. Thus Abraham in this case was shown that he can't number or count stars which in turn be his descendants.
Abroad was still used by the revisers per RV and ASV though others used the word "outside". Here is my take of the word "outside" as against "abroad" in the KJV, RV and ASV.
Per NASB etc. the meaning would become less clear to my guess.
Why? Consider, where is that "outside" where to Abraham was brought forth by the Lord? In the dungeon? in the forest? In the city or place where there is disturbance seeing the vast sky? So, I would prefer the rendering of the KJV over new versions.
Thank you sir. God bless!
T
Greetings again fredoheaven,
I appreciate your thorough response to my Post. Yes if we are careful and with a prayerful study of God’s Word and using the proper resources then we can determine the proper meaning of a verse and the words. One resource that I have is a children’s Oxford Dictionary and it tends to only give modern usage of a word. On the other hand I have recently obtained the 20-Volume Oxford English Dictionary, that gives all the possible meanings and the history of this usage and whether some of the words have changed their meaning over time.
Another resource is “The King James Bible Word Book - A contemporary dictionary of curious and archaic words found in the King James Version of the Bible by RF Bridges and LA Weigle 1960, 1994, Published by Nelson and available electronically from them. In the Author’s Preface he states: “This book is concerned with words used in the King James Version of the Bible which have become obsolete or archaic, or have changed in meaning or acquired new meanings, so that they no longer convey to the reader the sense which the King James translators intended them to express. Most of these words were accurate translations in 1611, but they have become ambiguous or misleading.” The book considers about 825 words in this category.
Although we can fairly easily detemine the meaning of “Abroad” and Tell” in Genesis 15:5, there are other occurrences where we may overlook the original meanings of the word. The following is the consideration of the words “Abroad” and Tell” in the above book, and this is only two of the 825 words considered.
ABROAD This is a spacious word, popular with Elizabethan writers. Shakespeare uses it frequently in all senses including the modern sense of in foreign lands. More commonly he uses it for broadly, widely, at large, or for outside the house, in the streets, away from home. KJ uses it in the older senses only. Sometimes the old meaning is clear enough from the context but sometimes it is not, especially with literal-minded readers. For example, Jeremiah 6:11 reads “I am full of the fury of the LORD; I am weary with holding in: I will pour it out upon the children abroad.” The revised versions have “the children in the street.”
The word “abroad” simply means “outside” in the sanitary provisions of Deuteronomy 23:10, 12, 13 and the rules governing loans (24:11). The marriages “abroad” of the thirty daughters and the thirty sons of one of the ancient judges of Israel were merely marriages “outside his clan” (Judges 12:9).
“Come abroad” stands for the Hebrew word which means “be made known” (Esther 1:17) and for the Greek phrase which means “come to light” (Mark 4:22; Luke 8:17). “His name was spread abroad” is more literally translated “his name had become known” (Mark 6:14).
TELL occurs eight times in the archaic sense of number or count. In the word of the LORD to Abram, “Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them,” the same Hebrew verb is translated “tell” and “number”; and in both cases it means “count” (Genesis 15:5). “They told the money” (2 Kings 12:10) means “they counted the money.” “I may tell all my bones” (Psalm 22:17) means “I can count all my bones.” “Walk about Zion, and go round about her: tell the towers thereof” (Psalm 48:12) means “… number her towers.” Other occurrences are in 2 Chronicles 2:2; Psalms 56:8; 147:4; Jeremiah 33:13.
Jeremiah 33:13 (KJV): In the cities of the mountains, in the cities of the vale, and in the cities of the south, and in the land of Benjamin, and in the places about Jerusalem, and in the cities of Judah, shall the flocks pass again under the hands of him that telleth them, saith the LORD.
Kind regards
Trevor
I appreciate your thorough response to my Post. Yes if we are careful and with a prayerful study of God’s Word and using the proper resources then we can determine the proper meaning of a verse and the words. One resource that I have is a children’s Oxford Dictionary and it tends to only give modern usage of a word. On the other hand I have recently obtained the 20-Volume Oxford English Dictionary, that gives all the possible meanings and the history of this usage and whether some of the words have changed their meaning over time.
Another resource is “The King James Bible Word Book - A contemporary dictionary of curious and archaic words found in the King James Version of the Bible by RF Bridges and LA Weigle 1960, 1994, Published by Nelson and available electronically from them. In the Author’s Preface he states: “This book is concerned with words used in the King James Version of the Bible which have become obsolete or archaic, or have changed in meaning or acquired new meanings, so that they no longer convey to the reader the sense which the King James translators intended them to express. Most of these words were accurate translations in 1611, but they have become ambiguous or misleading.” The book considers about 825 words in this category.
Although we can fairly easily detemine the meaning of “Abroad” and Tell” in Genesis 15:5, there are other occurrences where we may overlook the original meanings of the word. The following is the consideration of the words “Abroad” and Tell” in the above book, and this is only two of the 825 words considered.
ABROAD This is a spacious word, popular with Elizabethan writers. Shakespeare uses it frequently in all senses including the modern sense of in foreign lands. More commonly he uses it for broadly, widely, at large, or for outside the house, in the streets, away from home. KJ uses it in the older senses only. Sometimes the old meaning is clear enough from the context but sometimes it is not, especially with literal-minded readers. For example, Jeremiah 6:11 reads “I am full of the fury of the LORD; I am weary with holding in: I will pour it out upon the children abroad.” The revised versions have “the children in the street.”
The word “abroad” simply means “outside” in the sanitary provisions of Deuteronomy 23:10, 12, 13 and the rules governing loans (24:11). The marriages “abroad” of the thirty daughters and the thirty sons of one of the ancient judges of Israel were merely marriages “outside his clan” (Judges 12:9).
“Come abroad” stands for the Hebrew word which means “be made known” (Esther 1:17) and for the Greek phrase which means “come to light” (Mark 4:22; Luke 8:17). “His name was spread abroad” is more literally translated “his name had become known” (Mark 6:14).
TELL occurs eight times in the archaic sense of number or count. In the word of the LORD to Abram, “Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them,” the same Hebrew verb is translated “tell” and “number”; and in both cases it means “count” (Genesis 15:5). “They told the money” (2 Kings 12:10) means “they counted the money.” “I may tell all my bones” (Psalm 22:17) means “I can count all my bones.” “Walk about Zion, and go round about her: tell the towers thereof” (Psalm 48:12) means “… number her towers.” Other occurrences are in 2 Chronicles 2:2; Psalms 56:8; 147:4; Jeremiah 33:13.
Jeremiah 33:13 (KJV): In the cities of the mountains, in the cities of the vale, and in the cities of the south, and in the land of Benjamin, and in the places about Jerusalem, and in the cities of Judah, shall the flocks pass again under the hands of him that telleth them, saith the LORD.
Kind regards
Trevor
Here are other ways to enrich our word vocabulary and enhance our understanding of the English Bible- KJV;
3. The Use of Etymology.
They trace the roots or origin of the word and they are actually explanations of what the word means. Example: "abroad" from a + broad which a Filipino can easily understand, as on wide or on a wider place. They are of old but still rich in meaning. The word "abroad" as used in the bible is still correct in this sense.
4. We may also use the Bible Built-in Dictionary.
The bible itself produces it's own Dictionary but it requires reading and study. In case of the word "abroad", this is also made mention in Genesis 10:18 And the Arvadite, and the Zemarite, and the Hamathite: and afterward were the families of the Canaanites spread abroad.
Looking at the 2nd Ed. of Oxford English Dictionary will lead you to the meaning spread. So still that word "abroad" in the specific verse comes out with a good meaning.
What about the word "tell"? Well the phrase "tell the stars" at first glance can mean to the unbelievers[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif] or to the critics of the bible which may imply of something like "wishing upon the stars". No Abraham did not do "wishing upon the stars", he simply put his trust in his God which likewise a bible believer would have to do. But why it was in the English Bible and needs to retained?[/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif]Well it may be because this is to determined whether one's thinking is of God or the world. God definitely is not the God of confusion. Study his words not with a critical mind and enjoy that word in the text of the bible and soon you will be bless.
[/FONT]
3. The Use of Etymology.
They trace the roots or origin of the word and they are actually explanations of what the word means. Example: "abroad" from a + broad which a Filipino can easily understand, as on wide or on a wider place. They are of old but still rich in meaning. The word "abroad" as used in the bible is still correct in this sense.
4. We may also use the Bible Built-in Dictionary.
The bible itself produces it's own Dictionary but it requires reading and study. In case of the word "abroad", this is also made mention in Genesis 10:18 And the Arvadite, and the Zemarite, and the Hamathite: and afterward were the families of the Canaanites spread abroad.
Looking at the 2nd Ed. of Oxford English Dictionary will lead you to the meaning spread. So still that word "abroad" in the specific verse comes out with a good meaning.
What about the word "tell"? Well the phrase "tell the stars" at first glance can mean to the unbelievers[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif] or to the critics of the bible which may imply of something like "wishing upon the stars". No Abraham did not do "wishing upon the stars", he simply put his trust in his God which likewise a bible believer would have to do. But why it was in the English Bible and needs to retained?[/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif]Well it may be because this is to determined whether one's thinking is of God or the world. God definitely is not the God of confusion. Study his words not with a critical mind and enjoy that word in the text of the bible and soon you will be bless.
[/FONT]
T
Greetings again fredoheaven,
You have done well in learning English as a second language. I am not sure what Filipino language you speak as there may be 19 different ones, but I understand that Tagalog is one of the most generally accepted and used. Is there a good Tagalog translation, and is it based on the KJV or some other English or Spanish Bible? One of the problems that we encounter is when we have a person from another country and they are reading the Bible and at the same time learning English. For example we have a Vietnamese and a Chinese, and they have sufficient difficulty learning simple English, without initially adding the burden of KJV English.
The following are a few additional comments on the KJV. I personally prefer the KJV, but recommend that we should be aware of some of the limitations of this translation. I also appreciate some of the improvements of the Old Testament portion of the RV. The Revisers of the OT portion were careful to maintain the KJV wherever possible, unlike the NT Revisers. Nowhere in the OT portion is the rhythm and beauty of the KJV spoiled. There are many corrections to the OT and also better translations, for example, the translation of Job is improved. Another improvement of the RV is the distinction made between prose and poetry in such books as the Psalms and portions of the prophets.
Most translations and commentators accept the present tense of Exodus 3:14 “I am that I am”. But notice in the margin of the RV and RSV, an alternative is given “I will be that I will be” or “I will be what I will be”, showing that some scholars suggest this alternative reading. Although not popular it appears that this future tense is the correct translation. Even Tyndale translated this in the future tense.
Exodus 3:12-14 (Tyndale): 12 And he sayde: I wilbe with the. And this shalbe a token vnto the that I haue sent the: after that thou hast broughte the people out of Egipte, ye shall serue God vppon this mountayne. 13 Than sayde Moses vnto God: when I come vnto the childern of Israell and saye vnto them, the God of youre fathers hath sent me vnto you, ad they saye vnto me, what ys his name, what answere shall I geuethem? 14 Then sayde God vnto Moses: I wilbe what I wilbe: ad he sayde, this shalt thou saye vnto the children of Israel: I wilbe dyd send me to you.
I like his spelling of “I will be” as “I wilbe”.
The following is an example of how we need to consider each word. The word “churches” is simply an incorrect translation. This should read “temples”.
Acts 19:37 (KJV): For ye have brought hither these men, which are neither robbers of churches, nor yet blasphemers of your goddess.
Most scholars recognise that the following is spurious and is omitted in most modern translations, but retained in the NKJV.
1 John 5:7 (KJV): For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
Kind regards
Trevor
You have done well in learning English as a second language. I am not sure what Filipino language you speak as there may be 19 different ones, but I understand that Tagalog is one of the most generally accepted and used. Is there a good Tagalog translation, and is it based on the KJV or some other English or Spanish Bible? One of the problems that we encounter is when we have a person from another country and they are reading the Bible and at the same time learning English. For example we have a Vietnamese and a Chinese, and they have sufficient difficulty learning simple English, without initially adding the burden of KJV English.
The following are a few additional comments on the KJV. I personally prefer the KJV, but recommend that we should be aware of some of the limitations of this translation. I also appreciate some of the improvements of the Old Testament portion of the RV. The Revisers of the OT portion were careful to maintain the KJV wherever possible, unlike the NT Revisers. Nowhere in the OT portion is the rhythm and beauty of the KJV spoiled. There are many corrections to the OT and also better translations, for example, the translation of Job is improved. Another improvement of the RV is the distinction made between prose and poetry in such books as the Psalms and portions of the prophets.
Most translations and commentators accept the present tense of Exodus 3:14 “I am that I am”. But notice in the margin of the RV and RSV, an alternative is given “I will be that I will be” or “I will be what I will be”, showing that some scholars suggest this alternative reading. Although not popular it appears that this future tense is the correct translation. Even Tyndale translated this in the future tense.
Exodus 3:12-14 (Tyndale): 12 And he sayde: I wilbe with the. And this shalbe a token vnto the that I haue sent the: after that thou hast broughte the people out of Egipte, ye shall serue God vppon this mountayne. 13 Than sayde Moses vnto God: when I come vnto the childern of Israell and saye vnto them, the God of youre fathers hath sent me vnto you, ad they saye vnto me, what ys his name, what answere shall I geuethem? 14 Then sayde God vnto Moses: I wilbe what I wilbe: ad he sayde, this shalt thou saye vnto the children of Israel: I wilbe dyd send me to you.
I like his spelling of “I will be” as “I wilbe”.
The following is an example of how we need to consider each word. The word “churches” is simply an incorrect translation. This should read “temples”.
Acts 19:37 (KJV): For ye have brought hither these men, which are neither robbers of churches, nor yet blasphemers of your goddess.
Most scholars recognise that the following is spurious and is omitted in most modern translations, but retained in the NKJV.
1 John 5:7 (KJV): For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
Kind regards
Trevor
Greetings!
This will be my last post on the thread and no meant to offend. Still, I see confusion on your statement. Forgive me, but let me explain from what you wrote especially the bold ones and how funny it may seem.
"If you enjoy the KJV, fine, but don't foist it on others. The KJV language was outdated back in 1611! There's absolutely no need to use this translation today"
1. Foist-You specifically used the word not knowing that is a 16th century word. Am I sounding a trick? Check facts first.
2. Language- is a 13th century word. Sounds obsolete!
3.Outdated - also a 17 century word. Archaic right, but you use them.
4.absolutely -is a late 14th century word meaning completely. I see how you look down of God's Word. You have need to learn from history.
5.need- is an old English from the late 14th ce meaning to be under obligation. Whew!
6.use- is used as of 1200 AD.
7. translation - is a mid 14 ce
8. today - you didn't even expect that this was already used even in 1300's.
Still though you have your choice on the Version you wish to like, but never put down God's Word! Truth is absolute and the Word is absolutely correct. May the Word of God correct us not to correct them especially only by virtue of the your called "arhaism". Shallow.
Blessings on you,
This will be my last post on the thread and no meant to offend. Still, I see confusion on your statement. Forgive me, but let me explain from what you wrote especially the bold ones and how funny it may seem.
"If you enjoy the KJV, fine, but don't foist it on others. The KJV language was outdated back in 1611! There's absolutely no need to use this translation today"
1. Foist-You specifically used the word not knowing that is a 16th century word. Am I sounding a trick? Check facts first.
2. Language- is a 13th century word. Sounds obsolete!
3.Outdated - also a 17 century word. Archaic right, but you use them.
4.absolutely -is a late 14th century word meaning completely. I see how you look down of God's Word. You have need to learn from history.
5.need- is an old English from the late 14th ce meaning to be under obligation. Whew!
6.use- is used as of 1200 AD.
7. translation - is a mid 14 ce
8. today - you didn't even expect that this was already used even in 1300's.
Still though you have your choice on the Version you wish to like, but never put down God's Word! Truth is absolute and the Word is absolutely correct. May the Word of God correct us not to correct them especially only by virtue of the your called "arhaism". Shallow.
Blessings on you,
S
I read the ESV or the NASB due to clarity, use of contemporary language, and the fact that it considers earlier manuscript evidence. Yes, I favor modern translations.
I suggest reading the book KJV Only Controversy by James White for a good overview on this issue.
The originals were copied over and over again by hand. Copying errors became part of the copies, which are the manuscript evidence. Words were misspelled or omitted..sometimes entire lines or sections. Sometimes marginal notes by the owners of the manuscripts were included in the text of the subsequent copies inadvertently. The cumulative effect of these things causes much of the issues with later manuscripts.
The KJV is based on the Textus Receptus Greek New Testament, created by Erasmus, and modified by Stephanus and Beza. The Textus Receptus was based on relatively few, LATER manuscripts available to Erasmus in the 1500's.
The newer translations, including ESV, are based on the Nestle Aland Greek New Testament. The Nestle Aland includes a lot more manuscript evidence of EARLIER origin, plus the manuscript evidence available to Erasmus. So, it is more inclusive and also is of an earlier nature, meaning that copying errors should be less.
Certain sections of Scripture are not part of the earlier manuscript evidence and thus were probably later additions, maybe from marginal notes. A good example of this is the Comma Johanneum, which is widely understood to be an addition from the Latin Vulgate rather than manuscript evidence. Many Christians quote this to "prove" the Trinity but there was little or no manuscript evidence to support its inclusion. Besides this, the Trinity can be proven systematically without this verse. The long ending for Mark 16 is another example. This reading is not reflected in the earlier manuscripts, and also contains wording which has been used to support a lot of bad doctrine, including snake handling and poison drinking.
Anyways, in brief the issue is that the modern translations consider earlier manuscript evidence which is less corrupted. KJV only guys will claim that this manuscript evidence came from Alexandria, which was a hotbed of heresy and that these manuscripts reflect this. However, proof of that is lacking.
In addition, there were grammatical constructs such as the Granville Sharp rule that the KJV translators didn't understand, which help to accentuate the deity of Christ in many passages.
KJV translators did a great job but the work is dated.
The biggest, most disturbing issue is that "traditionalists" want younger Christians to be burdened with reading a Bible that has archaic language and is problematic. The stumblingblock that this creates is ridiculous. It simply creates another layer of difficulty in reading the Bible for them. They have to read the Bible with a dictionary next to them to look up archaic words. And, in many cases, the words differ in usage between the two different time periods, the seventeenth century and the modern era, so such differences in usage would go unnoticed and lead to a wrong interpretation. For example, the way we use the word "conversation" now and the way the KJV era people used it is very different.
Traditionalists will always exist though..if time goes on long enough, those who favor ESV will probably be railing against the next update. This same type of conversation occurred with translations prior to the KJV amongst traditionalists and those who favored the updates. White covers this in his book.
I suggest reading the book KJV Only Controversy by James White for a good overview on this issue.
The originals were copied over and over again by hand. Copying errors became part of the copies, which are the manuscript evidence. Words were misspelled or omitted..sometimes entire lines or sections. Sometimes marginal notes by the owners of the manuscripts were included in the text of the subsequent copies inadvertently. The cumulative effect of these things causes much of the issues with later manuscripts.
The KJV is based on the Textus Receptus Greek New Testament, created by Erasmus, and modified by Stephanus and Beza. The Textus Receptus was based on relatively few, LATER manuscripts available to Erasmus in the 1500's.
The newer translations, including ESV, are based on the Nestle Aland Greek New Testament. The Nestle Aland includes a lot more manuscript evidence of EARLIER origin, plus the manuscript evidence available to Erasmus. So, it is more inclusive and also is of an earlier nature, meaning that copying errors should be less.
Certain sections of Scripture are not part of the earlier manuscript evidence and thus were probably later additions, maybe from marginal notes. A good example of this is the Comma Johanneum, which is widely understood to be an addition from the Latin Vulgate rather than manuscript evidence. Many Christians quote this to "prove" the Trinity but there was little or no manuscript evidence to support its inclusion. Besides this, the Trinity can be proven systematically without this verse. The long ending for Mark 16 is another example. This reading is not reflected in the earlier manuscripts, and also contains wording which has been used to support a lot of bad doctrine, including snake handling and poison drinking.
Anyways, in brief the issue is that the modern translations consider earlier manuscript evidence which is less corrupted. KJV only guys will claim that this manuscript evidence came from Alexandria, which was a hotbed of heresy and that these manuscripts reflect this. However, proof of that is lacking.
In addition, there were grammatical constructs such as the Granville Sharp rule that the KJV translators didn't understand, which help to accentuate the deity of Christ in many passages.
KJV translators did a great job but the work is dated.
The biggest, most disturbing issue is that "traditionalists" want younger Christians to be burdened with reading a Bible that has archaic language and is problematic. The stumblingblock that this creates is ridiculous. It simply creates another layer of difficulty in reading the Bible for them. They have to read the Bible with a dictionary next to them to look up archaic words. And, in many cases, the words differ in usage between the two different time periods, the seventeenth century and the modern era, so such differences in usage would go unnoticed and lead to a wrong interpretation. For example, the way we use the word "conversation" now and the way the KJV era people used it is very different.
Traditionalists will always exist though..if time goes on long enough, those who favor ESV will probably be railing against the next update. This same type of conversation occurred with translations prior to the KJV amongst traditionalists and those who favored the updates. White covers this in his book.
S
The KJV isn't the standard and is not inerrant. The autographs or original writings are. That's a fundamental error KJV Only guys make. The originals were without error. Errors crept into the manuscript copies.
By examining all the manuscript evidence, though, we can come up with a highly accurate representation of what the originals said...beyond 99 percent accurate.
No, I don't believe the KJV is error-free. Some silly KJVers claim that God even corrected the original Greek/Hebrew when the KJV was created.
In addition, they rely on authority figures with no credentials in the original languages. The two main proponents are Gail Replinger and Peter Ruckman. I don't see how people can take 'authorities" like Gail Replinger and Peter Ruckman seriously.
Gail has degrees in home economics, interior design, and something else..I forget..yet she puts herself out there as an expert on the Bible without original language training. Ruckman believes nonsense like the CIA implanting brain transmitters in the minds of the elderly, mentally infirmed and black people. He believes in reptilian aliens that disguise themselves as human beings.
Pretty funny
By examining all the manuscript evidence, though, we can come up with a highly accurate representation of what the originals said...beyond 99 percent accurate.
No, I don't believe the KJV is error-free. Some silly KJVers claim that God even corrected the original Greek/Hebrew when the KJV was created.
In addition, they rely on authority figures with no credentials in the original languages. The two main proponents are Gail Replinger and Peter Ruckman. I don't see how people can take 'authorities" like Gail Replinger and Peter Ruckman seriously.
Gail has degrees in home economics, interior design, and something else..I forget..yet she puts herself out there as an expert on the Bible without original language training. Ruckman believes nonsense like the CIA implanting brain transmitters in the minds of the elderly, mentally infirmed and black people. He believes in reptilian aliens that disguise themselves as human beings.
Pretty funny
The KJV isn't the standard and is not inerrant. The autographs or original writings are. That's a fundamental error KJV Only guys make. The originals were without error. Errors crept into the manuscript copies.
By examining all the manuscript evidence, though, we can come up with a highly accurate representation of what the originals said...beyond 99 percent accurate.
No, I don't believe the KJV is error-free. Some silly KJVers claim that God even corrected the original Greek/Hebrew when the KJV was created.
In addition, they rely on authority figures with no credentials in the original languages. The two main proponents are Gail Replinger and Peter Ruckman. I don't see how people can take 'authorities" like Gail Replinger and Peter Ruckman seriously.
Gail has degrees in home economics, interior design, and something else..I forget..yet she puts herself out there as an expert on the Bible without original language training. Ruckman believes nonsense like the CIA implanting brain transmitters in the minds of the elderly, mentally infirmed and black people. He believes in reptilian aliens that disguise themselves as human beings.
Pretty funny
By examining all the manuscript evidence, though, we can come up with a highly accurate representation of what the originals said...beyond 99 percent accurate.
No, I don't believe the KJV is error-free. Some silly KJVers claim that God even corrected the original Greek/Hebrew when the KJV was created.
In addition, they rely on authority figures with no credentials in the original languages. The two main proponents are Gail Replinger and Peter Ruckman. I don't see how people can take 'authorities" like Gail Replinger and Peter Ruckman seriously.
Gail has degrees in home economics, interior design, and something else..I forget..yet she puts herself out there as an expert on the Bible without original language training. Ruckman believes nonsense like the CIA implanting brain transmitters in the minds of the elderly, mentally infirmed and black people. He believes in reptilian aliens that disguise themselves as human beings.
Pretty funny