What Bible Version do you use?

[Guest]

I figure if it's the authorized language, I want to speak with authorized authority.

In that case, you'd better get a 1611 KJV. Here is the title page. I'm sorry I can't center the lines.

THE HOLY BIBLE

Conteyning the Old Teftament,

AND THE NEW:

Newly Tranflated out of the Originall tongues: & with the former Tranflations

diligently compared and reuifed by his Maiesties Speciall Comandement

I'm not sure why you would want to obey King James from 1611. From what I've heard, he was not a disciple of Christ, nor was he exactly a righteous king.

The 1611 KJV text of Rev 21:20,21 was written:

20 Hee which testifieth these things, saith, Surely, I come quickly. Amen. Euen so, Come Lord Iesus.
21 The grace of our Lord Iesus Christ be with you all. Amen.

The King James Bible has been revised many times since it was published in 1611.

I think the "textus receptus" is the best manuscript because...

Textus Receptus is not a manuscript. It is an textual edition of the New testament. The 1611 KJV text of the New Testament could not possibly be based on Textus Receptus, since Textus Receptus did not exist at that time.

Individual editors or groups of editiors produced their Greek editions of the New Testament. These editions varied, depending upon the biases of the editors. Some editors thought that if the majority of manuscripts agreed on any portions of the New Testament, then those portions were likely to have been identical to the orginals. Others thought that the older manuscripts were more likely to have been closer to the originals.

Erasmus was an editor who produced his New Testament in 1514. Stephanus put his together in 1550, and Beza did his in 1565. Probably the New Testament portion of the 1611 King James Bible was based largely on these texts, although the then current translation into Latin was also considerably consulted.

Elzevir's 1633 edition became quite popular, and later became known as Textus Receptus.

[Guest]

Textus Receptus is not a manuscript. It is an textual edition of the New testament. The 1611 KJV text of the New Testament could not possibly be based on Textus Receptus, since Textus Receptus did not exist at that time.

My understanding is that it's mostly based on the byzantine manuscript and several teachers who i respect including SG prefer it.

[Guest]

Humor credits due to:

Though, being an American in the 21st Century, I try as much as possible to actually speak the King's English amongst my friends and co-workers. Also, I am attempting to get my newspaper to send me a KJV edition, and I also pray in KJV. So too, I order my dinners in KJV. "Verily, I say unto thee, I would likest a bean and cheese burrito."

I figure if it's the authorized language, I want to speak with authorized authority.

It's pretty cool that the only group of people on the continent that actually speak this way are evangelical Christians. We kick butt!

Me thinkest thou art humorous and thy wit striketh breeds familiarity with many a paradox.

I prefer inspiration by weight. I have a Liberty Study Bible from Jerry Falwell himself. Thing weighs about 17 pounds!

If inspiration by weight were really true, why are so many churches subsidizing weight loss programs?

[Guest]

Textus Receptus is not a manuscript. It is an textual edition of the New testament. The 1611 KJV text of the New Testament could not possibly be based on Textus Receptus, since Textus Receptus did not exist at that time.

While the TR did undergo many revisions, and rightly so, I still think that it would be accurate to say that the KJV translators used the TR of that time (or at very least the manuscript compilation that became known as the TR) as a primary source. They may not have called it the TR then, but it is still the compilation of a select few manuscripts that is the basis for what we now call the TR. Either way, Erasmus' name for the work is not as important to me as some of his theological and philosophical beliefs that may have influenced his work. He was a very well known and well published Humanist of the day that did not believe in the total depravity of man and believed than man merited his salvation. I find that distirbing considering the fact that Erasmus filled in the blanks himself with his own translation whenever there were gaps in the manuscripts that he had access to. Martin Luther wrote an entire book challenging Erasmus' views. That little tidbit of history is missing from every KJVO sermon I've ever heard. If you are unaware of the Erasmus-Luther discourse, see http://www.prca.org/prtj/nov95b.html for a good primer on the debate. Luther's entire work can be read at http://www.covenanter.org/Luther/Bondage/bow_toc.htm.

I wonder how many of the fundamentalist Protestants know what Martin Luther, their hero, said about Erasmus.

And I, a most weak-tongued babe will meet the all-eloquent Erasmus with confidence, caring nothing for his authority, his name, or his reputation. I know well what is in the man; seeing that, I am well acquainted with the thoughts of Satan; though I expect he will daily manifest more and more that disposition towards me which he fosters in his heart.

Now, however, I am quite of your opinion, that it was not inconsiderateness in him, but as you say, real ignorance and malice. For he was unacquainted with our doctrines, or the doctrines of Christianity; he knew them, but from policy would not know them. And though he may not understand, nor indeed can understand, those doctrines which are peculiar to our fraternity, and which we maintain against the synagogue of the Pope, yet he cannot be ignorant of those which are held in common by us and the church under the Pope; because, he writes on these very largely, or rather, laughs at them. - Such as, the Trinity of the Divine Persons, the Divinity and humanity of Christ, sin, the redemption of the human race, the resurrection of the dead, eternal life, and the like: he knows, I say, that these things are taught and believed even by many ungodly and false Christians. But the truth is, he hates all the doctrines together. Nay, there can be no doubt in the mind of a true believer, who has the Spirit in his nostrils, that his mind is alienated from, and utterly hates all religion together; and especially, the religion of Christ. Many proofs of this are scattered here and there. And it will come to pass by and by, that alike the mole, he will throw up some dirt, that will shew where and what he is, and prove his own destruction.

I'm not saying that the TR is bad because of who compiled it, but without historical context, I think it is too easy for some people to put Erasmus and the TR up on a pedistal.
D.

[Guest]

While the TR did undergo many revisions, and rightly so, I still think that it would be accurate to say that the KJV translators used the TR of that time (or at very least the manuscript compilation that became known as the TR) as a primary source.

I dont think it would be accurate to say that.

The "manuscript compilation that became known as the TR" was Elzivir's 1633 edition of the Greek New Testament. It did not exist in 1611 when the first King James Bible was translated.

[Guest]

I dont think it would be accurate to say that.

The "manuscript compilation that became known as the TR" was Elzivir's 1633 edition of the Greek New Testament. It did not exist in 1611 when the first King James Bible was translated.

I will agree that Elzivir's text was the first known as the TR. But the term has a broader definition. Websters.com defines the term as "The Greek text of the New Testament that became standard in printed editions from the 16th to the end of the 19th century." Hard for Elzivir's 17th century text to be the start of the standard that began in the 16th century. Another site of theological definitions states, "Textus Receptus: Received Text. The Greek text first published by Erasmus, then with slight modifications by Stephanus, Beza and Elzivir, upon which the King James Version is based. It follows the vast majority of the Greek manuscripts, is much the same as the more recent Majority Text, as opposed to the editions based on a minority of manuscripts." I think a quick Google search will provide plenty of informaiton on how Erasmus' work was a basis for Elzivir's.

The fact is that the Textus Receptus refers to the "received text" in general as represented by Erasmus' compilation and to define it narrowly as a specific edition or revision of that work, while technically true, is a definition that is much more narrow then the one most people use. If you are going to refer to all of the editions of the KJV as the KJV, you can't really say that we no longer have a "received text" because we don't have a copy of Elzivir's edition or that Erasmus didn't use the "received text" family of manuscripts.
D.

[Guest]

The "New World" translation by the Jehovah's Witnesses has been justly criticized because the beliefs of the JWs influenced the choice of words in the translation. The KJV is highly venerated by some Christians. Strangely, the KJV can be criticized on the same grounds as the "New World".

When preparation was made to translate the KJV, King James gave a list of instructions to the translaters composed of fourteen items. Most dealt with such things as each translater working alone then meeting together to come to a consensus on the translation. However, items 3 & 4 on the list are worthy of particular notice:

3. "The old ecclesiastical words to be kept; as the word church, not to be translated congregation, &c." (et cetera)

4. "When any word has divers significations, that to be kept which has been most commonly used by the most eminent fathers, being agreeable to the propriety of the place, and the analogy of faith."

King James took steps to appoint overseers to ensure the translaters followed these rules. Thus we have obscured the meaning of words such as ekklesia (assembly) and baptizmo (dip or immerse) to this day in many translations that have followed the KJV in using anglicized Greek words. Interestingly at the time of KJV the Puritans had already "forsaken the old ecclesiastical words" and used "washing" for baptizmo, etc.

When one translates according to the "analogy of faith" (an analogy is a comparison, faith being that which is believed, thus the translation is according to what is believed), is this not what the JWs have done?

Why would King James do this? If he was a Baptist, surely baptizmo would have been translated into English as the Puritans had done. And why translate ekklesia as "church" except to preserve the idea that the chucrh is the hierarchy rather than all believers?

It is interesting that in some places in the KJV, ekklesia and baptizmo were translated "assembly" (Acts 19:32,39,41) and "wash" or "washed" (Mark 7:4, Luke 11:38 ) showing they knew full well what these words meant.

[Guest]

I usually quote the ESV or NIV when posting a quote on a forum because they are usually the default translations.

I usually listen to the audiobible in the NIV because I like Max Mclean. I've tried to change to other translations, but I just can't get used to someone else's voice than Max's. So I bear with the NIV and correct the translational errors on the fly, mentally.

I usually study the bible in the KJV on my computer and in the NASB in print. I also consult the ESV, ASV, MKJV and GNB.

I don't really have a favorite.

I used to really like the NKJV and really dis-like the KJV. But bearing with Steve's older lectures and hearing the KJV language over and over I actually can read the KJV now and understand it.

[Guest]

For a while I was moving between NKJV and NASB95, but ever since ESV was made available, I mainly use this version now. I also refer to the NET Bible for its very useful translation and study notes.

Note to Sean: Max McLean has released an ESV Listener's Bible. See
http://listenersbible.com/product.html?id=1
or
http://www.gnpcb.org/catalog/download.audio.bibles

[Guest]

Hello I use the NIV for casual reading but use the KJV for most teaching or preaching since it's keyed to strongs on my software. I am not a KJV only person but old habits are hard to break.