Fundamentalist Bible Versions?

[Rebirth In Flames]

What Bible version do you use?

[jangnim]

What Bible version do you use?

New King James for basic study.
NIV for quick reads.
NLB for fun and games with small kids(easier for them to understand).

[Shane Roach]

I use the King James version, but I also use study aids, exhaustive concordance. Plus I have been using this version for years so the language does not confuse me the way some people complain.

It's not a theological point for me. I just like the King James.

[jlujan69]

KJV/AMP parallel for personal readings and KJV 1611 at church. I'm looking for a decent KJV study Bible at my local Chrisian book store. There seem to be very limited options.

[rural_preacher]

I use a KJV/NIV Parallel for preaching. I also use the NKJV a lot in Sunday School and Bible studies. I personally prefer to use the NIV for my own reading. I use a Hebrew/English - Greek/English Interlinear Bible along with Hebrew & Greek dictionaries for studying and preparing my sermons.
--

[Victorian Rose]

I use KJV, Amp, and NIV.

[twistedsketch]

NIV. Sometimes the NASB or KJV for word studies, etc.

[PaladinGirl]

I use a variety of translations depending on my mood. Most recently I have been preferring the NAB. :)

[SuperMama]

King James Version only :) I have strong opinions about false Bibles. But I shall keep 'em to myself today.

[Tiger Lily]

I used to use the Scofield Study Bible a lot, and it is a wonderful study Bible in the KJV. I wonder if they sell them anymore? Anyway, that is an option for study. I prefer the NKJV myself, but sometimes use KJV or NASB. :)

[Shane Roach]

King James Version only :) I have strong opinions about false Bibles. But I shall keep 'em to myself today.

I think you will find yourself happily in accepting company here, if not in company that fully agrees. At least, I would hope in a fundamentalist forum enough people would be familiar with the King James to be polite in discussing it.

I'm glad to seeya!

[pegatha]

For sheer poetry and beautiful language, I like the KJV.

I have strong opinions about false Bibles.

Me, too, that's why for serious study, I stick strictly to the NAS. ;)

Okay, I'm having a little bit of fun with you, SuperMama, but there's also a reason I wrote that. The church we used to go to had a wonderful fundamentalist pastor who was a very keen scholar and teacher of NT Greek. He preached exclusively from the KJV, but he would often make comments about minor errors in the translation and what the Greek really said. Every time, I'd look down at the NAS I was using, and it would incorporate the correction our pastor had just explained. And yet this pastor (who was one of the finest Bible teachers I know) insisted that the KJV was superior to the NAS. To be perfectly honest, other than those issues and the use of 17th century English instead of modern English, I can see no meaningful difference between the two translations.

[Shane Roach]

For sheer poetry and beautiful language, I like the KJV.



Me, too, that's why for serious study, I stick strictly to the NAS. ;)

Okay, I'm having a little bit of fun with you, SuperMama, but there's also a reason I wrote that. The church we used to go to had a wonderful fundamentalist pastor who was a very keen scholar and teacher of NT Greek. He preached exclusively from the KJV, but he would often make comments about minor errors in the translation and what the Greek really said. Every time, I'd look down at the NAS I was using, and it would incorporate the correction our pastor had just explained. And yet this pastor (who was one of the finest Bible teachers I know) insisted that the KJV was superior to the NAS. To be perfectly honest, other than those issues and the use of 17th century English instead of modern English, I can see no meaningful difference between the two translations.

I haven't enough experience with the NAS specifically to offer an opinion, but what I see when we have Bible lessons with pamphlets that quote from other versions that the KJV is that they often seem to have words added in that I suppose the translaters feel add to understanding but which are not actually in the Greek at all.

Come to think of it, I think I did have an NAS and that that particular translation does not suffer from that defect, so I am not sure why your pastor felt the KJV was superior. But I do say that folks need to be carefull. There are now a lot of translations out there, and especially for new Christians, it would be very easy to get a translation that might even be mildly misleading.

[jangnim]

I haven't enough experience with the NAS specifically to offer an opinion, but what I see when we have Bible lessons with pamphlets that quote from other versions that the KJV is that they often seem to have words added in that I suppose the translaters feel add to understanding but which are not actually in the Greek at all.

Come to think of it, I think I did have an NAS and that that particular translation does not suffer from that defect, so I am not sure why your pastor felt the KJV was superior. But I do say that folks need to be carefull. There are now a lot of translations out there, and especially for new Christians, it would be very easy to get a translation that might even be mildly misleading.

I think you hit it on the head bro. There are so many translations out there, all of which claim the right of scripture. To a new Christian this can be very confusing. I think we as their bretheren need to help guide these younger folks to versions that are better and more accurate. God Bless you all.

[JM]

Maintains an immovable allegiance to the inerrant, infallible, and verbally Inspired Bible;

According to the RULES BEFORE POSTING, a fundie (that's me) believes in the verbal inspiration of scripture, the words in Scripture are given to us by God.

Consistent theology would then view modern translations that use the eclectic (meaning: selecting or employing individual elements from a variety of sources) text and the eclectic text method as invalid along with dynamic (meaning: continuous change, activity, or progress) equivalence (meaning: the state or condition of being equivalent; equality) which offer a 'meaning' as opposed to a translation. The word itself is miss leading, dynamic means always moving/shifting and equivalence means the same. How can something be both? ;)

A fundie, if they're consistent, should use the most literal tranlsation from the most reliable manuscripts.

Peace

[pegatha]

I'm not sure whether this should be a separate thread or a continuation of this one, but I'll try it here for starters. My question is, which versions do you think are least reliable, and why? We can eliminate the obvious, of course (like the New World Translation/Kingdom Interlinear or the Lamsa), but what about some of the more popular new versions? Any thoughts?

[rural_preacher]

According to the RULES BEFORE POSTING, a fundie (that's me) believes in the verbal inspiration of scripture, the words in Scripture are given to us by God.

Consistent theology would then view modern translations that use the eclectic (meaning: selecting or employing individual elements from a variety of sources) text and the eclectic text method as invalid along with dynamic (meaning: continuous change, activity, or progress) equivalence (meaning: the state or condition of being equivalent; equality) which offer a 'meaning' as opposed to a translation. The word itself is miss leading, dynamic means always moving/shifting and equivalence means the same. How can something be both? ;)

A fundie, if they're consistent, should use the most literal tranlsation from the most reliable manuscripts.

Peace

This is why our final authority should be the Hebrew and Greek...not translations.


--

[Shane Roach]

I'm not sure whether this should be a separate thread or a continuation of this one, but I'll try it here for starters. My question is, which versions do you think are least reliable, and why? We can eliminate the obvious, of course (like the New World Translation/Kingdom Interlinear or the Lamsa), but what about some of the more popular new versions? Any thoughts?

I honestly don't know. I use a concordance that has the original greek and Hebrew words in it. I have used other study aids, but only online.

Very good question.

[JM]

This is why our final authority should be the Hebrew and Greek...not translations.


--

Which Hebrew and Greek mss? ;)

[jangnim]

Which Hebrew and Greek mss? ;)

Good point, at least on the Greek. I think we agree pretty much with the Jews on the Hebrew though.

[JM]

Good point, at least on the Greek. I think we agree pretty much with the Jews on the Hebrew though.

Did you know the modern verisons will use the Hebrew Masoretic text and 'fix it up a little' with other sources, such as the Septugent? Are the words inspired or just the message?

Peace

[rural_preacher]

I use the Masoretic and the Received (Textus Receptus). I treat ALL translations as translations...including the KJV. I do not consider any translation to be specially inspired or superior in any divine sense. Each one has its pros and cons.
Even the KJV contains words not found in the original languages. Every time you see a word in italics in the KJV you are reading a word that the translators put there for clarification. Such words are not in the Hebrew or Greek texts.

The five English translations that I use (always with reference to the original languages) are KJV, NKJV, NASB, NIV and J.P. Green's Literal Translation.


--

[JM]

I use the Masoretic and the Received (Textus Receptus). I treat ALL translations as translations...including the KJV. I do not consider any translation to be specially inspired or superior in any divine sense. Each one has its pros and cons.
Even the KJV contains words not found in the original languages. Every time you see a word in italics in the KJV you are reading a word that the translators put there for clarification. Such words are not in the Hebrew or Greek texts.

The five English translations that I use (always with reference to the original languages) are KJV, NKJV, NASB, NIV and J.P. Green's Literal Translation.


--

You say you use the Masoretic and TR, with the exception of the KJV, all the other translations you listed use the eclectic text and method to translate. :) Even the NKJV uses 'other' mss, that means they 'fix' what the Mas and TR have 'wrong' according to the translators.

sp

[rural_preacher]

You say you use the Masoretic and TR, with the exception of the KJV, all the other translations you listed use the eclectic text and method to translate. :) Even the NKJV uses 'other' mss, that means they 'fix' what the Mas and TR have 'wrong' according to the translators.

sp

All translations are just that...translations. No matter what manuscripts are used, they are still just translations. That includes the KJV. What manuscripts were used is irrelevant. Because they are translations, I refer back to the original languages to ensure accurate understanding of the text. For that I use what I consider to be trustworthy manuscripts...Masoretic and TR.

Exculsive use of the KJV does not protect from error. David Koresh (Branch Daividians) used the KJV and led more than 80 people to their deaths in a cult where he was believed to be Jesus Christ reincarnated. The Mormons exclusively use the KJV along with their Book of Mormon and they are leading people away from the Truth everyday.

Just because one uses the KJV does not protect them from errors and false teachings. On the other hand, I know many godly men who are doctrinely sound and preach the Word in the power of the Holy Spirit. They are leading people to Christ and training them in the Grace and Knowledge of our Lord and Savior. They are doing all that with a preference for translations other than the KJV.

I use translations as just that. But my final resting place is the original languages as presented in the Masoretic and TR.

--

[JM]

Sorry RP, I hadn't realized you were a Greek and Hebrew scholar, forgive me...the op was about versions.

As for the rest of us who can't read Greek and Hebrew, the translation DOES matter, it's all we have. Would you agree RP that a translation from what you "consider to be trustworthy manuscripts" is better then a translation from untrustworthy mss?

Peace

[rural_preacher]

Sorry RP, I hadn't realized you were a Greek and Hebrew scholar, forgive me...the op was about versions.

As for the rest of us who can't read Greek and Hebrew, the translation DOES matter, it's all we have. Would you agree RP that a translation from what you "consider to be trustworthy manuscripts" is better then a translation from untrustworthy mss?

Peace

Anyone can study the original languages using an interlinear Bible, Hebrew/Greek Dictionaries (such as those found in Strong's Concordance) and Lexicons. I am not a "Greek and Hebrew scholar". I simply recognize the importance of studying the greatest Book ever written...the Word of God. My point is that no matter what "version" we like to use (by the way, I answered the OP directly in an earlier post), we should not be content to rely on just one "version". We should strive to know and understand the Word by studying several translations and combine that with a study of the original languages. I believe every believer has the responsibility to be a serious student...not just pastors. I also realize the reality that most Christians are not serious students and choose rather to rely on their pastor to teach them. That is my constant motivation to be a serious, devoted student of the Word so that I preach the Truth consistently to my congregation.

Although I use the Masoretic and TR, I did not intend to suggest that I think other manuscripts are necessarily untrustworthy. Careful study of the manuscript issue, I think, suggests otherwise. Much of what is said to discredit translations other than the KJV and manuscripts other than the Masoretic and TR is nothing more than KJV only propaganda.

I've already stated the translations that I consider trustworthy and accurate. As I said, my use of the Mas. and TR as a final authority is not intended to suggest that I consider all other manuscripts invalid.

(Just for the record...I am not intending to try to convince you that my position is right or yours is wrong. Discussion of these matters is stimulating and interesting to me and may be "educational" to others, but I don't want you to think that I'm trying to sway you in any way. I think we're both smart enough to know that we each will continue to stand where we stand.)


--

[JM]

Back to square one:

According to the RULES BEFORE POSTING, a fundie (that's me) believes in the verbal inspiration of scripture, the words in Scripture are given to us by God.

Consistent theology would then view modern translations that use the eclectic (meaning: selecting or employing individual elements from a variety of sources) text and the eclectic text method as invalid along with dynamic (meaning: continuous change, activity, or progress) equivalence (meaning: the state or condition of being equivalent; equality) which offer a 'meaning' as opposed to a translation. The word itself is miss leading, dynamic means always moving/shifting and equivalence means the same. How can something be both? ;)

A fundie, if they're consistent, should use the most literal tranlsation from the most reliable manuscripts.

Peace

SP
PS> From your post rp, it seems you are either inconsistant in believing the verbal inspiration of Scriptures by using other manuscripts or you deny verbal inspiration...:blush:

[rural_preacher]

From your post rp, it seems you are either inconsistant in believing the verbal inspiration of Scriptures by using other manuscripts or you deny verbal inspiration.

Quite the contrary. I believe in the verbal and plenary inspiration, inerrancy and infallibility of the original autographs. We no longer have the original autographs. What we have are the manuscripts that God has sovereignly provided us through His human instruments. Such a position is completely consistent and held by a majority of fundamentalists today. The KJV only position is held by only a minority and is considered aberrant by most.


--

[jangnim]

Quite the contrary. I believe in the verbal and plenary inspiration, inerrancy and infallibility of the original autographs. We no longer have the original autographs. What we have are the manuscripts that God has sovereignly provided us through His human instruments. Such a position is completely consistent and held by a majority of fundamentalists today. The KJV only position is held by only a minority and is considered aberrant by most.


--

You go RP, you are so right. We have no originals upon which we can depend, hence the whole issue of translation. If we had the originals I think the most of these types of threads would have no merit. But since so much is reverse engineered from other translations, we really can't know the exact meaning.

Do you guy think we have exactly what God wants us to have in this regard? I think he can reveal himself in a Sear catalog if He so wishes. I'm pretty sure we get too worked up over this issue.:)

[JM]

You go RP, you are so right. We have no originals upon which we can depend, hence the whole issue of translation. If we had the originals I think the most of these types of threads would have no merit. But since so much is reverse engineered from other translations, we really can't know the exact meaning.

Do you guy think we have exactly what God wants us to have in this regard? I think he can reveal himself in a Sear catalog if He so wishes. I'm pretty sure we get too worked up over this issue.:)

I think it's best to let the last two posts stand.

SP

[AVBunyan]

I just happen to believe the King James Bible I have in my hands is inspired and perfect down to the punctuation marks - wouldn't change one word or italicized word.

God bless :wave:

[jangnim]

I just happen to believe the King James Bible I have in my hands is inspired and perfect down to the punctuation marks - wouldn't change one word or italicized word.

God bless :wave:Isn't that the whole point of faith in God? We can trust by faith what He puts in our hearts. God Bless you too.

[JM]

Will the real fundamentalists please stand up!

[pegatha]

I just happen to believe the King James Bible I have in my hands is inspired and perfect down to the punctuation marks - wouldn't change one word or italicized word.
Inspired punctuation marks... gotta admit, that's a new one for me.

Well, English is not the only language spoken by Christians. Do other languages have their own inspired translations? Or are we, as English-speakers, the only people to have been so favored?

When I think of all the language groups who have only one translation, or even just a partial translation, perhaps made by one or two missionaries laboring in the field without benefit of the latest and greatest study aids, I have to wonder why "KJV only" is such an issue in the great scheme of things. I once heard a returned missionary say that any one of our inferior translations in English is better than the only existing translation in some other languages. Not to disparage honest debate, but sometimes I think of this whole "KJV vs. The Others" issue as a luxury unique to the affluent, industrialized Western church.

[Andyman_1970]

Not to disparage honest debate, but sometimes I think of this whole "KJV vs. The Others" issue as a luxury unique to the affluent, industrialized Western church.

:amen: Instead of spending our time and energy debating translations maybe we should redirect that to being Jesus' hands and feet to the world around us - "those who have been given much, much will be required"

[jangnim]

:amen: Instead of spending our time and energy debating translations maybe we should redirect that to being Jesus' hands and feet to the world around us - "those who have been given much, much will be required"WELL SAID!!!!!!
:amen: :amen: :amen:

[jangnim]

Inspired punctuation marks... gotta admit, that's a new one for me.

Well, English is not the only language spoken by Christians. Do other languages have their own inspired translations? Or are we, as English-speakers, the only people to have been so favored?

When I think of all the language groups who have only one translation, or even just a partial translation, perhaps made by one or two missionaries laboring in the field without benefit of the latest and greatest study aids, I have to wonder why "KJV only" is such an issue in the great scheme of things. I once heard a returned missionary say that any one of our inferior translations in English is better than the only existing translation in some other languages. Not to disparage honest debate, but sometimes I think of this whole "KJV vs. The Others" issue as a luxury unique to the affluent, industrialized Western church.Very well said. This whole issue is such a waste of spiritual energy. Lets spend some of the energy on using our gifts for Christ.

The Word is clear in virtually every translation that I have read, the gospel is:
Christ was born of a virgin, lived among us, taught us, shed his blood for us, was raised by the Father in heaven, and now reigns over the WHOLE church. We are so very fortunate to be allowed to know the Lord, and so privileged to have the luxury of so many translations. These debates take our attention away from the orders of the King, to spread the good news and baptize in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. We will be judged for this foolishness, as He would have us busy about the business of the Kingdom, that being the "Great Commission".

In the name of Jesus, let us do His bidding, and not follow these childish debates.

[AVBunyan]

Well, English is not the only language spoken by Christians. Do other languages have their own inspired translations? Or are we, as English-speakers, the only people to have been so favored?

I believe the English to be the standard. Regarding other languages - easy enough...

For example - a missionary goes to Tanna in the South Pacific to preach to the cannibals in the 1800's. He learns their language and then takes a King James Bible or the Greek/Hebrew texts it came from and puts it into their own language trusting God. Is it reliable? Yes, and the proof is God has blessed many a translation. Is it inspired as I believe the King James to be? Not sure - just tryng to honest. But the standard will still be the English.

I believe in a final authority and the present day King James to be that authority for without a final authority then every man would do that which is right in his own eyes.

God bless

[rural_preacher]

----

[AVBunyan]

Your beef is not with me - go shake your fist at God for he is the one who chose Englsih - not me.

And to call me an arrogant self-righteous bigot when I sought in good faith and in a Christian manner to answer you is very poor on your part.

And I never said God did not use other foreign translations.

God bless

[Andyman_1970]

And to call me an arrogant self-righteous bigot when I sought in good faith and in a Christian manner to answer you is very poor on your part.


His answer was no less venomous than that of the rantings of Dr. Peter Ruckman................

[AVBunyan]

His answer was no less venomous than that of the rantings of Dr. Peter Ruckman................
First of all - what does your apparent problem with Dr. Ruckman have to do with this thread? Are you defending rural_preacher's attitude?

Are you saying Dr. Ruckman's 40+ years of research and findings are just rantings? Have you studied the issue to the extent that he has?

Also, it appears that you:

1. Make the character of a man the issue instead of his research and content.
2. Do not understand the principle of "spitting out the bones" while looking for truth.

[Andyman_1970]

First of all - what does your apparent problem with Dr. Duckman have to do with this thread?

I just found it interesting a self espoused follower of Dr. Ruckman (with reference to Dr. Ruckman's chosen style of writing) would have a problem with what rural_preacher said.

Are you defending rural_preacher's attitude?

He's more than capable of doing that himself.

Are you saying Dr. Ruckman's 40+ years of research and findings are just rantings? Have you studied the issue to the extent that he has?

I have read some of Dr. Ruckman's works, and no I have not studied them as long as he has nor do I profess to be an expert in the KJV only controversy, nor do I care to become one - I do however find the subject interesting.

Also, it appears that you:

1. Make the character of a man the issue instead of his research and content.

The very arguement KJV onlyist make about the authors of those corrupt Text's they refer to - the character of the man rather than the writing itself.

I will however say that Dr. Ruckman's "style" of writing makes me question his adherence to the fruits of the Spirit - please note: I would make this statement regarding any professed follower of Jesus even if I agreed with their point of view on a particular topic such as this - just so you know I'm not "picking" on Dr. Ruckman exclusively.

2. Do not understand the principle of "spitting out the bones" while looking for truth.

That is a phrase I am unfamiliar with.

[e=mv^2]

"Spitting out the bones" basicly means that you take the good and leave the bad. In any secular work there is bound to be some info that is good and some that is bad. Take the good, leave the bad.

[Andyman_1970]

"Spitting out the bones" basicly means that you take the good and leave the bad. In any secular work there is bound to be some info that is good and some that is bad. Take the good, leave the bad.

So similar to 1 Thessalonians 5:21 "Test everything, hold on to the good."

[e=mv^2]

Yup! Given the topic tho I'll quote the KJV. That was one heck of a scripture reference there Andy - I am impressed.
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

[Shane Roach]

You know with all the noise here, I haven't found a post where anyone actually puts foreward their opinion on which of the English translations is most accurate if indeed the KJV is not it.

Kinda hard for people to use the single most accurate translation if no one has a opinion on which one it is! :)

I hear good things about the NIV?

Just an observation.

[twistedsketch]

Why English? Latin was "the" language for a long time too :scratch: .

[BT]

Folks, let's not allow this discussion to get out of hand. You may certainly disagree but you must do so in a Christ-like manner. I understand that this is a touchy subject so please approach it prayerfully and not emotionally.

Thanks
BT


MOD HAT OFF