Poll Question: Which Translation?

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Poll Question: Which Translation?

    Which translation(s) do you use most offten?
    37
    KJV
    37.84%
    14
    NKJV
    5.41%
    2
    NAS
    10.81%
    4
    NIV
    21.62%
    8
    NET Bible
    2.70%
    1
    RSV
    5.41%
    2
    NRS
    0%
    0
    ESV
    32.43%
    12
    TLB
    0%
    0
    HCSB
    2.70%
    1

    #2
    However, I do not limit myself to only the ESV. I like the NET Bible, the NAS, and the RSV.
    Comment>

      #3
      The KJV Bible could almost be considered a religion in itself. I've met many who insist the KJV is the only real Bible. I could not possibly disagree more.

      The KJV has some grave defects, primarily due to the textual format written in "Shakespeare style" english. Many verses of scripture can be easily misinterpreted in the KJV. This version is misleading in many other ways as well. The KJV is actually a very poor translation.
      Comment>

        #4
        Originally posted by Solo4God View Post
        The KJV Bible could almost be considered a religion in itself. I've met many who insist the KJV is the only real Bible. I could not possibly disagree more.

        The KJV has some grave defects, primarily due to the textual format written in "Shakespeare style" english. Many verses of scripture can be easily misinterpreted in the KJV. This version is misleading in many other ways as well. The KJV is actually a very poor translation.

        Those who have made the KJV by far the most popular translation of all time would disagree with your assessment. The KJV is beautifully written by some of the best translators at the time. The KJV is on the short list of reference Bibles for any English-speaking Christian, even more than 400 years after it was produced.

        Yes, many KJV verses are easily misinterpreted. But, many modern Bibles are deliberately mistranslated (Political Correctness) by people who think they can improve upon God's word. Just about all modern Bibles are translated from texts that might as well have been produced by Unbelievers (inarguably so for the Masoretic text, easily argued for the Critical text).
        Comment>

          #5
          Originally posted by Solo4God View Post
          The KJV Bible could almost be considered a religion in itself. I've met many who insist the KJV is the only real Bible. I could not possibly disagree more.

          The KJV has some grave defects, primarily due to the textual format written in "Shakespeare style" english. Many verses of scripture can be easily misinterpreted in the KJV. This version is misleading in many other ways as well. The KJV is actually a very poor translation.
          I wouldn't say for anyone to only read the King James but I am King James preferred because the word of God should be free and the other versions have a copyright that is enforceable..
          The KJV is a literal Bible although it is hard to get word for word.
          There is an assumption that the Catholics were burning the word of God because they knew which manuscript family was the word of God.

          The King James is the only Bible that has had revival and the NIV and other Bibles haven't seen revival. Some would argue that the Geneva bible has seen revival but who reads the Geneva bible today?

          The ESV is really the RSV which is overseen by the Vatican and a fee was paid to the National Council of Churches. The ESV has about 80,000 changes from the RSV but there are still some errors carried over from the RSV. The General Editor to the ESV was J.I. Packer and he signed "Evangelicals and Catholics Together" and the majority of translators behind the ESV are Calvinists. The ESV is too new and I don't feel ecumenical. From what I've seen, I will stick with my King James version.

          The reason churches switched from the NIV to the ESV was because there was an attempt to bring gender inclusive language to future versions of the NIV.

          I'm aware that people don't argue for the manuscripts behind the KJV in seminary anymore but there are apologetic reasons why I favor the KJ over other versions and there is internal content which is the reason I favor the King James version and in defending the Bible against Bart Ehrman style arguments, I have found from other pastors and books that some of the scholarship that is believed today is wrong.

          Did Shakespeare translate the King James Bible?
          No. The translation project was a large-scale effort by many of the best known clergymen and scholars of the day, whose expertise was in language and theology. The King James Bible was produced through regular, detail-intensive meetings, often dealing with one very small portion of the Bible at a time, over several years -- the very opposite of the fast-paced, commercial world of the theater.
          In addition, many Puritan leaders, including some of the King James Bible translators, believed that the stage was inherently sinful, and would never have considered a playwright as a colleague. From a modern perspective, the King James Bible and Shakespeare’s works are, among other things, literary masterpieces from about the same period. At the time, however, the two enterprises that produced them -- and those concerned in each -- existed in fundamentally different professional worlds.
          The styles of the King James Bible and Shakespeare’s plays also are quite far apart. The text of the King James Bible is compact, concrete and minimal in vocabulary, while Shakespeare’s plays are expansive and full of metaphors, with a very large vocabulary. This is in part because the goal of the King James Bible translators was strict word-for-word accuracy, not literary excellence in the modern sense.
          King James Bible: Myths and Realities | News | University of Wyoming

          HOW TO CHOOSE A STUDY BIBLE
          by John R. Kohlenberger III

          Link
          Comment>

            #6
            Originally posted by Chuckt View Post
            Some would argue that the Geneva bible has seen revival but who reads the Geneva bible today?
            Me. But I must admit, I purchased it and also use a free version on Esword for the Bible Study notes. Initially, I wanted to know what drove King James into a frenzy, and why he viewed these notes of the early Reformers as a threat to his reign.
            Comment>

              #7
              Originally posted by William View Post

              Me. But I must admit, I purchased it and also use a free version on Esword for the Bible Study notes. Initially, I wanted to know what drove king James into a frenzy, and why he viewed these notes of the early Reformers as a threat to his reign.
              His Kingship and authority.

              Comment>

                #8
                Just found this little write up:

                But it was not just that the Geneva Bible came from the republican, Presbyterian city of Geneva. It was much more. For King James, such an ecclesiology was evident in the annotations of the GB itself. McGrath has led the way in this regard, giving several examples of annotations upon texts King James disapproved of.[35] The annotations challenged the “divine right of kings,” a doctrine advocated by King James (cf. True Law of Free Monarchies of 1598; Basilikon Doron of 1598). As he says in Basilikon Doron, “God gives not Kings the style of Gods in vain, For on his throne his Sceptre do they sway; And as their subject ought them to obey, So Kings should fear and serve their God again.” The divine right of kings was foundational to monarchy. However, certain texts and annotations in the GB, which we must consider, undermined such a doctrine.

                (1) Daniel 6:22 is an example of Daniel disobeying the King and being approved by God in so doing. The text states, “My just cause and uprightness in this thing in which I was charged, is approved by God.” The GB comments, “For he disobeyed the king’s wicked commandment in order to obey God, and so he did no injury to the king, who ought to command nothing by which God would be dishonoured.”

                (2) Daniel 11:36 is a second text where the king is viewed as a tyrant. Notice the comment, “So long the tyrants will prevail as God has appointed to punish his people: but he shows that it is but for a time.” Surely, the political application to the sixteenth and early seventeenth century is impossible to ignore. Like Israel, God’s people, the Puritans were also being punished for their iniquities by wicked rulers. However, in due time, God would bring down the king. McGrath observes that the “Genevan notes regularly use the word ‘tyrant’ to refer to kings; the King James Bible never uses this word–a fact noted with approval as much as relief by many royalists at this point.”[36]

                (3) Exodus 1:19 is yet a third example where Pharaoh wickedly commands the Hebrew midwives to kill all male Hebrew newborns. The midwives refused and even lied saying the “Hebrew women are not as the Egyptian women; for they are lively, and are delivered ere the midwives come in unto them.” The GB says that their disobedience in this act was lawful (though it qualifies that their deception was evil). Tricking the tyrant is allowed by the law. McGrath draws the parallel to the seventeenth century, “As radical Protestant factions, such as the Puritans, began to view James as their oppressor, the suggestion that it was lawful to disobey him became increasingly welcome to Puritans and worrying to James.”[37]

                (4) 2 Chronicles 15:15-17 was yet another text with annotations King James disliked. Here King Asa discovers his own mother, Maachah, committing idolatry and so he removes her and cuts down her idol, burning it. Yet, he did not remove the high places nor kill her. The GB comments, however, that King Asa did not go far enough. He “showed that he lacked zeal, for she should have died both by the covenant… and by the law of God, but he gave place to foolish pity and would also seem after a sort to satisfy the law.” King Asa’s lack of zeal contributed to his “negligence of his officers” and “his people’s superstition.” McGrath again observes that the parallel to King James is hard to avoid. James’ mother, Mary, Queen of Scots, had been executed by Elizabeth I. Without a doubt, James would have cringed at such commentary. Moreover, the commentary is clear that even the king is subservient to the law. His own pity cannot get in the way of his religious commitments.[38]

                (5) Psalm 105:15 is the last text we will consider, “Touch not mine anointed, and do my prophets no harm.” While the GB saw the anointed here as referring to God’s people corporately, the KJV identified the anointed as the king himself. McGrath observes, “The text was thus interpreted [by the GB] in a way that made no reference whatsoever to the ‘divine right of kings.’ According to the Geneva Bible the text was actually, if anything, a criticism of kings, in that their right to harm the people of God was being absolutely denied.”[39]

                To conclude, the implication of these texts and annotations is very lucid: the king must be disobeyed if he violates the will of God and commands us to do likewise. McGrath summarizes the issue insightfully, “James I held that kings had been ordained by God to rule the nations of the world, to promote justice, and to dispense wisdom. It was, therefore, imperative that kings should be respected and obeyed unconditionally and in all circumstances. The ample notes provided by the Geneva Bible taught otherwise. Tyrannical kings should not be obeyed; indeed, there were excellent reasons for suggesting that they should be overthrown.”[40]
                Comment>

                  #9
                  Originally posted by William View Post

                  Me. But I must admit, I purchased it and also use a free version on Esword for the Bible Study notes. Initially, I wanted to know what drove king James into a frenzy, and why he viewed these notes of the early Reformers as a threat to his reign.
                  The Puritans wanted to limit the King's authority by starting Presbyteries.

                  There is a saying, "No bishop, no King!"

                  History of the Puritans under King James I - Wikipedia

                  Why do you think John Calvin fled the Pope? Because the Pope lead all of Christianity and had control.

                  Did you ever study why the Catholics created the Vatican? It is really a 20th century invention. Because there are no more Papal states.

                  Because when people read the Bible, they became their own priest.


                  What some people think started in the 20th century, secularism, actually started with te Protestant Reformation, and the allowance for "free thinkers" rather than those who had to accept domination of chuch dogma.
                  Why was education affected by the Protestant Reformation? | Yahoo Answers

                  Did you ever study the Old Deluder Act in Maryland? The Catholics argue that you could read the Bible but they would only read it in Latin. The truth is that public schools were started in America so that people could read the Bible for themselves and be separate from Catholicism.

                  The Protestant Reformation was about the just should live by faith. What is the opposite of that? Living by church dogma? Living by the King who is the head of the Church because he had a schism with the Catholic church? Obeying your priest? It is all about control.

                  During the middle ages, the heresy was your idea that you could think for yourself because you might convert me.

                  I believe in the priesthood of all believers. I don't need a pope. I don't need a king. The only king I need is Jesus.
                  Comment>

                    #10
                    Hi Chuck,

                    You may be interested in this little conversation. What is Presbyterianism?

                    A lot of people suggest that America was founded on, and utilizes a Presbyterian Government. Curious, what form of Government does your church have?
                    Comment>

                      #11
                      My first run in with an apparent wording issue between the KJV and ESV was during a bible study where we were addressing John 1:16:

                      KJV - And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace.
                      ESV - For from his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace.

                      Without turning to any Bible commentary, I had interpreted this Scripture from the KJV as Augustine had. It was based just on a subtle difference between the use of "for" rather than "upon". I later kept coming up with interpretations that were rather unique to the group and sided with Augustine. It wasn't until I purchased and began using an ESV that the Scriptures became more clearer. For example, John Calvin addresses Augustine's interpretation of John 1:16. One of the things I appreciate, he does directly address the interpretations held by others. While I believe it is an added benefit to know other schools of thought, I am sided with Calvin now on John 1:16, and concede, admitting that I was wrong.

                      John Calvin on John 1:16

                      And out of his fullness. He begins now to preach about the office of Christ, that it contains within itself an abundance of all blessings, so that no part of salvation must be sought anywhere else. True, indeed, the fountain of life, righteousness, virtue, and wisdom, is with God, but to us it is a hidden and inaccessible fountain. But an abundance of those things is exhibited to us in Christ, that we may be permitted to have recourse to him; for he is ready to flow to us, provided that we open up a channel by faith. He declares in general, that out of Christ we ought not to seek any thing good, though this sentence consists of several clauses. First, he shows that we are all utterly destitute and empty of spiritual blessings; for the abundance which exists in Christ is intended to supply our deficiency, to relieve our poverty, to satisfy our hunger and thirst. Secondly, he warns us that, as soon as we have departed from Christ, it is ill vain for us to seek a single drop of happiness, because God hath determined that whatever is good shall reside in him alone. Accordingly, we shall find angels and men to be dry, heaven to be empty, the earth to be unproductive, and, in short, all things to be of no value, if we wish to be partakers of the gifts of God in any other way than through Christ. Thirdly, he assures us that we shall have no reason to fear the want of any thing, provided that we draw from the fullness of Christ, which is in every respect; so complete, that we shall experience it to be a truly inexhaustible fountain; and John classes himself with the rest, not for the sake of modesty, but to make it more evident that no man whatever is excepted.

                      It is indeed uncertain whether he speaks generally of the whole human race, or means only those who, subsequently to the manifestation of Christ in the flesh, have been made more fully partakers of his blessings. All the godly, no doubt, who lived under the law, drew out of the same fullness; but as John immediately afterwards distinguishes between different periods, it is more probable that here he especially recommends that rich abundance of blessings which Christ displayed at his coming. For we know that under the Law the gifts of God were more sparingly tasted, but that when Christ was manifested in flesh, they were poured out, as it were, with a full hand, even to satiety. Not that any of us has obtained a greater abundance of the grace of the Spirit than Abraham did, but I speak of God’s ordinary dispensation, and of the way and manner of dispensing. John the Baptist, that he may the more freely invite his disciples to come to Christ, declares that in him is laid up for all an abundance of the blessings of which they are destitute. And yet if any one choose to extend the meaning farther, there will be no absurdity in doing so; or rather, it will agree well with the strain of the discourse, that all the fathers, from the beginning of the world, drew from Christ all the gifts which they possessed; for though the law was given by Moses, yet they did not obtain grace by it. But I have already stated what appears to me to be the preferable view; namely, that John here compares us with the fathers, so as to magnify, by means of that comparison, what has been given to us.

                      And, grace for grace. In what manner Augustine explains this passage is well known - that all the blessings which God bestows upon us from time to time, and at length life everlasting, are not granted as the reward due to our merits, but that it proceeds from pure liberality that God thus rewards former grace, and crowns his own gifts in us. This is piously and judiciously said, but has nothing to do with the present passage. The meaning would be more simple if you were to take the word for (ἀντὶ) comparatively, as meaning, that whatever graces God bestows on us, proceed equally from the same source. It might also be taken as pointing out the final cause, that we now receive grace, that God may one day fulfill the work of our salvation, which will be the fulfillment of grace. For my own part, I agree with the opinion of those who say that we are watered with the graces which were poured out on Christ; for what we receive from Christ he does not bestow upon us as being God, but the Father communicated to him what would flow to us as through a channel. This is the anointing with which he was anointed, that he might anoint us all along with him. Hence, too, he is called Christ, (the Anointed,) and we are called Christians.
                      Comment>

                        #12
                        Originally posted by William View Post
                        Hi Chuck,

                        You may be interested in this little conversation. What is Presbyterianism?

                        A lot of people suggest that America was founded on, and utilizes a Presbyterian Government. Curious, what form of Government does your church have?
                        I went to a Presbyterian Church before because my family could agree on it but they had pre, mid and post trib believers in it but I don't go there anymore because I needed more than two verses a Sunday and sunday school for adults wasn't that much better.

                        We left a Church that changed and we are trying to be nice in leaving.
                        We're in an area that doesn't have a lot of suitable Churches and some parts farther from me doesn't have churches.
                        We are going to a new Church that is strong and sound but I really haven't investigated their form of Church government yet and I have concerns even though they are strong and sound.
                        Going to church means that I have to put up with a lot of sinful things and sinful people but we went somewhere where I could put my judging down and found a lot of love and peace but it doesn't mean they are perfect because we all have heresies.
                        Comment>

                          #13
                          Originally posted by Chuckt View Post

                          I went to a Presbyterian Church before because my family could agree on it but they had pre, mid and post trib believers in it but I don't go there anymore because I needed more than two verses a Sunday and sunday school for adults wasn't that much better.

                          We left a Church that changed and we are trying to be nice in leaving.
                          We're in an area that doesn't have a lot of suitable Churches and some parts farther from me doesn't have churches.
                          We are going to a new Church that is strong and sound but I really haven't investigated their form of Church government yet and I have concerns even though they are strong and sound.
                          Going to church means that I have to put up with a lot of sinful things and sinful people but we went somewhere where I could put my judging down and found a lot of love and peace but it doesn't mean they are perfect because we all have heresies.
                          Presbyterianism really only addresses a form of church Government. Other popular forms are Episcopalian and Baptist, Calvary Chapel uses a Moses Model. Try to figure that one out!

                          Originally posted by Chuckt View Post
                          we all have heresies.
                          And that's why church Government is so important.
                          Comment>

                            #14
                            William,

                            You can probably find a text copy of "Calvary Chapel Distinctives" on the internet for free. I believe I read Chuck saying that Church boards usually make a pastor their hireling. That means they exert control over the pastor instead of the pastor leading the church. I went to a church like that; one of the elders said he was supporting the church and he hoped the church would die (because they were dependent on him) and told me that they didn't have any money for evangelism so basically the elder clipped my wings even though the pastor wanted me to move forward in the church and teach a class because the pastor wanted to start a school.

                            Its sort of like businesses. Everyone wants to be important so there was this one fortune five hundred company and they had a lot of managers so the managers wanted to look more important than they are so they start wasting the company's money by buying ten dollar pens to sit on their desk and then the corporation finds themselves in trouble so they got rid of the middle managers.

                            No matter who is in charge, there is going to be abuse because men are sinners and sinful or else Jesus wouldn't have had to die for them to go to heaven.

                            Chuck
                            Comment>

                              #15
                              Lemme address your post Chuck, and then lets get back on track according to the OP.

                              Thanks for the advice, though I am familiar and understand the Moses Model, I attended Calvary for six years. Church discipline is very important, and a church should not have people spreading heresies. Another words, if a person refuses church discipline they should not be a member of the church, and if they persist while attempting to spread a heresy throughout the body of the church, a biblical procedure should follow, like the convening of a council. In the Presbyterian system, a court type proceeding actually takes place, and one is even defended by representation of another Presby. For example, though we are Calvinist in the OPC, we invite everyone to our church but an Arminian would not be able to Evangelize/Missions by representing the church in the field. They would also be discouraged from "official" membership (though they may attend). In other areas the WCF does not address, the church is rather relaxed regarding non essential doctrines. Soteriology, however, is of the highest importance and considered essential doctrine amongst the Reformed Presbyterian churches such as the OPC.

                              The OPC Membership Vows: "A vow is of the like nature with a promissory oath, and ought to be made with the like religious care, and to be performed with the like faithfulness. It is not to be made to any creature, but to God alone: and, that it may be accepted, it is to be made voluntarily, out of faith, and conscience of duty" (Westminster Confession of Faith, XXII.5-6).
                              1. Do you believe the Bible, consisting of the Old and New Testaments, to be the Word of God, and its doctrine of salvation to be the perfect and only true doctrine of salvation?
                              2. Do you confess that because of your sinfulness you abhor and humble yourself before God, and that you trust for salvation not in yourself but in Jesus Christ alone?
                              3. Do you acknowledge Jesus Christ as your sovereign Lord and do you promise, in reliance on the grace of God, to serve him with all that is in you, to forsake the world, to mortify your old nature, and to lead a godly life?
                              4. Do you agree to submit in the Lord to the government of this church and, in case you should be found delinquent in doctrine or life, to heed its discipline? (Directory for Worship, V.5)

                              Comment>
                              Working...
                              X
                              Articles - News - SiteMap