John81's Question on MVs

[dwayner79]

Dwayne, I understand what you are saying in your statement except for this:

"I was fully convinced that the MVs are better."

Could you be more precise in what you mean?

How are MVs better than the KJB?

Are all MVs better than the KJB?

Why is the KJB not as good as the MVs?

And Jerry's comment:

Funny how people will argue against KJKonly, stating that all versions are the same - but given enough time they hang themselves and declare the MV's better! NOW they acknowledge there is a difference - which is what we have been saying all along! What is the significance of those differences - that is what matters.

So as not to sidetrack the already offtopic bit, I will move here...
Answer in a few minutes.

[John81]

Good idea. Thank you Dwayne.

[Psalms18_28]

They say it is better because they can understand it better in today's languages.

And when a person walk in a christian bookstore and ask the sale clerk what is the best bible to get, She will not say "King James" she will say "NIV".

[Jerry]

They say it is better because they can understand it better in today's languages.

Granted (to a certain extent) - but what is the message they are understanding better?

What these MVs attempt to do is claim to be easier to understand, etc. - but even if they were STILL true and faithful translations of the right texts (which we know they are not), whatever in it is still God's Word (and no, not all of it is), THAT part still needs to be considered spiritually - ie. opened up by the Holy Spirit. Too many are trying to bypass the Spirit's work and dumb down the Bible so the lost and the carnal can still get something from it. I can read a Bible comic book easier than the KJV - but is it what God wants me to read - is it the daily bread He wants to feed me? No.

[dwayner79]

I am of the opinion (informed opinion, but opinion none the less) that the texts used for MVs are superior. I also feel the the textual argument is a good one, and place much merit in the KJVo opinion that their text is better. The debate is a textual one. Since I am of the opinion that the text used is better, most of your main translations are "better" in that they came from a purer source. There are really only a handful well, two handfuls, of translations out there. Of those there are a few good formal ones and a few good functional ones. There are also a few less then admirable ones. I, for instance, hold The Message as fun to read, but hardly something to study. Its one man's work, and way too functional to be of any scholarly merit. Good then that that is its stated purpose.

If you want specifics (which I know John, you do ;-) ) then I like the ESV, NKJV, NASB, and NIV. All are good translations and each brings to the table something the others don't (though ESV could just about replace the NASB given their similarities).

The TEV, TNIV*, NLT are all rough imo, and I do not use them.

As to Jerry's comment, I grow tired of repeating myself, but I have never said that all are the same. No one that I know of would say that. So once again I find myself pointing out a strawman in your argument. Do try to refrain from such logical fallacies in the future. No translation is ever the same. By using many good translations we can fine tune our understanding of the scriptures.

*The TNIV I have little knowledge of. Given the less then rave reviews, I simply never looked into it. I think, from what I read, its a poor translation, but like to point out when I have not actually looked at something directly. That opinion is second hand.

[IM4given]

:roll here we go again - I came to this website so I would not have to put up with threads like this one!

[Jerry]

As to Jerry's comment' date=' I grow tired of repeating myself, but I have never said that all are the same. [b']No one that I know of would say that. So once again I find myself pointing out a strawman in your argument. Do try to refrain from such logical fallacies in the future. No translation is ever the same. By using many good translations we can fine tune our understanding of the scriptures.

I tried to make a general comment - YOU may not say that. Many people have and do. I have heard and read those types of statements countless times. When challenged to look at the issue of Bible versions, many say they are all the same - but it eventually comes back to the MVs are better than the KJV. Sure, they may still like or appreciate the KJV in some way, but it is still the MVs they turn to for studying and which they will promote.

[John81]

Why do you believe the texts used for the MVs are superior? On a very similar note; why do you believe the texts used for the KJB are inferior?

You mentioned these versions as being those you like best (ESV, NKJV, NASB, and NIV). Does this mean you believe all of these are equally the Word of God and all are better than the KJB? I'm not familiar with the ESV, but I am familiar with the others and the NIV seems to be very different than the NKJV or NASB so how can that be reconciled?

[dwayner79]

Why do you believe the texts used for the MVs are superior? On a very similar note; why do you believe the texts used for the KJB are inferior?

Textual Criticism

You mentioned these versions as being those you like best (ESV, NKJV, NASB, and NIV). Does this mean you believe all of these are equally the Word of God

When I am reading any of them (including the KJV) I am reading the Word of God. I, like the KJV translators believe that even the meanest translation is the word of God.

and all are better than the KJB?

A translations merit is based on the accuracy of the reflection of the originals. Since there is uncertainty as to what the originals said in minor cases, the text you think is more accurate effects significantly the version you think is "better". I think the KJV is a very good translation. I read it with the others when comparing texts. I hold it in high esteem. When a conflict arises between what the various versions say, I dig deeper. Many times, the KJV is not the proper rendering either because English has changed, or the text is different. Other times any one of those may be misworded. Generally speaking, because of the age of the language, and the text, more often its the KJV that is found misleading in its wording... but far from always. So better is a tough word. I don't prefer to use it, but in essence, yes.

I'm not familiar with the ESV, but I am familiar with the others and the NIV seems to be very different than the NKJV or NASB so how can that be reconciled?

The NIV is a much more functional translation then a formal one (as in the case of NKJV, NASB, and ESV). Wikipedia uses the terms Fidelity vs. transparency in its discussion on translation. There differences are reconciled by the intent of the translation.

[dwayner79]

I tried to make a general comment - YOU may not say that. Many people have and do. I have heard and read those types of statements countless times. When challenged to look at the issue of Bible versions, many say they are all the same - but it eventually comes back to the MVs are better than the KJV. Sure, they may still like or appreciate the KJV in some way, but it is still the MVs they turn to for studying and which they will promote.

I suppose I would like a citation on that. I have read many books and many sources, and I have never once heard "they are all the same". I have heard (and said) that they are all "the word of God", but those two things are not the same. Do you have a citation? EVen if you can find one, your statement is a misrepresentation of the typical MVer and as such is a straw man.

[Danny Carlton]

From http://dannycarlton.net/KJVniv/KJV3.htm...

Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph)

1e. "In the year 1844, . . . in quest of manuscripts, Tischendorf reached the Convent of St. Catherine, on Mount Sinai. Here observing some old-looking documents in a basketful of papers ready for lighting the stove, he picked them out, and discovered . . . a complete New Testament, a large portion of the Septuagint, the Epistle of St. Barnabas, and a fragment of the Shepherd of Hermas. After this, he was allowed to copy the manuscript, and the Codex was in course of time presented to the Emperor. . . .

"Before the discovery of this [so called] important manuscript, Tischendorf had issued seven editions of his Greek Testament. . . . The eighth edition was constructed with the help of the newly discovered Sinaitic manuscript (Aleph) and his attachment to the treasure that he had rescued proved too much for him. He altered his seventh edition in no less than 3,369 instances, generally in compliance with the Sinaitic copy, ?to the scandal,? as Dr. Scrivener justly remarks, ?of the science of Comparative Criticism, as well as his own discredit for discernment and accuracy.? . . . we cannot regard him [Tischendorf] as a man of sober and solid judgment. His zigzag course does not impress us with the soundness of any position upon which he found himself throughout it" (Edward Miller, A Guide to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament [Collingswood NJ: Dean Burgon Society, 1979 reprint], 24-5).

2e. "Note that this manuscript, which has so powerfully influenced the men who developed modern textual critical theories, was discovered in a waste paper basket in an Orthodox monastery. Even the benighted monks dwelling in this demonically oppressed place counted it only worthy of burning! Dr. James Qurollo observes, ?I don?t know which of them had the truer evaluation of its worth?Tischendorf, who wanted to buy it, or the monks, who were getting ready to burn it!?

"It is important to note that the Sinaiticus shows plain evidence of corruption. Dr. F.H.A. Scrivener, who published in 1864 A Full Collation of the Codex Sinaiticus, testified: ?The Codex is covered with alterations of an obviously correctional character?brought in by at least ten different revisers, some of them systematically spread over every page, . . . many of these being contemporaneous with the first writer" (David W Cloud, Modern Versions Founded Upon Apostasy [Oak Harbor WA: Way of Life Literature, 1995], 17).

Codex Vaticanus (

1e. "As its name shows, [the Vaticanus] is in the Great Vatican Library at Rome, which has been its home since some date before 1481. . . . A correspondent of Erasmus in 1533 sent that scholar a number of selected readings from it, . . . Napoleon carried the manuscript off as a prize of victory to Paris, where it remained till 1815, when the many treasures of which he had despoiled the libraries of the Continent were returned to their respective owners. . . . In 1843 Tischendorf, after waiting for several months, was allowed to see it for six hours. . . . In 1845 . . . Tregelles was allowed indeed to see it but not to copy a word. His pockets were searched before he might open it, and all writing materials were taken away. Two clerics stood beside him and snatched away the volume if he looked too long at any passage! . . . In 1866 Tischendorf once more applied for permission to edit the MS., but with difficulty obtained leave to examine it for the purpose of collating difficult passages. . . . Renewed entreaty procured him six days? longer study, making in all fourteen days of three hours each; and by making in all fourteen days of three hours each; and by making the very most of his time Tischendorf was able in 1867 to publish the most perfect edition of the manuscript which had yet appeared. An improved Roman edition appeared in 1868-81. . ." (Frederic Kenyon, Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts, 4th ed [New York: Harper & Brothers, 1939], 138-9).

2e. "Kenyon?s idea that Tischendorf could publish a satisfactory edition of Vaticanus after having examined it for only 42 hours under the above conditions must be some sort of joke! Even the so-called improved edition was carelessly produced, as a number of textual scholars have pointed out" (Cloud, Modern Versions Founded Upon Apostasy, 19).

3e. "B and Aleph, have within the last twenty years established a tyrannical ascendency over the imagination of the Critics, which can only be fitly spoken of as a blind superstition. It matters nothing that all four are discovered on careful scrutiny to differ essentially, not only from ninety-nine out of a hundred of the whole body of extant MSS. besides, but even from one another. This last circumstance, obviously fatal to their corporate pretensions, is unaccountably overlooked. And yet it admits of only one satisfactory explanation: viz. that in different degrees they all exhibit a fabricated text. Between the first two (B and Aleph) there subsists an amount of sinister resemblance, which proves that they must have been derived at no very remote period from the same corrupt original. . . . And be it remembered that the omissions, additions, substitutions, transpositions, and modifications, are by no means the same in both. It is in fact easier to find two consecutive verses in which these two MSS. differ the one from the other, than two consecutive verses in which they entirely agree."

"Aleph B . . . are . . . most scandalously corrupt copies extant:--exhibit the most shamefully mutilated texts which are anywhere to be met with:--have become by whatever process (for their history is wholly unknown), the depositories of the largest amount of fabricated readings, ancient blunders, and intentional perversions of Truth,--which are discoverable in any known copies of the Word of God" (J W Burgon, The Revision Revised [Collingswood NJ: Dean Burgon Society Press, 1883], 12,16).



I think it's hilarious that you use wikipedia (a notoriously innacurate source) for validation of modern text, which are also notoriously innacurate. Are you playing devil's advocate (no pun indended)

[Pastor Matt]

I think it's hilarious that you use wikipedia (a notoriously innacurate source) for validation of modern text, which are also notoriously innacurate. Are you playing devil's advocate (no pun indended)

Good point. :lol:

[Jerry]

I have read many books and many sources' date=' and I have never once heard "they are all the same". I have heard (and said) that they are all "the word of God", but those two things are not the same. Do you have a citation? EVen if you can find one, your statement is a misrepresentation of the typical MVer and as such is a straw man.[/quote']

A straw man is something thrown into a debate that is not essential to it or that is made up. Just because you don't agree with a statement does not mean it is fabricated. Plus, I clarified that I was speaking from my experience - just like you are from yours. :roll

[John81]

Dwayne, do you believe there is no perfect Word of God in the English language?

Early on in my Christian life I bought cheap editions of several Bible versions (this was early 80s). I thought I would do what you say it is you do; that is, read the same passage(s) from the various versions to try and get a better understanding. In my case, all I got was more confused. I could never understand how the different versions could sometimes say something so differently from one another when they were all supposed to be the Word of God. That always left me wondering whether we really had the Word of God, if so which one and how was I to know which one was right.

[matie-k]

While I'm not by any means ready to let go of my KJB and embrace other versions, I am like John in that I just can't see how we can throw out all MV-ers out the window are divisive heretics. Some of the best christians I know are people who do not use the KJB exclusively. For me though, I was raised on the KJB, and I love everything about it, and I'll teach my child to do the same. But I can't expect all English-speaking society to do the same.

What I just can't understand is why we stick so doggedly for the KJB when it's obvious that the language in it is getting more and more out of date as the English language changes. I can imagine someone(s) saying "well, people just need to learn that old English and stop the changing of the language." But that's not facing reality. Languages are not solid mass - they're liquid - always changing, and if we don't move with it, we'll be left in the dust! If us IFB people are so against all of the MVs because of who the translators were and what they were translated from, why don't we (IFB people, not me!) get together and make a MV that we would be happy with??? Instead of fighting tooth and nail with people over the issue, why not move and change with society and language and make a MV we IFB people would all be happy with? I have a feeling that'll never happen, but why? Because we're too schismatic even within our own "camp". I think that's a shame on us.