Alex Trebek on Jeopardy asked once “what is the most accurate bible translation made?” answer…The New World’s Translation, by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society…next time, listen…you might learn something.
Davidf42 the strip here changes Monday only.
So called church my sister goes to King James is the only one they believe in. Church I go to uses a lighter version stick with Godly scripture. Example like Christmas our Pastor calls CHRISTmas.
Furn: Alex is a nice guy but do you really think Jeopardy is the BEST source of Bible translation information? AS for listening to JW’s, Alex might note they don’t translate the GREEK accurately at all when it comes to John’s Gospel and leave out the minor part about being one with God for Christ. And being a JW alone is a sure way to go to He** thinking you’ve saved yourself.
Christ Mass actually, Kab. Bmonk could explain the origins better than I.
Modern King James reads very well and keeps the faith to that translation. Our church uses the NIV since it’s very simple, but the minister uses many other translations to “flesh it out.”
Avoid the Modern English. Living Bible and the ones inserting “She” for God. Let’s not pretend that “he” was bigotry to insert our own in it.
The best translation depends on what you will do with it: proclaim it, study it, teach others, and so on. We would not expect a luxury yacht to make a good cargo boat, or vice versa. And neither one is a good high-speed racer. Every translation is a compromise of sorts.
Another factor is the footnotes, of course. They bother me more in the KJV (AV) more than the archaic language.
The only correct translation in the English Language is the King James Authorized Version first translated in 1611. The other pervesions out there are using a perverted text translated by Westcott and Hort. The newer perversions remove critical things from the Bible like the Virgin Birth and the Blood of Christ. The newer versions have a copywrite on them. In order to obtain a copywrite the new manuscript must contain “significant changes” from the original. Think about it.
Furnituremaker, you’ve got to be kidding if you think the NWT is even remotely accurate, no matter what Alex Trebek may have said. There are words added with no support from manuscripts to change the meaning of texts (see Acts 20:28). There are words translated in awkward ways, with no support (the Greek word Kurios, Lord, translated as a mistransliterated Hebrew word ‘Jehovah’). Judge Rutheford claimed to be a Greek scholar, but on trial couldn’t even identify the Greek alphabet.
You can’t find a single unbiased scholar who would say anything good about the NWT.
I use the KJV. It’s not perfect, but the mistranslated parts are well known, and none of it affects anything doctrinal. I like the ESV and ASV, and I’ll accept the NKJV.
It says not to change a word in the book, but doesn’t say it in Hebrew. The Lord once used a donkey. Another time it was a burning bush. If it needs saying, the stones may cry out. When the rocks start talking, seek professional help. Clergy & witch doctors are statistically as effective as psychiatry.
Chuk: Actually, WD’s make out BETTER than psychs. And wise Ministers treat the soul, though an increasing number of conservative pols with psych degrees do pass themselves off as Christian counselors and authors.
And it says “IF we don’t speak, THEN the rocks would cry out.” when they do, it will be too late for some folks.
Neo: I suggested my “bad” choices be avoided because they tend to keep a denominational prejudice, NAS, PHillips, RSA and others keep true to the points you suggested. I admire Pastor Chuck at Calvary Chapels but I think he’s gotten a little off base in keeping to the KJV exclusively.
bmonk: I got study bibles where half the page is footnotes on some issue relevant to the demoninational or Millenial slant of the authors so I know what you mean about the distractions.
I do love it when it matches my prejudice though. ;-)
Yesterday I handed my Jr High Sunday school class NIV Bibles to do a King James worksheet. They saw both the “traditional” words and what they mean in English that doesn’t sound like Shakespeare.
For understanding what a passage is about, explaining it to kids, I prefer the NIV, for learning memory verses, we often use the “new” King James (pretty much the same words without the “th” on the end of words.)
I use my Amplified Bible as a study Bible but I always read Psalms in King James.
“The only correct translation in the English Language is the King James Authorized Version first translated in 1611. The other pervesions out there are using a perverted text translated by Westcott and Hort. The newer perversions remove critical things from the Bible like the Virgin Birth and the Blood of Christ. The newer versions have a copywrite on them. In order to obtain a copywrite the new manuscript must contain “significant changes” from the original. Think about it.”
The copyright includes the footnotes–which may be changed (more or less) freely, since they are not part of the inspired text, but only help explain what the text is saying.
The different footnotes make the text, even if mostly the same, able to be copyrighted.
Not all newer translations remove the Virgin Birth or the blood of Christ.
The KJV (aka AV) used a good manuscript for the time–IIRC, Erasmus’. However, a modern critical text is much better, since it contains the major and significant variants, allowing the translators to see the possibilities, and what sort of backing each has.
In what other area of scholarship are we limited to a 500-year-old effort as the only possible authentic version?
I have been in several KJV only discussions and what I find is most do not even know the KJV they are using is NOT the original version. The next thing is they have never read the Preface - I mean the original preface - see here http://www.kjvbibles.com/kjpreface.htm Now the interesting thing is the original KJV was written in that style old English. Also it is worth noting that the preface indicates that other sources are valid.
“The translation of the Seventie dissenteth from the Originall in many places, neither doeth it come neere it, for perspicuitie, gratvitie, majestie; yet which of the Apostles did condemne it? Condemne it? Nay, they used it, (as it is apparent, and as Saint Jerome and most learned men doe confesse) which they would not have done, nor by their example of using it, so grace and commend it to the Church, if it had bene unworthy the appellation and name of the word of God.”
In the next to last paragraph this is written: “For is the kingdome of God become words or syllables? why should wee be in bondage to them if we may be free, use one precisely when wee may use another no lesse fit, as commodiously?” And actually the previous several paragraphs all go into commending use of other sources and choice of wording.
If we are not in bondage to the wording then we should be free to use other translations that better fit the text sources. Lastly I would note that the KJV is mostly the Tyndale Bible and that the main Bible used in the colonies was the Geneva Bible. Why do we not go back to the better sources than the KJV?
Oh and as far as the New World Translation goes - the interlinear version - original purple book - is more accurate that their NWT and even that has problems, but they are harder to hide since it is an interlinear.
Ooops I have a copy of a version called the Bible for Dummies(I think that’s the name) which means it is suppose to be easy to understand….like the Computers for Dummies etc. It is quite condensed but has some explanations. It has been used in classwork as an introduction.
I like the New Revised Standard Version and enjoy the student’s version of it as well. I still like the poetry of the KJV for the 23rd Psalm and some other passages.
I also have one with 8 translations on the page called the Contemporary Parallel New Testament I find it helpful from time to time.
“Why waste your breath moaning at the crowds? Nothinig can be done to stop the shouting. If every voice were stilled the noise would still continue. The rocks and stones themselves, would start to sing…Hosannah hey sannah sannah sannah ho sannah hey sanna hey superstar.”
I find different translations of any given passage help with the understanding of the passage. It helps the understanding if you know some of the background of the translation and who it was meant for. (or should that be “for whom it was meant”? we must have some English grammar scholars here.)
I still find that some of my biggest problems with reading the bible are ummm…….. disipline to actually do it (shhh!), culture differences, and the fact that it often inspires negative emotions in me. Also……. I tend to have a short attention span now.
hlagallah almost 14 years ago
Hey Fastis where’s Rat? We need him!
davidf42 almost 14 years ago
How often do they change to a new strip here at Heaven’s Sake, anybody know? Is it random or is there a pattern to it?
Yukoneric almost 14 years ago
Yes, I do. The book is meant to be understood and we no longer talk in that manner.
woodwork almost 14 years ago
Alex Trebek on Jeopardy asked once “what is the most accurate bible translation made?” answer…The New World’s Translation, by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society…next time, listen…you might learn something.
kab2rb almost 14 years ago
Davidf42 the strip here changes Monday only. So called church my sister goes to King James is the only one they believe in. Church I go to uses a lighter version stick with Godly scripture. Example like Christmas our Pastor calls CHRISTmas.
freeholder1 almost 14 years ago
Furn: Alex is a nice guy but do you really think Jeopardy is the BEST source of Bible translation information? AS for listening to JW’s, Alex might note they don’t translate the GREEK accurately at all when it comes to John’s Gospel and leave out the minor part about being one with God for Christ. And being a JW alone is a sure way to go to He** thinking you’ve saved yourself.
Christ Mass actually, Kab. Bmonk could explain the origins better than I.
freeholder1 almost 14 years ago
dave: how many recent Annie strips are there? Hey, if you want to complain about being current….
freeholder1 almost 14 years ago
Modern King James reads very well and keeps the faith to that translation. Our church uses the NIV since it’s very simple, but the minister uses many other translations to “flesh it out.”
Avoid the Modern English. Living Bible and the ones inserting “She” for God. Let’s not pretend that “he” was bigotry to insert our own in it.
kab2rb almost 14 years ago
Freeholder 1 this is how our Pastor calls each time Christmas comes CHRISTmass. He wants to make sure we put Christ first mass later.
bmonk almost 14 years ago
The best translation depends on what you will do with it: proclaim it, study it, teach others, and so on. We would not expect a luxury yacht to make a good cargo boat, or vice versa. And neither one is a good high-speed racer. Every translation is a compromise of sorts.
Another factor is the footnotes, of course. They bother me more in the KJV (AV) more than the archaic language.
steelersneo almost 14 years ago
The only correct translation in the English Language is the King James Authorized Version first translated in 1611. The other pervesions out there are using a perverted text translated by Westcott and Hort. The newer perversions remove critical things from the Bible like the Virgin Birth and the Blood of Christ. The newer versions have a copywrite on them. In order to obtain a copywrite the new manuscript must contain “significant changes” from the original. Think about it.
soundpreacher almost 14 years ago
Furnituremaker, you’ve got to be kidding if you think the NWT is even remotely accurate, no matter what Alex Trebek may have said. There are words added with no support from manuscripts to change the meaning of texts (see Acts 20:28). There are words translated in awkward ways, with no support (the Greek word Kurios, Lord, translated as a mistransliterated Hebrew word ‘Jehovah’). Judge Rutheford claimed to be a Greek scholar, but on trial couldn’t even identify the Greek alphabet.
You can’t find a single unbiased scholar who would say anything good about the NWT.
I use the KJV. It’s not perfect, but the mistranslated parts are well known, and none of it affects anything doctrinal. I like the ESV and ASV, and I’ll accept the NKJV.
ChukLitl Premium Member almost 14 years ago
It says not to change a word in the book, but doesn’t say it in Hebrew. The Lord once used a donkey. Another time it was a burning bush. If it needs saying, the stones may cry out. When the rocks start talking, seek professional help. Clergy & witch doctors are statistically as effective as psychiatry.
freeholder1 almost 14 years ago
Chuk: Actually, WD’s make out BETTER than psychs. And wise Ministers treat the soul, though an increasing number of conservative pols with psych degrees do pass themselves off as Christian counselors and authors.
And it says “IF we don’t speak, THEN the rocks would cry out.” when they do, it will be too late for some folks.
Neo: I suggested my “bad” choices be avoided because they tend to keep a denominational prejudice, NAS, PHillips, RSA and others keep true to the points you suggested. I admire Pastor Chuck at Calvary Chapels but I think he’s gotten a little off base in keeping to the KJV exclusively.
freeholder1 almost 14 years ago
bmonk: I got study bibles where half the page is footnotes on some issue relevant to the demoninational or Millenial slant of the authors so I know what you mean about the distractions.
I do love it when it matches my prejudice though. ;-)
Dewsolo almost 14 years ago
Yesterday I handed my Jr High Sunday school class NIV Bibles to do a King James worksheet. They saw both the “traditional” words and what they mean in English that doesn’t sound like Shakespeare.
For understanding what a passage is about, explaining it to kids, I prefer the NIV, for learning memory verses, we often use the “new” King James (pretty much the same words without the “th” on the end of words.) I use my Amplified Bible as a study Bible but I always read Psalms in King James.
keechum almost 14 years ago
Joke: If the King James Bible was good enough for Paul, then I’s goos enough for me………………..
runar almost 14 years ago
The King James Version is the only one that accurately quotes Jesus in the King’s English as he originally said it.
The sad thing is that there are people who actually believe that.
ted.hering almost 14 years ago
The KJV is exactly 500 years old this year.
bmonk almost 14 years ago
Neo Blakkrstal said, about 7 hours ago
“The only correct translation in the English Language is the King James Authorized Version first translated in 1611. The other pervesions out there are using a perverted text translated by Westcott and Hort. The newer perversions remove critical things from the Bible like the Virgin Birth and the Blood of Christ. The newer versions have a copywrite on them. In order to obtain a copywrite the new manuscript must contain “significant changes” from the original. Think about it.”
The copyright includes the footnotes–which may be changed (more or less) freely, since they are not part of the inspired text, but only help explain what the text is saying. The different footnotes make the text, even if mostly the same, able to be copyrighted. Not all newer translations remove the Virgin Birth or the blood of Christ. The KJV (aka AV) used a good manuscript for the time–IIRC, Erasmus’. However, a modern critical text is much better, since it contains the major and significant variants, allowing the translators to see the possibilities, and what sort of backing each has. In what other area of scholarship are we limited to a 500-year-old effort as the only possible authentic version?Dewsolo almost 14 years ago
So just who “authorized” the King James version?
bmonk almost 14 years ago
It was authorized by King James VI (of Scotland) and I (of England), who commissioned it in 1604 and saw it published in 1611.
dead.theologians.society almost 14 years ago
I have been in several KJV only discussions and what I find is most do not even know the KJV they are using is NOT the original version. The next thing is they have never read the Preface - I mean the original preface - see here http://www.kjvbibles.com/kjpreface.htm Now the interesting thing is the original KJV was written in that style old English. Also it is worth noting that the preface indicates that other sources are valid.
“The translation of the Seventie dissenteth from the Originall in many places, neither doeth it come neere it, for perspicuitie, gratvitie, majestie; yet which of the Apostles did condemne it? Condemne it? Nay, they used it, (as it is apparent, and as Saint Jerome and most learned men doe confesse) which they would not have done, nor by their example of using it, so grace and commend it to the Church, if it had bene unworthy the appellation and name of the word of God.”
In the next to last paragraph this is written: “For is the kingdome of God become words or syllables? why should wee be in bondage to them if we may be free, use one precisely when wee may use another no lesse fit, as commodiously?” And actually the previous several paragraphs all go into commending use of other sources and choice of wording.
If we are not in bondage to the wording then we should be free to use other translations that better fit the text sources. Lastly I would note that the KJV is mostly the Tyndale Bible and that the main Bible used in the colonies was the Geneva Bible. Why do we not go back to the better sources than the KJV?
Oh and as far as the New World Translation goes - the interlinear version - original purple book - is more accurate that their NWT and even that has problems, but they are harder to hide since it is an interlinear.
Ooops! Premium Member almost 14 years ago
Oh! And you don’t have to read the ummm…… people who are way more learned…………. :-)
Ooops! Premium Member almost 14 years ago
Ummm……. I’m still waiting for The Bible: Everything You Need To Know (in 50 pages and words you learned in gradeschool)
hopeandjoy2 almost 14 years ago
Ooops I have a copy of a version called the Bible for Dummies(I think that’s the name) which means it is suppose to be easy to understand….like the Computers for Dummies etc. It is quite condensed but has some explanations. It has been used in classwork as an introduction.
I like the New Revised Standard Version and enjoy the student’s version of it as well. I still like the poetry of the KJV for the 23rd Psalm and some other passages.
I also have one with 8 translations on the page called the Contemporary Parallel New Testament I find it helpful from time to time.
Dewsolo almost 14 years ago
Here’s another favorite “translation” http://www.lolcatbible.com :)
ponytail56 almost 14 years ago
wow never knew I was consorting witha a bunch of divinity scholars
hopeandjoy2 almost 14 years ago
Not me. I am no scholar…Just interested in the Bible and how the different translations can best help me understand.
MisngNOLA almost 14 years ago
“Why waste your breath moaning at the crowds? Nothinig can be done to stop the shouting. If every voice were stilled the noise would still continue. The rocks and stones themselves, would start to sing…Hosannah hey sannah sannah sannah ho sannah hey sanna hey superstar.”
Dewsolo almost 14 years ago
Same here.
I find different translations of any given passage help with the understanding of the passage. It helps the understanding if you know some of the background of the translation and who it was meant for. (or should that be “for whom it was meant”? we must have some English grammar scholars here.)
Ooops! Premium Member almost 14 years ago
Thank you HopeandJoy,
I still find that some of my biggest problems with reading the bible are ummm…….. disipline to actually do it (shhh!), culture differences, and the fact that it often inspires negative emotions in me. Also……. I tend to have a short attention span now.