Support for Other Versions

[Binaca Chugger]

My choice is both preference and a knowledge of the biblical languages.

Are you looking for a dogmatism from our side that equates to the polar opposite of the KJVO?

Yes!  For all of the hate against the kjv, what documentation shows the greater accuracy of another version?  Why should someone swutch to a different version?  What makes a different version better?  Surely there is an argument beyond preference, isnt there?

First of all... no one hates the KJV. We show the KJVO, using the KJV, that their beliefs are wrong.

Okay.  Good to know and understood.  Is your position against the denial of other translations, secondary inspiration, salvation only through the KJV, all of the above or something else?

Second, stay with the KJV if you like. I have given you arguments, beyond preference, why I use the NIV.

  You stated preference and Biblical languages.  Preference is personal and hardly academic.  I am not a linguist.  Since I do not know you on a personal level, I have no knowledge concerning your linguistic ability.  Can you present in summary, why the translation of your preferred version is more accurate?  I gotta be honest, I want the most accurate version.

Third, you will not find an equal dogmatism on our side. We have not erected a myth to constrain the consciences of others.

I get what you are saying.  The KJVO IFB crowd has drawn a line in the sand and some even proclaim that a "statement of faith for salvation" coming from any other translation will automatically condemn one to hell.  Obviously, this is heresy.  People were saved before 1611.  The issue has become a banner that many in the IFB ranks love to fly because they have no other means by which to represent their attachment to the "old paths."  Your statement is well worded.

However, surely you have a reason that your preferred translation is at least equally correct.  When we discuss the KJV, we talk about source documents and translators and revisions and purpose for each correction in each revision.  We discuss where the source documents came from and what happened to them when the work was completed.  All of this is very important to the KJVP and the KJVO crowd.

Is your preferred version, whatever that may be, a work to simply modernize terminology, or was it constructed from texts that you believe to be superior or by superior translators?  This is the type of information I am looking for.

Fourth, why is a preference for a particular version not enough reason?

Because I don't trust my preference.  My preferences will often lead me to sin.  I no longer base my decision or doctrine on that with which I am familiar.  Just because I grew up in FBCH doesn't mean that I should conduct a church that way (please - no).  Also, just because someone grew up with a particular version does not mean he should continue in it. 

Again.  I have seen many arguments for why the KJV is the best translation.  What is the argument for any other version? 

 

[Binaca Chugger]

Does anyone have a history of the ESV?  This translation seems to be becoming more popular as I speak with pastors in different churches.  What is it about this version that has people finally abandoning the NIV?

 

[Ransom]

What is it about this version that has people finally abandoning the NIV?

It was begun in the 1990s, due to a perceived need for a new essentially literal translation of the Bible in the middle ground between the NIV and NASB. (It's been humorously described as "the NASB without the semicolons.") It received a great deal of impetus after the backlash over the inclusive-language revision of the NIV that was published in the UK, and was basically the first major English translation to be published after (and following) the Colorado Springs guidelines on gender-specific language.

The list of translators and advisors reads like a who's who of evangelical scholarship, including names such as J. I. Packer, Moises Silva, William Mounce, Vern Poythress, Craig Blomberg, Wayne Grudem, Al Mohler, John Piper, and many more - over a hundred in all. The other versions in common use are not lacking in the scholarship department, mind you, but I think the ESV had more scholarly support, on the whole. I imagine that its popularity has a lot to do with its scholarly base: with such a large group of high-profile evangelicals working on it, I'm sure virtually anyone can take someone's participation as an endorsement!

 

[bibleprotector]

J. I. Packer, Moises Silva, William Mounce, Vern Poythress, Craig Blomberg, Wayne Grudem, Al Mohler, John Piper, and many more

These names indicate small "m" modernists, and do not give any credibility to a Bible version that they have worked upon. Theologically speaking, a person like John Piper is at the other end of the spectrum when it comes to doctrine.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=rsc2a]Honestly, can you say this

O ye Corinthians, our mouth is open unto you, our heart is enlarged. Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels. Now for a recompence in the same, (I speak as unto my children,) be ye also enlarged.

...is just as understandable as this...

We have spoken freely to you, Corinthians, and opened wide our hearts to you. 12 We are not withholding our affection from you, but you are withholding yours from us. 13 As a fair exchange—I speak as to my children—open wide your hearts also.

...to the vast majority of English-speakers today?

Actually, that's not a fair question. If you say yes, I'll point blank ask why you insist on being dishonest or deliberately naive, and if you say no, I'll ask why you don't want people to have a Bible in a language they can understand.

To me, this is not a sufficient answer to support why another version is more accurate than any other.  This is your "go to" passage each time versions are discussed.  My rebuttal is that there are many passages in any version that are difficult to understand by the casual reader of the Bible.  If we are only going to base our decision on which version we read by which is the least challenging, we should probably stick to the Brick Bible.  On second thought, that one frequently uses the term yahweh, so, it too, should be pushed aside.  You see, I am afraid that this line of reasoning will result in a Bible that never challenges the intellect or the heart.

I am not looking to discuss which version is the easiest for someone to read.  I want to know why you choose the version you personally utilize.  What credentials does it have?  Why is the translation better?[/quote]

Of course it's my go to verse. It's shows what I see as the inherent problem with the KJV. It's not an issue of whether there are complex theological theological terms and ideas. Those are going to be in any of the translations. It's a problem with the basic language and grammar. The English used in the KJV is different from that used today.

One can just as easily have a translation that "challenges the intellect or the heart" without having to learn an archaic language as well, because it's not the "enlarge your bowels" that is so challenging to us; it is the "love your neighbor" part that is.

And, if the issue is that the reader is being to "casual" (to use your terms) and you want accuracy (again, your word) over everything, then everyone should be required to learn Greek and not use a translation at all. Congratulations...you've just brought back the Inquisition.

What is the best translation for a person to use? The one they will read.

 

[Binaca Chugger]

What is it about this version that has people finally abandoning the NIV?

It was begun in the 1990s, due to a perceived need for a new essentially literal translation of the Bible in the middle ground between the NIV and NASB. (It's been humorously described as "the NASB without the semicolons.") It received a great deal of impetus after the backlash over the inclusive-language revision of the NIV that was published in the UK, and was basically the first major English translation to be published after (and following) the Colorado Springs guidelines on gender-specific language.

The list of translators and advisors reads like a who's who of evangelical scholarship, including names such as J. I. Packer, Moises Silva, William Mounce, Vern Poythress, Craig Blomberg, Wayne Grudem, Al Mohler, John Piper, and many more - over a hundred in all. The other versions in common use are not lacking in the scholarship department, mind you, but I think the ESV had more scholarly support, on the whole. I imagine that its popularity has a lot to do with its scholarly base: with such a large group of high-profile evangelicals working on it, I'm sure virtually anyone can take someone's participation as an endorsement!

Thanks!  Here is a good start.  So, we see the why and the who.  We see the endorsements and the recent completion as part of the reason for the recent move.  But, what about historical citations?  What references did they use that were supposed to be superior to the works used by the KJV translators?

 

[Binaca Chugger]

A quick thanks to everyone posting for keeping this normally "hot" topic very civil.

 

[subllibrm]

My choice is both preference and a knowledge of the biblical languages.

Are you looking for a dogmatism from our side that equates to the polar opposite of the KJVO?

Yes! For all of the hate against the kjv, what documentation shows the greater accuracy of another version?  Why should someone swutch to a different version?  What makes a different version better?  Surely there is an argument beyond preference, isnt there?

Where? Who hates the KJV?

 

[qwerty]

I consider myself KJVP. I do on occasion use the ESV and enjoy it. The main reason that I prefer and stick with the KJV is because of memorization. All the verses/chapters that I have memorized are KJV. I just find it distracting and confusing to do my regular reading and studying with something else.

 

[logos1560]

Just one example of a clearer, better, or more accurate rendering in another translation when compared to the preserved Scriptures in the original languages would demonstrate that the KJV is not a perfect translation and that the English Bible could be improved or made better.

If the KJV was actually completely superior to all other translations or is claimed to be perfect, it should stand out as having the very best and most accurate rendering for every original language word of every verse. 

No sound case has been made by the exclusive acceptance of the fallible textual criticism decisions and fallible translation decisions of any one exclusive group of imperfect translators.

 

[logos1560]

    Translators/interpreters do not give authority to the prophets and apostles who were given the Scriptures by the miracle of direct inspiration.  Translators do not give authority to the original language words given by inspiration of God.  Translators are men under the authority of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages (Matt. 8:9, Luke 7:8, Matt. 10:24, Mark 13:34, John 13:16).  Besides God, translators are also accountable to something else prior to themselves [the texts which they translate].  The work of translators is clearly derivative.  The words of men’s wisdom and scholarship in translating do not give authority to the actual words in the original languages given directly by the Holy Spirit to the prophets and apostles.  The body of Christ or believers do not give authority to the Scriptures by accepting or approving them.  A translation does not give or lend authority to the Scriptures in the original languages that God gave by inspiration to the prophets and apostles. The original language words from above given by inspiration to the prophets and apostles are above or greater in authority than the translation decisions of men (John 3:31, John 3:34, Isa. 45:9, Matt. 10:24, John 13:16).  Which is greater:  a translation or the underlying source or sources of the translation?  Which is greater: the actual original language words that God gave by inspiration to the prophets and apostles or the different words chosen by translators to try to present the meaning in a different language?  Can a translation be more pure and have more authority than that from which it was made or translated (Job 4:17, Rom. 11:18)?  Are not the words given directly by God greater in authority than the choices of men in translating (Job 33:12, Job 4:17, Matt. 4:4)? Shall a translation say to the ones that fashion it and to the sources from which it was made that it is superior (Isa. 45:9)?

How can a supposed "lesser" authority [the preserved Scriptures in the original languages] according to the KJV-only view make a translation of itself into a supposed "greater" authority than itself?  How can a branch [any translation] of the KJV-only view’s tree have "greater" authority than the vine, tree, or root [the preserved Scriptures in the original languages] (John 15:1-6, Rom. 11:16-18)?  The branch did not bear or produce the root since the root and tree produced the branch (Rom. 11:18).  It would seem to be unscriptural to boast for one branch in claiming that it is the final authority and to boast in effect against the root since the root bears the branch (Rom. 11:18). 

   

 

[Ransom]

These names indicate small "m" modernists, and do not give any credibility to a Bible version that they have worked upon.

What was it I've been saying about "modernism"? Oh yeah: you can't define it and have no idea what you're talking about.

Empty talker and deceiver. Shut your mouth (Titus 1:11).

 

[bibleprotector]

    Translators/interpreters do not give authority to the prophets and apostles who were given the Scriptures by the miracle of direct inspiration.  Translators do not give authority to the original language words given by inspiration of God.  Translators are men under the authority of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages (Matt. 8:9, Luke 7:8, Matt. 10:24, Mark 13:34, John 13:16).  Besides God, translators are also accountable to something else prior to themselves [the texts which they translate].  The work of translators is clearly derivative.  The words of men’s wisdom and scholarship in translating do not give authority to the actual words in the original languages given directly by the Holy Spirit to the prophets and apostles.  The body of Christ or believers do not give authority to the Scriptures by accepting or approving them.  A translation does not give or lend authority to the Scriptures in the original languages that God gave by inspiration to the prophets and apostles. The original language words from above given by inspiration to the prophets and apostles are above or greater in authority than the translation decisions of men (John 3:31, John 3:34, Isa. 45:9, Matt. 10:24, John 13:16).  Which is greater:  a translation or the underlying source or sources of the translation?  Which is greater: the actual original language words that God gave by inspiration to the prophets and apostles or the different words chosen by translators to try to present the meaning in a different language?  Can a translation be more pure and have more authority than that from which it was made or translated (Job 4:17, Rom. 11:18)?  Are not the words given directly by God greater in authority than the choices of men in translating (Job 33:12, Job 4:17, Matt. 4:4)? Shall a translation say to the ones that fashion it and to the sources from which it was made that it is superior (Isa. 45:9)?

How can a supposed "lesser" authority [the preserved Scriptures in the original languages] according to the KJV-only view make a translation of itself into a supposed "greater" authority than itself?  How can a branch [any translation] of the KJV-only view’s tree have "greater" authority than the vine, tree, or root [the preserved Scriptures in the original languages] (John 15:1-6, Rom. 11:16-18)?  The branch did not bear or produce the root since the root and tree produced the branch (Rom. 11:18).  It would seem to be unscriptural to boast for one branch in claiming that it is the final authority and to boast in effect against the root since the root bears the branch (Rom. 11:18). 

 

The perfection of the KJB is an argument for the perfection of the original autographs.

Mt 12:30 He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.

The KJB is the gathered form of what was scattered from the Autographs.

Therefore, the KJB does not have greater authority than the Autographs, but is the exact representation of them, but in English, in one volume, for the world.

 

[subllibrm]

The perfection of the KJB is an argument for the perfection of the original autographs.

Mt 12:30 He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.

The KJB is the gathered form of what was scattered from the Autographs.

Therefore, the KJB does not have greater authority than the Autographs, but is the exact representation of them, but in English, in one volume, for the world.

It wouldn't matter which translation you used here, you have managed to hit some kind of low mark for misapplication.

 

[bibleprotector]

The perfection of the KJB is an argument for the perfection of the original autographs.

Mt 12:30 He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.

The KJB is the gathered form of what was scattered from the Autographs.

Therefore, the KJB does not have greater authority than the Autographs, but is the exact representation of them, but in English, in one volume, for the world.

It wouldn't matter which translation you used here, you have managed to hit some kind of low mark for misapplication.

The spiritual principle or law, as stated by Jesus, does indeed apply to "textual criticism". This application is also evident by other statements in the context of that passage.

Seeing that modern translations by their very nature state that they are imperfect, they therefore cannot bring forth good fruit as it were. Again, the fact that all modernists agree that perfection is impossible is not a sign for truth, because even Satan's kingdom is in unity, or else it would collapse.

 

[Citadel of Truth]

If you do not use a KJV, which version is your main version for reading, study and preaching?  Why do you choose this version?

I'm coming late to the party so, if someone already brought out this point, I apologize.

I use the NKJV almost exclusively. The main reason is that it is based on the same texts as was the KJV only in a language that people today can understand. There are no doctrines eliminated or even weakened in the NKJV. No verses are omitted. It has maintained the literary style that I had grown accustomed to with the KJV. 

 

[Izdaari]

I have a pretty extensive Bible collection, all the major translations and quite a few of the minor ones.

My primary study Bible is the New Interpreter's Study Bible, NRSV with Apocrypha. The translation is the one favored by most mainline/liberal seminaries. Since I'm Episcopalian and ELCA Lutheran, those are my "homies". The commentary is extensive and scholarly, and not leaning too much to the conservative or liberal sides.

My handy carry Bible is a Cambridge Pitt-Minion ESV, or any of the ones on my Kindle.

I like any and all of the RSV family of translations. That includes RSV, RSV-CE, NRSV and ESV. All of them are "mostly literal" but with some compromise for the sake of good modern English and readability, which IMO is how it should be.

I'm also fond of N.T. Wright's recent New Testament translation, The Kingdom New Testament.

I don't believe there is a "best" translation. All translations by their nature involve judgement calls and compromises. But all these I've mentioned are scholarly and well respected for accuracy, as well as very readable without being "dumbed down". I don't really think you can improve on them so far as scholarship, though I have no problem with someone having a different preference for various reasons.

 

[subllibrm]

The perfection of the KJB is an argument for the perfection of the original autographs.

Mt 12:30 He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.

The KJB is the gathered form of what was scattered from the Autographs.

Therefore, the KJB does not have greater authority than the Autographs, but is the exact representation of them, but in English, in one volume, for the world.

It wouldn't matter which translation you used here, you have managed to hit some kind of low mark for misapplication.

The spiritual principle or law, as stated by Jesus, does indeed apply to "textual criticism". This application is also evident by other statements in the context of that passage.

Seeing that modern translations by their very nature state that they are imperfect, they therefore cannot bring forth good fruit as it were. Again, the fact that all modernists agree that perfection is impossible is not a sign for truth, because even Satan's kingdom is in unity, or else it would collapse.

And the translators of the KJV said the very same thing of their work. Hundreds of years after the fact someone "discovered" heretofore unclaimed perfection in the KJV. One would think that the guys doing the perfect work would have had some inkling of that "fact".

What is really weird to me is that you claim to have some ability to sort through all the various iterations of "perfection" and declare the perfectest of the perfect. In the best case scenario, hubris is the word that comes to mind. The KJV translators didn't think as highly of themselves as you think of yourself.

 

[bgwilkinson]

The perfection of the KJB is an argument for the perfection of the original autographs.

Mt 12:30 He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.

The KJB is the gathered form of what was scattered from the Autographs.

Therefore, the KJB does not have greater authority than the Autographs, but is the exact representation of them, but in English, in one volume, for the world.

It wouldn't matter which translation you used here, you have managed to hit some kind of low mark for misapplication.

The spiritual principle or law, as stated by Jesus, does indeed apply to "textual criticism". This application is also evident by other statements in the context of that passage.

Seeing that modern translations by their very nature state that they are imperfect, they therefore cannot bring forth good fruit as it were. Again, the fact that all modernists agree that perfection is impossible is not a sign for truth, because even Satan's kingdom is in unity, or else it would collapse.

And the translators of the KJV said the very same thing of their work. Hundreds of years after the fact someone "discovered" heretofore unclaimed perfection in the KJV. One would think that the guys doing the perfect work would have had some inkling of that "fact".

What is really weird to me is that you claim to have some ability to sort through all the various iterations of "perfection" and declare the perfectest of the perfect. In the best case scenario, hubris is the word that comes to mind. The KJV translators didn't think as highly of themselves as you think of yourself.

^^^^what he said^^^^

 

[Binaca Chugger]

So, I am listening to a sermon on Mark 13:37.  The fellow is using the ESV which tell us to "Stay Awake."  I am following along in my KJV (Pause for a hearty Bless Gaw-awd! and begin to think "Watch" and "Stay Awake" mean two very different things.  The fellow was speaking on the Advent and went on to share that this passage is really telling us to "Watch."  The message focused on the KJV word "Watch."

All the while, I am sitting there just thinking: "So much for better translation with more understandable words."  Why not just use the version that accurately portrays the principle?