Professor wants all to read one Bible

indystar/religion news service ^ | 012404 | Douglas Todd

[DallasMike]

And in the same vein, the 23rd Psalm. It looses something when its not quoted with Elizabethan "poetic feel" as you call it. The KJV 23rd Psalm is majestic. I love it.

That's great -- I love the KJV version of the 23rd Psalm, too. But it's a huge leap from saying that a translation is good to claiming that it's the only translation that is free from error.

Here are some questions for you. Which KJV edition is the one that's free from error: The one printed in 1611 or ones printed later? And who is the correct publisher of the "free from error" KJV? The different editions from different years and different publishers vary, you know. And what about spelling changes? Does your King James Version use the phrase "Iefus Chrift?" If not, then the Bible you have is different from the original KJV!

I suggest that you read Is Your Modern Translation Corrupt?, which scripter was kind enough to point to (I already had the link in my Favorites menu). There are plenty of other sites as well which should put the King James Only issue to a well-deserved rest.

[New Horizon]

Uniroyal.
Universal.
Uniroyal.
Unibomber.
Unibible.

It all makes sense now.

[gitmo]

TRANSLATION is the key word here. Paraphrased versions can, and do, go way off track.

I agree. Paraphrased versions are comparable to commentaries. But I have found on a number of occasions getting some new insight from a paraphrase 'bible'. You just have to validate the commentators' opinions.

Surprisingly, the one that seems to clue me in on stuff I had always missed is the Picture Bible. I read it to my kids. I see stuff in there that I think diverges from the true text. But when I investigate, I see that their depiction is often a different but valid interpretation of the text.

[scripter]

It really grieves my spirit when I see issues like this arise among the saints. Folks mean well, that's about all I should say.

I really like the 23^rd Psalm in the KVJ myself. It's a fine translation, it's just not my favorite.

There are plenty of other sites as well which should put the King James Only issue to a well-deserved rest.

The White article is my favorite as it summarizes the problem the best, as I see it. Here's one I also enjoy: The King James Only Resource Center. My freeper profile usually has a reference to both links.

I have some net friends who are KJVO and enjoy their friendship, and I also have friends who aren't KJVO but prefer the KJV. Because of that I try to avoid these threads as they're rarely productive and my time is better spent elsewhere.

[sasportas]

You are preaching to the choir by addressing this to scriptor. You two are in the same camp.

You misunderstand me. My argument is about conflating the Greek text, not English editions. Call me an exclusivist if you will, I am against eclecticism.

Aren't you an exclusivist? You do believe that Christ is the only way, truth, and the life don't you? Then why are you exclusivist about that, but eclect when it comes to the scripture?

[gitmo]

Have you ever read the book, Understanding the Difficult Words of Jesus by David Bivin & Roy Blizzard? The authors did a direct translation of the New Testament from the Greek and Aramaic into Hebrew, and suddenly a lot of the confusing texts made perfect sense. They were Hebrew idioms. (English idioms are phrases like, "killing time", "hit the ceiling", "eat your heart out". Imagine if we read in the Bible we were supposed to eat our hearts!)

The popular wisdom has always been that the books were written in Greek & Aramaic, and that the historians of the time were confused when they stated the Gospels were originally written in Hebrew. The authors give a lot of extra-Biblical and Biblical evidence for the Gospels being written in Hebrew and later transliterated into Greek.

Some of the texts that appear to be obvious in Hebrew are:

Luke 22:31 "For if they do these things in a green tree, what shall be done in the dry?" According to this author, this was Jesus declaring himself Messiah.

Matthew 11:12 "From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence and the violent take it by force."

Luke 12: 49-50 "I am come to send fire on the earth; and what will I, if it be already kinkled? But I have a baptism to be baptised with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished!"

I've not seen any critiques of the works of the Center for Judaic-Christian Studies and would be interested to know what researchers think of their work.

[InvisibleChurch]

when cheddar goes New Age

[Fifth Business]

For those curious about what distinguishes the ESV from NIV, NASB, and esp. RSV:

http://www.bible-researcher.com/esv.html

[Paulus Invictus]

And that language is...what? The extant versions NT were written in Greek, parts in Aramaic and minor portions posibly in Hebrew. Modern translations are extremely difficult to do because we do not have the exact word meanings in those ancient tongues. In ancient Greek (koine), there are a number of scriptures that can be interpreted in more than one way. Example: when Jesus said, :"Be ye therefore perfect" in Matthew 5:48, did he mean "be ye therefore fulfilled or complete as the Greek word teleio means? Makes a big difference sometimes. Did Matthew write the original version in Greek? Good question.

[joesbucks]

I think we may be playing with words. My intent was to say that he never made a statement as to which Jewish sect or leader was right as since he arrived they were all incorrect. He had fulfilled the prophecy. They had not recognized that.

[stands2reason]

Are you saying Hebrew is God's language?

[Dataman]

I can't seem to tear myself away from the NASB. However, so long as there is genuine discipleship and correct doctrine, I can live with just about any translation. What good would the best translation do a body that breeds heresy, theology lite or health and wealth?

[BibChr]

NASB is a good one to be stuck with! The 1995 update is disappointing, though; a step in the direction of the (pah! faugh!) NIV.

Dan

[Genesis defender]

Y'alls cheese has slid off your cracker.

So you believe we must have crackers with our cheese? It sounds like you've elevated crackers to the same snack level as cheese.

Crackers are NOT the co-redeemer of the Blessed Snack Time.

[madison10]

He needs to mind his own business. I'll read whatever translation/version/paraphrase I feel like reading.

Soon he'll have the Word in the hands of only those who "know" again, as in the Dark Ages.

[apackof2]

Thanks, I should proof read before I post

[apackof2]

Thanks, dpa5923 caught it also

[dpa5923]

Read my post. I need to proof read as well.

[4himinct]

Are you saying Hebrew is God's language?

Uh, where did you get that from? Did I say that? Do you speak Hebrew or read a Hebrew Bible?

God's language is way above anything we could understand, so He spoke to people in their language and had them write down what He said. And He had them translate it after Jesus died, not "make different versions" of what He said. Nor did He ever say He would do such a thing with any peoples. You ever hear of a "New Internation Version" which Moses used? David ? Solomon? Jesus?

No, I said that in ENGLISH the AV is the Bible God used to preserve His Word and words. And only that one translation in ENGLISH, no other English version is a translation. Period. There is preservation of words versus versions of ideas (not preservation) called interpretation. In Hebrew it is the Masoretic Text (not even fully preserved-no originals exist), in Greek the Textus Receptus (not even fully preserved-no originals exist). In English, the Authorized Version, perfectly preserved. In Spanish, the Reina-Valera, perfectly, etc...

And you and I speak English, not Hebrew.

His,
Bob Z.