Let's Return to the Old Paths
- Thread starter Twisted
- Start date
RAIDER said:
I'd have to say "yes" -- it doesn't do much good for God to give mankind His words and then not bother to preserve them.
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2012
- Messages
- 4,013
- Reaction score
- 10
- Points
- 38
RAIDER said:
Translations are interpretations by their very nature, they can not be word for word, unless the one language has words that correspond identically in the other.
The Bible languages do not translate into English on a one to one basis.
The only word for word Bibles today would be in Hebrew Aramaic or Greek.
My problem with "word for word" inspiration is that oftentimes parallel passages don't agree.
Did Jesus pray "forgive us our debts (opheilema)" or "forgive us our sins (harmatia)."
Many quotations of Christ our similar, but not recounted word for word in differing gospels. OT passages are also not quoted directly from their source, even with differing translations from Hebrew to Greek.
I do believe God inspired thoughts and recollections along with divine doctrine, but I don't believe in a "dictation" style of inspiration. However, I also believe the Bible is exactly what God wants it to be.
Did Jesus pray "forgive us our debts (opheilema)" or "forgive us our sins (harmatia)."
Many quotations of Christ our similar, but not recounted word for word in differing gospels. OT passages are also not quoted directly from their source, even with differing translations from Hebrew to Greek.
I do believe God inspired thoughts and recollections along with divine doctrine, but I don't believe in a "dictation" style of inspiration. However, I also believe the Bible is exactly what God wants it to be.
RAIDER said:
Can you define the term? I agree with this statement: The Received and Masoretic Text is the preserved Greek and Hebrew Text and the Authorized Bible is the only accurate and authoritative translation in English from this text.
I have also read various publications of the Dean Burgon society; I tend to agree with them that calling the KJV "inspired" in this day and time creates confusion, with teachings like Ruckman and Riplinger about.
- Joined
- May 14, 2014
- Messages
- 525
- Reaction score
- 42
- Points
- 28
cpizzle said:
That is all that matters. Do I hold in my hand the very words of God as He intends me to have them? I do as preserved by the Holy Ghost and as interpreted and taught by the Holy Ghost into my heart. That is all that matters. That is the final say on all of it. I think the KJV is the Word of God and where I get stuck, I use the scripture to help and where I still cannot find conclusion to a matter, I use Old English Dictionaries or Greek and Hebrew Lexicons and still if there is no conclusion, I will read faithful men's opinions on the matter and if there is still no conclusion, then maybe there isn't one in this life or maybe it will be revealed at a later time. I may peek at another version as commentary. They may be more enlightening they may not be but I do have plenty of evidence that for the English Speaking people the KJV has proven itself to be a faithful witness to the truth by its sheer work in peoples' lives as being powerful, transformational and alive and it has been the source of the words that I have hid in my heart so other version just don't speak to me the same way.
I really doubt that John Bunyan or even a Charles Spurgeon agonized and hand wrung over their Bibles as we do today. I think men of God were just happy and blessed to have one.
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2012
- Messages
- 5,190
- Reaction score
- 55
- Points
- 48
JMHO: I honestly believe the plethora of bibles really does dilute the power and truth that is the Word of God.
Whatever you may think, the versions DON'T say the same thing in many verses nor do they always expressthe same idea, especially when some some of the translations either omit entire passages or place the comment: "This verse is not found in the most ancient manuscripts." in the footnotes.
These differences often cause confusion, doubt, or place the reader at the mercy of a Bible scholar who understands Greek, Hebrew and textual history.
In my soul winning experiences, I have heard many times "Why are there so many versions of the Bible" as an excuse not to believe the Bible at all.
At best, the soup has been watered down so that the taste has been weakened.
At worst, the nutritional value has been totally compromised and becomes of little desire or value to the potential partaker.
Whatever you may think, the versions DON'T say the same thing in many verses nor do they always expressthe same idea, especially when some some of the translations either omit entire passages or place the comment: "This verse is not found in the most ancient manuscripts." in the footnotes.
These differences often cause confusion, doubt, or place the reader at the mercy of a Bible scholar who understands Greek, Hebrew and textual history.
In my soul winning experiences, I have heard many times "Why are there so many versions of the Bible" as an excuse not to believe the Bible at all.
At best, the soup has been watered down so that the taste has been weakened.
At worst, the nutritional value has been totally compromised and becomes of little desire or value to the potential partaker.
16KJV11 said:
All true -- plus, the multiplicity of versions is very discouraging to memorizing Scripture. What's the point of memorizing a verse if another version just says something different?
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2012
- Messages
- 4,013
- Reaction score
- 10
- Points
- 38
16KJV11 said:
I would rather base my opinion on the writings of the Translators of the AV1611. Miles Smith (one of the final editors along with Bilson, Bancroft was dead before the translation was finished) spoke for them:
"Neither did we think much to consult the Translators or Commentators, Chaldee, Hebrew, Syrian, Greek or Latin, no nor the Spanish, French, Italian, or Dutch; neither did we disdain to revise that which we had done, and to bring back to the anvil that which we had hammered: but having and using as great helps as were needful, and fearing no reproach for slowness, nor coveting praise for expedition, we have at length, through the good hand of the Lord upon us, brought the work to pass that you see."
They quote Augustine, "..Variety of translations is profitable for finding out the sense of the Scriptures..."
The translators themselves thought it was profitable to consult a variety of translations.
Notice they did not rely on only one source for their translation. Why should we?
How can we depend on only one translation when the translators of the AV1611, which so many nearly worship, consulted any number of versions and copies?
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2012
- Messages
- 4,013
- Reaction score
- 10
- Points
- 38
Bill Combs does a nice job of detailing the serious problems with the KJVO position in this 15 page pdf.
http://www.dbts.edu/journals/1996_2/Preface.pdf
Bill writes, "This preface is primarily a defense of the new translation, but it also provides important information about the translators? views on the subject of Bible translation as well as giving the purpose for their new version. It is most unfortunate that this preface is no longer included in modern copies of the KJV, especially since
the viewpoints expressed in the preface are clearly at odds with the modern King James-only movement."
Anyone who believes what Miles Smith wrote can not possibly be KJVO.
The unfortunate thing is, that most people do not care enough to carefully read it and comprehend it. They will never know what Miles Smith believed about the Bible.
http://www.dbts.edu/journals/1996_2/Preface.pdf
Bill writes, "This preface is primarily a defense of the new translation, but it also provides important information about the translators? views on the subject of Bible translation as well as giving the purpose for their new version. It is most unfortunate that this preface is no longer included in modern copies of the KJV, especially since
the viewpoints expressed in the preface are clearly at odds with the modern King James-only movement."
Anyone who believes what Miles Smith wrote can not possibly be KJVO.
The unfortunate thing is, that most people do not care enough to carefully read it and comprehend it. They will never know what Miles Smith believed about the Bible.
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2012
- Messages
- 9,131
- Reaction score
- 1,145
- Points
- 113
Twisted said:
The answer to my question on the other Ruckman thread.
??????
If it was good enough for William Shakespeare, it's good enough for me!
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2012
- Messages
- 4,013
- Reaction score
- 10
- Points
- 38
Baptist City Holdout said:
Shakespeare was nearly done with his writing when the 1611 Church of England Bible would have been generally available to people outside of churches.
Which English Bible Did Shakespeare Use?
With a multiplicity of English Bibles on the scene as the sixteenth century unfolded, it naturally becomes relevant to ask which of them Shakespeare used. As far back as 75 years ago, it became accepted that up to 1598 Shakespeare's biblical references were primarily to the Bishops' Bible, but after that to the Geneva Bible. - See more at: http://www.reformation21.org/articles/shakespeare-and-the-geneva-bible.php#sthash.dvWAG2ua.dpuf
bgwilkinson said:
I think we may be comparing apples and oranges; all of the translations (except for the Catholic Bible) followed the standard text, so it wasn't a matter of "this verse isn't in 'the oldest copies'", or having doubt cast upon the authenticity. It is interesting to read the Geneva Bible alongside of the AV. In my opinion, the AV did a better job, but yes, how different people translate a word is very helpful.
But modern Bibles aren't even translations in the usual sense -- the Living Bible was one man's paraphrase, and several of the modern translators use dynamic equivalence... so they will translate "Behold the baby seal of God, which takes away the sin of the world" for coastal cultures. This is not translation, and isn't helpful when trying to understand a passage.
The Message is another one with bizzare phrasing: "You're here to be light, bringing out the God-colors in the world" -- what!?!?!?!
Our church does not call itself IFB. We are Independent, Bible Believing.
In my opinion, there are 2 kinds of Bible believers:
1. Those who believe God must have given us a perfect (define how you please) Bible that is still available to us today in a final, understandable form. Hence, the KJB.
2. Those who believe God inspired the original writers and that a perfect Bible still exists in the multitude of preserved manuscripts. Through diligent study we can determine what the original writers transcribed by comparing, contrasting, accepting, and eliminating various differences.
Although I hold to the first option by faith, logic, and study, I still consider those of the 2nd opinion true Bible Believers and in no way inferior to myself.
In my opinion, there are 2 kinds of Bible believers:
1. Those who believe God must have given us a perfect (define how you please) Bible that is still available to us today in a final, understandable form. Hence, the KJB.
2. Those who believe God inspired the original writers and that a perfect Bible still exists in the multitude of preserved manuscripts. Through diligent study we can determine what the original writers transcribed by comparing, contrasting, accepting, and eliminating various differences.
Although I hold to the first option by faith, logic, and study, I still consider those of the 2nd opinion true Bible Believers and in no way inferior to myself.
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2012
- Messages
- 4,013
- Reaction score
- 10
- Points
- 38
Here is a helpful little book that sheds an abundance of light on the myths and wishful thinking of the KJVO position.
I highly recommend it for even casual study of the scriptures.
It is helpful in understanding the many additions to the text of the 16th century Bibles arising out of the Latin Vulgate.
One good well known example is the Comma Johanneum.
Here is a quote from Metzgers commentary.
Quote:
5:7?8 ????????????, 8 ?? ?????? ??? ?? ???? ??? ?? ???? {A}
After ???????????? the Textus Receptus adds the following: ?? ?? ??????, ? ?????, ? ?????, ??? ?? ????? ??????? ??? ????? ?? ????? ?? ????. (8) ??? ????? ????? ?? ???????????? ?? ?? ??. That these words are spurious and have no right to stand in the New Testament is certain in the light of the following considerations.
(A) EXTERNAL EVIDENCE. (1) The passage is absent from every known Greek manuscript except eight, and these contain the passage in what appears to be a translation from a late recension of the Latin Vulgate. Four of the eight manuscripts contain the passage as a variant reading written in the margin as a later addition to the manuscript. The eight manuscripts are as follows:
61:
codex Montfortianus, dating from the early sixteenth century.
88v.r.:
a variant reading in a sixteenth century hand, added to the fourteenth-century codex Regius of Naples.
221v.r.:
a variant reading added to a tenth-century manuscript in the Bodleian Library at Oxford.
429v.r.:
a variant reading added to a sixteenth-century manuscript at Wolfenb?ttel.
636v.r.:
a variant reading added to a sixteenth-century manuscript at Naples.
918:
a sixteenth-century manuscript at the Escorial, Spain.
2318:
an eighteenth-century manuscript, influenced by the Clementine Vulgate, at Bucharest, Rumania.
(2) The passage is quoted by none of the Greek Fathers, who, had they known it, would most certainly have employed it in the Trinitarian controversies (Sabellian and Arian). Its first appearance in Greek is in a Greek version of the (Latin) Acts of the Lateran Council in 1215.
(3) The passage is absent from the manuscripts of all ancient versions (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Arabic, Slavonic), except the Latin; and it is not found (a) in the Old Latin in its early form (Tertullian Cyprian Augustine), or in the Vulgate (b) as issued by Jerome (codex Fuldensis [copied A.D. 541?46] and codex Amiatinus [copied before A.D. 716]) or (c) as revised by Alcuin (first hand of codex Vallicellianus [ninth century]).
The earliest instance of the passage being quoted as a part of the actual text of the Epistle is in a fourth century Latin treatise entitled Liber Apologeticus (chap. 4), attributed either to the Spanish heretic Priscillian (died about 385) or to his follower Bishop Instantius. Apparently the gloss arose when the original passage was understood to symbolize the Trinity (through the mention of three witnesses: the Spirit, the water, and the blood), an interpretation that may have been written first as a marginal note that afterwards found its way into the text. In the fifth century the gloss was quoted by Latin Fathers in North Africa and Italy as part of the text of the Epistle, and from the sixth century onwards it is found more and more frequently in manuscripts of the Old Latin and of the Vulgate. In these various witnesses the wording of the passage differs in several particulars. (For examples of other intrusions into the Latin text of 1 John, see 2.17; 4.3; 5.6, and 20.)
(B) INTERNAL PROBABILITIES. (1) As regards transcriptional probability, if the passage were original, no good reason can be found to account for its omission, either accidentally or intentionally, by copyists of hundreds of Greek manuscripts, and by translators of ancient versions.
(2) As regards intrinsic probability, the passage makes an awkward break in the sense.
For the story of how the spurious words came to be included in the Textus Receptus, see any critical commentary on 1 John, or Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, pp. 101 f.; cf. also Ezra Abbot, ?I. John v. 7 and Luther?s German Bible,? in The Authorship of the Fourth Gospel and Other Critical Essays (Boston, 1888), pp. 458?463.
Metzger, B. M., United Bible Societies. (1994). A textual commentary on the Greek New Testament, second edition a companion volume to the United Bible Societies? Greek New Testament (4th rev. ed.) (pp. 647?649). London; New York: United Bible Societies.
https://www.amazon.com/Textual-Commentary-Greek-Testament-Ancient/dp/1598561642/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1493635751&sr=8-1&keywords=metzger+textual+commentary+greek+new+testament
Also available in Logos.
https://www.logos.com/product/2190/a-textual-commentary-on-the-greek-new-testament
I highly recommend it for even casual study of the scriptures.
It is helpful in understanding the many additions to the text of the 16th century Bibles arising out of the Latin Vulgate.
One good well known example is the Comma Johanneum.
Here is a quote from Metzgers commentary.
Quote:
5:7?8 ????????????, 8 ?? ?????? ??? ?? ???? ??? ?? ???? {A}
After ???????????? the Textus Receptus adds the following: ?? ?? ??????, ? ?????, ? ?????, ??? ?? ????? ??????? ??? ????? ?? ????? ?? ????. (8) ??? ????? ????? ?? ???????????? ?? ?? ??. That these words are spurious and have no right to stand in the New Testament is certain in the light of the following considerations.
(A) EXTERNAL EVIDENCE. (1) The passage is absent from every known Greek manuscript except eight, and these contain the passage in what appears to be a translation from a late recension of the Latin Vulgate. Four of the eight manuscripts contain the passage as a variant reading written in the margin as a later addition to the manuscript. The eight manuscripts are as follows:
61:
codex Montfortianus, dating from the early sixteenth century.
88v.r.:
a variant reading in a sixteenth century hand, added to the fourteenth-century codex Regius of Naples.
221v.r.:
a variant reading added to a tenth-century manuscript in the Bodleian Library at Oxford.
429v.r.:
a variant reading added to a sixteenth-century manuscript at Wolfenb?ttel.
636v.r.:
a variant reading added to a sixteenth-century manuscript at Naples.
918:
a sixteenth-century manuscript at the Escorial, Spain.
2318:
an eighteenth-century manuscript, influenced by the Clementine Vulgate, at Bucharest, Rumania.
(2) The passage is quoted by none of the Greek Fathers, who, had they known it, would most certainly have employed it in the Trinitarian controversies (Sabellian and Arian). Its first appearance in Greek is in a Greek version of the (Latin) Acts of the Lateran Council in 1215.
(3) The passage is absent from the manuscripts of all ancient versions (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Arabic, Slavonic), except the Latin; and it is not found (a) in the Old Latin in its early form (Tertullian Cyprian Augustine), or in the Vulgate (b) as issued by Jerome (codex Fuldensis [copied A.D. 541?46] and codex Amiatinus [copied before A.D. 716]) or (c) as revised by Alcuin (first hand of codex Vallicellianus [ninth century]).
The earliest instance of the passage being quoted as a part of the actual text of the Epistle is in a fourth century Latin treatise entitled Liber Apologeticus (chap. 4), attributed either to the Spanish heretic Priscillian (died about 385) or to his follower Bishop Instantius. Apparently the gloss arose when the original passage was understood to symbolize the Trinity (through the mention of three witnesses: the Spirit, the water, and the blood), an interpretation that may have been written first as a marginal note that afterwards found its way into the text. In the fifth century the gloss was quoted by Latin Fathers in North Africa and Italy as part of the text of the Epistle, and from the sixth century onwards it is found more and more frequently in manuscripts of the Old Latin and of the Vulgate. In these various witnesses the wording of the passage differs in several particulars. (For examples of other intrusions into the Latin text of 1 John, see 2.17; 4.3; 5.6, and 20.)
(B) INTERNAL PROBABILITIES. (1) As regards transcriptional probability, if the passage were original, no good reason can be found to account for its omission, either accidentally or intentionally, by copyists of hundreds of Greek manuscripts, and by translators of ancient versions.
(2) As regards intrinsic probability, the passage makes an awkward break in the sense.
For the story of how the spurious words came to be included in the Textus Receptus, see any critical commentary on 1 John, or Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, pp. 101 f.; cf. also Ezra Abbot, ?I. John v. 7 and Luther?s German Bible,? in The Authorship of the Fourth Gospel and Other Critical Essays (Boston, 1888), pp. 458?463.
Metzger, B. M., United Bible Societies. (1994). A textual commentary on the Greek New Testament, second edition a companion volume to the United Bible Societies? Greek New Testament (4th rev. ed.) (pp. 647?649). London; New York: United Bible Societies.
https://www.amazon.com/Textual-Commentary-Greek-Testament-Ancient/dp/1598561642/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1493635751&sr=8-1&keywords=metzger+textual+commentary+greek+new+testament
Also available in Logos.
https://www.logos.com/product/2190/a-textual-commentary-on-the-greek-new-testament
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2012
- Messages
- 4,013
- Reaction score
- 10
- Points
- 38
Twisted said:
Here is what the "Old Paths" Baptists of England that lived during the 1600s believed concerning the Scriptures.
This is during a time when they could've been jailed and executed for their beliefs. Can you say Bishop Laud?
This succinctly states my opinion.
Quote:
1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith
Chapter 1: Of the Holy Scriptures
1. The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible1 rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience, although the 2light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men inexcusable; yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God and his will which is necessary unto salvation.3 Therefore it pleased the Lord at sundry times and in divers manners to reveal himself, and to declare that his will unto his church; and afterward for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan, and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto4 writing; which maketh the Holy Scriptures to be most necessary, those former ways of God's revealing his will unto his people being now ceased.
12 Timothy 3:15-17; Isaiah 8:20; Luke 16:29, 31; Ephesians 2:20; 2Romans 1:19-21; Romans 2:14,15; Psalms 19:1-3; 3Hebrews 1:1; 4Proverbs 22:19-21; Romans 15:4; 2 Peter 1:19,20
2. Under the name of Holy Scripture, or the Word of God written, are now contained all the books of the Old and New Testaments, which are these,
Of the Old Testament.
Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, I Samuel, II Samuel, I Kings, II Kings, I Chronicles, II Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, The Song of Solomen, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations,Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi
Of the New Testament.
Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, The Acts of the Apostles, Paul's Epistle to the Romans, I Corinthians, II Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, I Thessalonians, II Thessalonians, I Timothy, II Timothy, To Titus, To Philemon, The Epistle to the Hebrews, Epistle of James, The first and second Epistles of Peter, The first, second, and third Epistles of John, The Epistle of Jude, The Revelation. All of which are given by the5 inspiration of God, to be the rule of faith and life.
52 Timothy 3:16
3. The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of6 divine inspiration, are no part of the canon (or rule) of the Scripture, and, therefore, are of no authority to the church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved or made use of than other human writings.
6Luke 24:27, 44; Romans 3:2
4. The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or church, but wholly upon7 God who is truth itself, the author thereof; therefore it is to be received because it is the Word of God.
72 Peter 1:19-21; 2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Thessalonians 2:13; 1 John 5:9
5. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the church of God to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scriptures; and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, and the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole which is to give all glory to God, the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, and many other incomparable excellencies, and entire perfections thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God; yet not withstanding, our8 full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.
8 John 16:13,14; 1 Corinthians 2:10-12; 1 John 2:20, 27
6. The whole counsel of God concerning all things9 necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down or necessarily contained in the Holy Scripture; unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelation of the Spirit, or traditions of men.
Nevertheless, we acknowledge the11 inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word, and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be12 ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.
92 Timothy 3:15-17; Galatians 1:8,9; 11John 6:45; 1 Corinthians 2:9-12; 121 Corinthians 11:13, 14; 1 Corinthians 14:26,40
7. All things in Scripture are not alike13 plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed and observed for salvation, are so14 clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of ordinary means, may attain to a sufficient understanding of them.
132 Peter 3:16; 14Psalms 19:7; Psalms 119:130
8. The Old Testament in15 Hebrew which was the native language of the people of God of old, and the New Testament in Greek which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations, being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore16 authentic; so as in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal to them17. But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have a right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded in the fear of God to read18 and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they19 come, that the Word of God dwelling20 plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner, and through patience and comfort of the Scriptures may have hope.
15Romans 3:2; 16Isaiah 8:20; 17Acts 15:15; 18John 5:39; 191 Corinthians 14:6, 9, 11, 12, 24, 28; 20Colossians 3:16
9. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the21 Scripture itself; and therefore when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture which is not manifold, but one, it must be searched by other places that speak more clearly.
212 Peter 1:20, 21; Acts 15:15, 16
10. The supreme judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Scripture delivered by the Spirit, into which24 Scripture so delivered, our faith is finally resolved.
21Matthew 22:29, 31, 32; Ephesians 2:20; Acts 28:23
http://www.reformedreader.org/ccc/1689lbc/english/Chapter01.htm
Notice they depended on the Scriptures (number 8 ) in the original languages not on any version or translation.
This is a far better position than having to defend any one version.
BG:
I appreciate your knowledge of the subject.
Out of curiosity, of the modern English translations, which do you believe to be the most accurate and closest to the originals? Do you believe the KJ is one of the better translations or inferior to modern scholarship.
I appreciate your knowledge of the subject.
Out of curiosity, of the modern English translations, which do you believe to be the most accurate and closest to the originals? Do you believe the KJ is one of the better translations or inferior to modern scholarship.
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2012
- Messages
- 4,013
- Reaction score
- 10
- Points
- 38
cpizzle said:
I do not like to seem adversarial to any translation made by sincere genuine Bible Scholars. I do not like to criticize the New World Translation even though I believe it has deliberately inserted erroneous readings meant to support Jehovah's Witnesses' false doctrine. I.e. the diminution and denial of Christ's deity.
With that being said I believe that my mother's choice of versions, The AS1901 is the most accurate of the 20th century translations.
Here is one of her ASV 1901 Bibles. She was a Greek and Latin teacher. Her pastor when she lived in Minneapolis during the 30s and 40s was W. B. Riley who often called it the rock of biblical honesty.
During the 70s and 80s I carried to church the NASB 1971. I have outlines of Bro. Hyles sermons from that period in one that is now just a collection of unbound pages. It is also very accurate and true to the original languages.
I now carry to church a beautiful leather bond ESV 2001. It carries on the wonderful tradition of English Bible translations.
https://www.amazon.com/Reformation-Study-Bible-Genuine-Leather/dp/1567695043/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1493645515&sr=8-2&keywords=reformation+study+bible
CLASSIC REFERENCE BIBLE
CROSSWAY BIBLES
A PUBLISHING MINISTRY OF
GOOD NEWS PUBLISHERS
WHEATON, ILLINOIS
The Classic Reference Edition, English Standard Version? (ESV?)
Copyright ? 2001 by Crossway Bibles,
a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers
All rights reserved.
The Holy Bible, English Standard Version
Copyright ? 2001 by Crossway Bibles,
a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers
All rights reserved.
ESV? Text Edition? (2016)
Book Introductions, Center-Column Cross-Reference System (as adapted), and ESV Concordance, copyright ? 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. The ESV Cross-Reference System is adapted from the original English Revised Version cross-reference system.
The ESV text may be quoted (in written, visual, or electronic form) up to and inclusive of one thousand (1,000) verses without express written permission of the publisher, providing that the verses quoted do not amount to a complete book of the Bible nor do the verses quoted account for 50 percent or more of the total text of the work in which they are quoted.
The ESV text may be quoted for audio use (audio cassettes, CDs, audio television) up to two hundred fifty (250) verses without express written permission of the publisher providing that the verses quoted do not amount to a complete book of the Bible nor do the verses quoted account for 50 percent or more of the total text of the work in which they are quoted.
Notice of copyright must appear as follows on the title page or copyright page of printed works quoting from the ESV, or in a corresponding location when the ESV is quoted in other media:
?Scripture quotations are from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version?, copyright ? 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.?
When more than one translation is quoted in printed works or other media, the foregoing notice of copyright should begin as follows:
?Unless otherwise indicated, all Scripture quotations are from ? [etc.]?; or, ?Scripture quotations marked (ESV) are from ? [etc.].?
The ?ESV? and ?English Standard Version? are registered trademarks of Good News Publishers. Use of either trademark requires the permission of Good News Publishers.
When quotations from the ESV text are used in non-saleable media, such as church bulletins, orders of service, posters, transparencies, or similar media, a complete copyright notice is not required, but the initials (ESV) must appear at the end of the quotation.
Publication of any commentary or other Bible reference work produced for commercial sale that uses the English Standard Version must include written permission for use of the ESV text.
Permission requests that exceed the above guidelines must be directed to Good News Publishers, Attn: Bible Rights, 1300 Crescent Street, Wheaton, IL 60187, USA.
Permission requests for use within the UK and EU that exceed the above guidelines must be directed to: HarperCollins Religious, 77?85 Fulham Palace Road, Hammersmith, London W6 8JB, England.
The Holy Bible, English Standard Version (ESV) is adapted from the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, copyright Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A. All rights reserved.
Library of Congress Catalog Number 2001004285
Published by Good News Publishers
Wheaton, Illinois 60187, U.S.A.
www.GoodNewsPublishers.org
Good News Publishers (including Crossway Bibles) is a not-for-profit publishing ministry that exists solely for the purpose of publishing the Good News of the Gospel and the Truth of God?s Word, the Bible. A portion of the purchase price of every ESV Bible is donated to The Standard Bible Society to help support the distribution of the ESV Bible around the world.
The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.