The Fighting Fundamental Forums - Bible Versions http://www.fundamentalforums.com/ en Fri, 20 Nov 2009 23:38:03 GMT vBulletin 60 http://www.fundamentalforums.com/images/misc/rss.jpg The Fighting Fundamental Forums - Bible Versions http://www.fundamentalforums.com/ An Error in the KJV? http://www.fundamentalforums.com/bible-versions/75734-an-error-in-the-kjv-new-post.html Wed, 18 Nov 2009 20:24:00 GMT Does anyone have an answer for why II Kings 24:8 states that Jehoiachin was 18 years old when he began to reign, yet II Chronicles 36:9 says he was... Does anyone have an answer for why II Kings 24:8 states that Jehoiachin was 18 years old when he began to reign, yet II Chronicles 36:9 says he was only 8 years old?

Even the venerable James Ussher could not suggest any explanation except some kind of copy error on the part of the priests. This is not a place where a coregency is a legitimate option. ]]> Bible Versions roscoe http://www.fundamentalforums.com/bible-versions/75734-an-error-in-the-kjv.html Gail the Ripper radio interview this Thursday http://www.fundamentalforums.com/bible-versions/75664-gail-the-ripper-radio-interview-this-thursday-new-post.html Tue, 17 Nov 2009 19:15:30 GMT http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=202147595118 Host: WBLW | 88.1 | Family Christian Radio Type: Education - Workshop Network: Global Date:... http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=202147595118

Host: WBLW | 88.1 | Family Christian Radio
Type: Education - Workshop
Network: Global
Date: Thursday, November 19, 2009
Time: 8:00am - 11:00am
Location: WBLW 88.1FM & www.wblwradio.com

Description:

GREEK AND HEBREW STUDY DANGERS, THE VOICE OF STRANGERS, THE MEN BEHIND THE SMOKESCREEN, BURNING BIBLES WORD BY WORD

Exposed Are:
Strong's Concordance Lexicons
Bible Dictionaries by Vine, Zodhiates
Word Studies by Vincent, Wuest, Trench
Hebrew-English Dictionaries by Brown, Driver, and Briggs
Greek-English Dictionaries by Moulton, Thayer, Danker, Liddell
Greek and Hebrew texts by Metzger, Aland, Scrivener, Berry, Ginsburg, Green, Robinson, Hodges
And all Greek and Hebrew Study Tools and Interlinears
Sounds entertaining, in a masochistic kind of way.

Here's the radio station's Web page. The station is a fundy one - it's run by Grace Baptist Church in Gaylord Michigan - so I presume the 8-11 am time is in EST - and have radio programs by a number of fundy superstars: Clarence Sexton, Jack Trieber, Bob Jones Sr., Lester Roloff, etc. They've also got a live feed. Now, the big question is whether to actually tune in, or just capture the feed for later. ]]> Bible Versions Ransom http://www.fundamentalforums.com/bible-versions/75664-gail-the-ripper-radio-interview-this-thursday.html 4 modern Oxford KJV editions differ http://www.fundamentalforums.com/bible-versions/75613-4-modern-oxford-kjv-editions-differ-new-post.html Mon, 16 Nov 2009 18:10:50 GMT I have found that there are some variations or differences in four editions of the KJV printed by Oxford University Press since 1980. The four KJV... I have found that there are some variations or differences in four editions of the KJV printed by Oxford University Press since 1980. The four KJV editions are the 1980's Oxford text in the Scofield Reference Bible [SRB Oxford], the 1996 Oxford text in the Scofield Study Bible [SSB Oxford], the 1998 Oxford text in the Oxford Classics Edition edited by Robert Carroll and Stephen Prickett [Oxford Classic], and the 2003 Oxford text in the New Pilgrim Bible [NPB Oxford].

While two or three of the editions may agree on certain renderings of certain verses, I have not found any two of the four Oxford editions to agree everywhere. Perhaps Oxford University Press has matched Cambridge University Press in having several varying KJV editions in print at the same time.


Genesis 6:5
God (1770, 1777, 1782, 1791, 1792, 1798, 1799, 1810, 1812 Oxford, SSB Oxford) [1768, 1769, 1773, 1817, 1824, 2005 Cambridge] {1611, 1824 London} (1782 American)
GOD (1768, 1769 Oxford, SRB Oxford, Oxford Classic, NPB Oxford) [1637 Cambridge, CSTE, DKJB] {1711 London}

Genesis 10:7
Sabtecha (Oxford Classic, SSB Oxford) [1637, 1768, 1769, 1773, 1817, 1824, 2005 Cambridge, CSTE, DKJB] {1611, 1711 London}
Sabtechah (1769 Oxford, SRB Oxford, NPB Oxford) [1790, 1833, 1837, 1844, 1869, 1887 Cambridge] {1817, 1824 London}

Genesis 15:13
theirs (1758, 1762, 1768, 1769, 1770, 1774, 1777, 1788, 1791, 1795, 1798, 1799 Oxford, Oxford Classic, SSB Oxford, NPB Oxford) [1790, 1817, 1873, 2005 Cambridge, CSTE, DKJB] (1782 American)
their’s (SRB Oxford) [1762, 1768, 1769, 1773, 1824, 1833 Cambridge]

Joshua 4:5
take ye (1715, 1758, 1762, 1768, 1770, 1774, 1777, 1782, 1788, 1804 Oxford, Oxford Classic, SSB Oxford) [1637, 1762, 1768, 1769, 1773, 1817, 1837, 1844, 1869, 1873, 1887, 2005 Cambridge, CSTE, DKJB] {1611, 1711 London} (1782 American)
take you (1769 Oxford, SRB Oxford, NPB Oxford) [1824, 1833 Cambridge] {1824 London}

Joshua 19:2
Beer-sheba, Sheba (1769, 1791, 1792, 1798, 1799, 1810, 1812, 1821, 1828 Oxford) [1769, 1773, 1790, 1824, 1833 Cambridge] {1817, 1824 London}
Beer-sheba, or Sheba (Oxford Classic, SSB Oxford, NPB Oxford) [1817, 1873, 2005 Cambridge, CSTE, DKJB] {1611 London}
Beer-sheba, and Sheba (1768, 1774 Oxford, SRB Oxford) [1637, 1762, 1768, 1837, 1844, 1869, 1887 Cambridge] {1711 London} (1782 American)

2 Chronicles 33:19
sin (1715, 1758, 1762, 1768, 1770, 1774, 1777, 1782, 1804 Oxford, Oxford Classic, SSB Oxford, NPB Oxford) [1637, 1768, 1873, 2005 Cambridge, CSTE, DKJB] {1611, 1711 London} (1782 American)
sins (1769, 1788 Oxford, SRB Oxford) [1762, 1769, 1773, 1790, 1824, 1833, 1837, 1844, 1869, 1887 Cambridge] {1817, 1824 London}

Ezra 2:2
Mispar (1715, 1774, 1788, 1799 Oxford, Oxford Classic, SSB Oxford) [1637, 2005 Cambridge, CSTE, DKJB] {1611, 1711 London} (1782 American)
Mizpar (1768, 1769 Oxford, SRB Oxford, NPB Oxford) [1768, 1769, 1817, 1824, 1833, 1837, 1844, 1869, 1873, 1887 Cambridge] {1817, 1824 London}

Ezra 4:10
Asnappar (Oxford Classic, SSB Oxford) [1637, 1873, 2005 Cambridge, CSTE, DKJB] {1611 London} (1782 American)
Asnapper (1768, 1769 Oxford, SRB Oxford, NPB Oxford) [1768, 1769, 1773, 1790, 1817, 1824, 1833, 1837, 1844, 1869, 1887 Cambridge] {1711, 1817, 1824 London}

Jeremiah 34:16
whom ye (Oxford Classic, SSB Oxford, NPB Oxford) [1817, 1873, 2005 Cambridge, CSTE, DKJB] {1611 London}
whom he (1769 Oxford, SRB Oxford) [1637, 1762, 1768, 1769, 1790, 1824, 1833, 1837, 1844, 1869, 1887 Cambridge] {1817, 1824 London} (1782 American)

Amos 2:2
Kerioth (SSB Oxford) [1873, 2005 Cambridge, CSTE, DKJB] {1611 London} (1782 American)
Kirioth (1769 Oxford, SRB Oxford, Oxford Classic, NPB Oxford) [1637, 1768, 1769, 1790, 1817, 1824, 1833, 1837, 1844, 1869, 1887 Cambridge] {1817, 1824 London}

Nahum 3:16
flieth away (1715, 1758, 1762, 1768, 1795 Oxford, Oxford Classic, SSB Oxford, NPB Oxford) [1637, 1873, 2005 Cambridge, CSTE, DKJB] {1611, 1711 London} (1782 American)
fleeth away (1769 Oxford, SRB Oxford) [1762, 1768, 1769, 1790, 1817, 1824, 1833, 1837, 1844, 1869, 1887 Cambridge] {1817, 1824 London}

Mark 1:12
Spirit (1758, 1762, 1774, 1777 Oxford, Oxford Classic, SSB Oxford, NPB Oxford) [1817, 1824, 1873, 2005 Cambridge, CSTE, DKJB] {1611 London}
spirit (1769 Oxford, SRB Oxford) [1637, 1768, 1769, 1790, 1833, 1837, 1844, 1869, 1887 Cambridge] {1711, 1817, 1824 London}

Mark 1:19
further (1758, 1762 Oxford, Oxford Classic, SSB Oxford) [1637, 1873 Cambridge, CSTE, DKJB] {1611, 1711 London} (1782 American)
farther (1769 Oxford, SRB Oxford, NPB Oxford) [1768, 1769, 1790, 1817, 1824, 1833, 1837, 1844, 1869, 1887, 2005 Cambridge] {1817, 1824 London}

Revelation 2:6
Nicolaitans (1758, 1762, 1774, 1777 Oxford, Oxford Classic, SSB Oxford, NPB Oxford) [1637, 1873, 2005 Cambridge, CSTE, DKJB] {1611, 1711 London} (1782 American)
Nicolaitanes (1769 Oxford, SRB Oxford) [1768, 1769, 1790, 1817, 1824, 1833, 1837, 1844, 1869, 1887 Cambridge] ]]> Bible Versions Coverdale http://www.fundamentalforums.com/bible-versions/75613-4-modern-oxford-kjv-editions-differ.html wonderful opportunity for KJV-only posters http://www.fundamentalforums.com/bible-versions/75610-wonderful-opportunity-for-kjv-only-posters-new-post.html Mon, 16 Nov 2009 17:37:59 GMT KJV-only advocates seem to imply that all the changes that the KJV made in the pre-1611 English Bibles were improvements or were for the better. Of... KJV-only advocates seem to imply that all the changes that the KJV made in the pre-1611 English Bibles were improvements or were for the better. Of course, it is true that the KJV made some improvements in certain renderings of one or more of the pre-1611 English Bibles. However, that does not show that every change that the KJV made in the good pre-1611 English Bibles was an improvement.

The examples of where the KJV differs from the 1560 Geneva Bible that will be posted in this thread present KJV-only advocates with the wonderful opportunity of explaining how each one of the changes that the KJV made to the 1560 Geneva Bible was actually an improvement. Attempting to show that some of the renderings in the KJV are better than some in the 1560 Geneva Bible does not confirm or support the KJV-only theory. Perhaps some of the differences could be considered synonyms and equally accurate, but that is clearly not the case for all the examples.

If any of the renderings in the 1560 Geneva Bible are actually clearer, better, or more accurate than those in the KJV when compared to the preserved Scriptures in the original languages, it is a serious problem for KJV-only reasoning.

Gen. 1:21 according to their kind (Geneva, NKJV) after their kind (KJV)
Gen. 1:28 fill the earth (Geneva, NKJV) replenish the earth (KJV)
Gen. 2:13 Cush (Geneva, NKJV) Ethiopia (KJV)
Gen. 6:5 the Lord (Geneva) GOD (KJV) the LORD (NKJV)
Gen. 9:13 sign (Geneva, NKJV) token (KJV)
Gen. 10:20 according to (Geneva, NKJV) after (KJV)
Gen. 13:1 Then Abram (Geneva, NKJV) And Abram (KJV)
Gen. 16:5 Then Sarai (Geneva, NKJV) And Sarai (KJV)
Gen. 16:13 Then she called (Geneva, NKJV) And she called (KJV)
Gen. 17:1 When Abram (Geneva, NKJV) And when Abram (KJV)
Gen. 17:3 Then Abram fell (Geneva, NKJV) And Abram fell (KJV)
Gen. 18:5 And I will bring (Geneva, NKJV) And I will fetch (KJV)
Gen. 18:7 took a tender and good calf (Geneva, NKJV) fetcht a calf tender and good (KJV)
Gen. 18:19 righteousness (Geneva, NKJV) justice (KJV)
Gen. 19:1 in the evening (Geneva, NKJV) at even (KJV)
Gen. 19:9 So they pressed (Geneva, NKJV) And they pressed (KJV)
Gen. 19:15 punishment of the city (Geneva, NKJV) iniquity of the city (KJV)
Gen. 21:4 Then Abraham (Geneva, NKJV) And Abraham (KJV)
Gen. 21:12 But God (Geneva, NKJV) And God (KJV)
Gen. 21:16 of about (Geneva, NKJV) as it were (KJV)
Gen. 21:26 know (Geneva, NKJV) wot (KJV)
Gen. 22:1 God did prove (Geneva) God did tempt (KJV) God tested (NKJV)
Gen. 22:11 But the Angel (Geneva, NKJV) And the angel (KJV)
Gen. 25:7 seventy and five (Geneva) threescore and fifteen (KJV) seventy-five (NKJV)
Gen. 27:15 clothes (Geneva, NKJV) raiment (KJV)
Gen. 27:15 elder son (Geneva, NKJV) eldest son (KJV)
Gen. 28:11 And he came (Geneva, NKJV) And he lighted (KJV)
Gen. 28:20 clothes (Geneva) raiment (KJV) clothing (NKJV)
Gen. 36:26 the sons (Geneva, NKJV) the children (KJV)
Gen. 36:27 sons (Geneva, NKJV) children (KJV)
Gen. 36:28 sons (Geneva, NKJV) children (KJV)
Gen. 37:22 deliver (Geneva, NKJV) rid (KJV)
Gen. 39:8 knoweth not (Geneva) wotteth not (KJV) does not know (NKJV)
Gen. 41:42 garments (Geneva, NKJV) vestures (KJV)
Gen. 41:54 famine (Geneva, NKJV) dearth (KJV)
Gen. 46:27 seventy (Geneva, NKJV) threescore and ten (KJV)
Gen 47:29 near (Geneva, NKJV) nigh (KJV)
Gen. 50:3 seventy (Geneva, NKJV) threescore and ten (KJV) ]]> Bible Versions Coverdale http://www.fundamentalforums.com/bible-versions/75610-wonderful-opportunity-for-kjv-only-posters.html Prediction: Next Bibliolatry movement http://www.fundamentalforums.com/bible-versions/75553-prediction-next-bibliolatry-movement-new-post.html Sat, 14 Nov 2009 12:28:03 GMT ESV only. Wait and see. ESV only. Wait and see. ]]> Bible Versions Balance http://www.fundamentalforums.com/bible-versions/75553-prediction-next-bibliolatry-movement.html What exactly does Psalms 12:6-7 have to do with English? http://www.fundamentalforums.com/bible-versions/75451-what-exactly-does-psalms-12-6-7-have-to-do-with-english-new-post.html Thu, 12 Nov 2009 15:30:48 GMT What does the promise of God to preserve His word have to do with English language? God could let all English speaking people go to hell. Even... What does the promise of God to preserve His word have to do with English language? God could let all English speaking people go to hell. Even Americans.


True story. ]]> Bible Versions Balance http://www.fundamentalforums.com/bible-versions/75451-what-exactly-does-psalms-12-6-7-have-to-do-with-english.html Notes on the Polish Bible Project http://www.fundamentalforums.com/bible-versions/75424-notes-on-the-polish-bible-project-new-post.html Wed, 11 Nov 2009 21:42:55 GMT It might be worth your time to read through the following posts: http://www.preachinginpoland.com/BibleProjectMain.htm ... It might be worth your time to read through the following posts:

http://www.preachinginpoland.com/BibleProjectMain.htm

http://www.preachinginpoland.com/BibleProject.htm

http://www.preachinginpoland.com/BibleProject2.htm

http://www.preachinginpoland.com/BibleProject3.htm

Read through them carefully and you will get a real insight into my position on the "Translation Debate". ]]> Bible Versions Mitex http://www.fundamentalforums.com/bible-versions/75424-notes-on-the-polish-bible-project.html The Idea of a Predictive Model of Scripture http://www.fundamentalforums.com/bible-versions/75421-the-idea-of-a-predictive-model-of-scripture-new-post.html Wed, 11 Nov 2009 20:18:09 GMT Of course, as we have seen and asked numerous times is "Where in Scripture does the Bible speak of the KJV?" Askjo, a poster here, enlightened me to an article by Dr. Thomas Strouse.

Dr. Strouse is a TRO, not KJVO. However, his positions are hardly distinguishable from the KJVO. Let me say from the outset: I respect Dr. Strouse. He is a sincere man of God. I simply differ with him on this issue.

I have no real issues with his discussion pages 1-3. I do think his discussion on theopneustos is lacking. What is lacking in the English word "inspiration" is the Greek nuance that the Scripture are the very words of God. I find this neglect from a Greek teacher to be curious. But then again, it simply shows his prejudice to the KJV.

What I do find refreshing is his concluding sentence: "The Bible self‐attests to verbal, plenary (full) inspiration of the autographa." KJVOs here diminish the authority of the autographa on the absurd idea that they are not authoritative because we do not have them. ]]> Bible Versions freesundayschoollessons http://www.fundamentalforums.com/bible-versions/75421-the-idea-of-a-predictive-model-of-scripture.html John 7:8 - lectio difficilior run amuck http://www.fundamentalforums.com/bible-versions/75411-john-7-8-lectio-difficilior-run-amuck-new-post.html Wed, 11 Nov 2009 16:32:08 GMT Hi Folks,

This verse is often given in modern versions without the 'yet', making Jesus to be speaking an untruth.

John 7:8-10
Go ye up unto this feast:
I go not up yet unto this feast;
for my time is not yet full come.
When he had said these words unto them, he abode still in Galilee.
But when his brethren were gone up,
then went he also up unto the feast,
not openly, but as it were in secret.

There is a small-in-size big-in-import textual variant involved. This variant (in some mss including Codex Sinaticus) is one major reason why the translation is given differently in many versions, e.g :

TNIV - Today's New International Version
You go to the Festival. I am not going up to this Festival, because my time has not yet fully come.

NET - NET Bible (New English Translation)
You go up to the feast yourselves. I am not going up to this feast because my time has not yet fully arrived.

NAS - New American Standard
"Go up to the feast yourselves; I do not go up to this feast because My time has not yet fully come."

NLT - New Living Translation
You go on. I’m not going to this festival, because my time has not yet come.”

ESV - English Standard Version
You go up to the feast. I am not going up to this feast, for my time has not yet fully come."

CEV - Contemporary English Version
Go on to the festival. My time hasn't yet come, and I am not going."

ASV - American Standard Version
Go ye up unto the feast: I go not up unto this feast; because my time is not yet fulfilled.

NRSV - New Revised Standard Version
Go to the festival yourselves. I am not going to this festival, for my time has not yet fully come.

RSV - Revised Standard Version
Go to the feast yourselves; I am not going up to this feast, for my time has not yet fully come.

DBY - TDB - Darby Bible
Ye, go ye up to this feast. I go not up to this feast, for my time is not yet fulfilled.

WEY - Weymouth Bible
As for you, go up to the Festival. I do not now go up to this Festival, because my time is not yet fully come

NAB - New American Bible
You go up to the feast. I am not going up to this feast, because my time has not yet been fulfilled.

NJB - New Jerusalem Bible
Go up to the festival yourselves: I am not going to this festival, because for me the time is not ripe yet.

NA26-27 (UBS 3-4)
umeiV anabhte eiV thn eorthn egw ouk anabainw eiV thn eorthn tauthn oti o emoV kairoV oupw peplhrwtai
ὑμεῖς ἀνάβητε εἰς τὴν ἑορτήν: ἐγὼ οὐκ ἀναβαίνω εἰς τὴν ἑορτὴν ταύτην, ὅτι ὁ ἐμὸς καιρὸς οὔπω πεπλήρωται.

The reason for the error in these versions is not just the (weak) manuscript attestation for "not". A strong (to the textcrits) argument is made, by the common gross abuse of lectio difficilior, to have the error put in precisely because it makes Jesus tell an untruth.

Bob Waltz, with a typical textcrit mentality, is not so sophisticated as many that he fudges his words.

Canons of Criticism - Bob Waltz
http://www.skypoint.com/members/walt...onsOfCrit.html

John 7:8.
Aleph D K 1241 1071 1241 a b c e ff2 vg sin cur bo arm geo al read "I am not going to this festival."
P66 P75 B L T W Q 070 0250 33 892 Byz have "I am not yet going to this festival."

The first reading is to be preferred because it implies that Jesus either lied or changed his mind.

Hmmm...

"Trust us. We are from the Textual Criticism Society and we are here to help your Bible."

Shalom,
Steven Avery ]]> Bible Versions Steven Avery http://www.fundamentalforums.com/bible-versions/75411-john-7-8-lectio-difficilior-run-amuck.html Text critical decision are always about probability http://www.fundamentalforums.com/bible-versions/75402-text-critical-decision-are-always-about-probability-new-post.html Wed, 11 Nov 2009 14:02:40 GMT Hi Folks, Text critical decision are always about probability The above is a quote, quite accurate to the text critical discipline, from a... Hi Folks,

Text critical decision are always about probability

The above is a quote, quite accurate to the text critical discipline, from a pure-KJB opponent on an email forum. A fella with some scholarship credentials. This was in the context of his defending various modern version readings and yet his not being able to be really sure of which reading was scripture.

In many ways this is the heart of one major conceptual difference in the view of the Bible in the current discussions.

The Reformation Bible defender, including the King James Bible, will hold up their versions, books and Bible as 100% the pure word of God.

Another camp is really holding up each verse as a probability. This would represent their thinking, although they are reluctant to express it so clearly.

Acts 8:37 is not original ! - 80%
Acts 8:37 is scripture from Luke - 20%

"God was manifest in the flesh" - not in our versions, only 35% possibility
"who/which" (emended to he) - 65% sure this is the original scripture.

(Feel free to modify the actual percents to your own understanding.) This can go on and on for 100s of variants, including major sections and verses and phrases. Some they might consider 99%-1% and others 51%-49% .. yet whatever the numbers :

Text critical decision are always about probability

Please note that the textual critics prefer to assign an A-B-C-D letter system (will they switch to Pass-Fail ?) yet just as in grading a test this is simply an alternate method of representing probability numbers.

Oh, note that there can be more than two possibilities, such as Acts 20:28, so that in some verses the 'scripture' chosen may only be a minority probability.

Acts 20:28
Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock,
over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers,
to feed the church of God,
which he hath purchased with his own blood.

American Standard Version - to feed the church of the Lord
World English Bible - to shepherd the assembly of the Lord and God

There are actually seven variants in the mss for the phrase, and the last part of the verse has a second very significant variant, so all in all the TC 'final answer' verse could have at least 14 variants. While many are of minor interest, this example shows you that the verse reading chosen surely does not even necessarily have to be likely, the majority, by the textual criticism analysis. It simply has to be the 'most likely' of all the alternatives. (Something similar happens in John 1:18. When you include the hotly-discussed translational issue of MONOGENES there are four major resulting English texts. This would be an exceptional case of including translation in the analysis since the translation issue is so fundamental and well-defined.)

Now the methods of determining the probability (they like the phrase "intrinsic and transcriptional probability" for the actual calculation attempts - about which there are some very fine comments) can surely be severely questioned (historically, practically, conceptually, for accuracy and sense, examining the paradigms involved) -- yet that is not the point of this current thread.

In fact, a pure, consistent textcrit would not even say that a verse with 0 variants is 100% sure .. consider the "primitive corruptions" seriously entertained by Hort, the leading historical textcrit theorist. There you were given the possibility of considering as original many new readings with no support in any manuscript or early church writer whatsoever, replacing whatever readings do exist in the mss. (Afaik, none of these have ever received a single confirmation from later textual discoveries.)

Or consider that any verse could have new variants from tomorrows papyrus trash heap discoveries. Thus even the uncontested verses (no variants) would have to be put at 99%+, not 100%.

However let us stay with the 1000's of verses that do have variants, where the textual critics have done calculations for you.

Note that sometimes they change their mind and differ radically today, as in John 7:8. Offering you two conflicting readings, either one you can take as more probable ! Other times, like in the resurrection account of the Lord Jesus at the conclusion of Mark's Gospel, many or most version readers are not aware that they are supposed to be only reading the verses as the tampering additions of man, not as scripture. The verses are in their versions with a footnote mild disclaimer, easy to miss, ignore or bypass.

On textual variants and the decisions, in general, the textual critics are to be your source, as expressed by the same scholar :

"I trust the text critics to have done their job well enough that I have a reliable text, including the Bible."

btw .. Let us not be concerned right now with 'translation'. Only the text-critical textual aspect of the source languages giving us the underlying text.

My Bible is 100% the pure word of God, tangible, readable, in my hands, held to the heart.

Is the modern versionist aware that in his versions he is reading hundreds or thousands of verses that are calculated to be 90%, 75% or 55% the original word of God .. by his own theories ?

Are you aware of that, and do you consider that probability aspect on verse after verse to be God's purpose and plan for preserving his scriptures for you ?

And do you trust the textual critics to give you a :
"reliable text, including the Bible"

Have you researched yourself and checked how the textual criticism sausage is produced ?

For your consideration.

Psalm 119:140
Thy word is very pure:
therefore thy servant loveth it.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

PS.
Note : I would prefer to keep the quotee's name of of this thread, since he is not currently on this forum. Simply proper courtesy. If you are concerned about the accuracy or context of the quotes, a PM would be sufficient to point you to the email forum. The quotes are not individual-centric .. they definitely are fair representations of the scholarship perspective, as viewed from many involved with the Bible text in areas like translation yet outside the direct textual criticism discipline. ]]> Bible Versions Steven Avery http://www.fundamentalforums.com/bible-versions/75402-text-critical-decision-are-always-about-probability.html <![CDATA[I wish our church used this version... here's why]]> http://www.fundamentalforums.com/bible-versions/75401-i-wish-our-church-used-this-version-heres-why-new-post.html Wed, 11 Nov 2009 13:43:16 GMT Another complementary thread.... I wish our church used the NIV (we currently use the ESV) because the NIV is very easy to understand and has a... Another complementary thread....

I wish our church used the NIV (we currently use the ESV) because the NIV is very easy to understand and has a dynamic flow regarding its readability. Though the ESV is very good, I find the NIV easier to follow when passages are being read (when you are not following in the text). ]]> Bible Versions freesundayschoollessons http://www.fundamentalforums.com/bible-versions/75401-i-wish-our-church-used-this-version-heres-why.html Our church uses this version... http://www.fundamentalforums.com/bible-versions/75400-our-church-uses-this-version-new-post.html Wed, 11 Nov 2009 13:37:39 GMT Though our church uses various bibles, we provide ESV pew bibles and the ESV would be considered our main text. I would prefer it to be the NIV, but... Though our church uses various bibles, we provide ESV pew bibles and the ESV would be considered our main text. I would prefer it to be the NIV, but the ESV is great.

What is your church's main text?

Just 10 years ago, very few IFB-type churches used anything other than the KJV. I have been using the NIV for decades and the fundamental Baptist church I was at used it. We were basically loners in our decision. I am interested in seeing what the shift looks like now. ]]> Bible Versions freesundayschoollessons http://www.fundamentalforums.com/bible-versions/75400-our-church-uses-this-version.html www.Logos.com on Steroids! http://www.fundamentalforums.com/bible-versions/75387-www-logos-com-on-steroids-new-post.html Wed, 11 Nov 2009 03:01:33 GMT I have been using Logos software from the beginning. I love it and have, over the years, customized it.

Look at this! It will blow your mind! I'm saving up for this!!!

http://www.logos.com/4 ]]> Bible Versions freesundayschoollessons http://www.fundamentalforums.com/bible-versions/75387-www-logos-com-on-steroids.html Bible Software for PocketPCs, Smartphones and IPhones http://www.fundamentalforums.com/bible-versions/75384-bible-software-for-pocketpcs-smartphones-and-iphones-new-post.html Wed, 11 Nov 2009 02:41:28 GMT I have had a pocket pc since they first came out. Great things!! I started purchasing Bibles on www.laridian.com. I put a few bucks into those... I have had a pocket pc since they first came out. Great things!! I started purchasing Bibles on www.laridian.com. I put a few bucks into those Bibles. I wish I would have gone the Olive Tree route since you can get both the Greek and Hebrew Bibles.

Thought I would also follow Izdaari's lead and get some other discussion going... ]]> Bible Versions freesundayschoollessons http://www.fundamentalforums.com/bible-versions/75384-bible-software-for-pocketpcs-smartphones-and-iphones.html The Dead Horse in the Living Room http://www.fundamentalforums.com/bible-versions/75383-the-dead-horse-in-the-living-room-new-post.html Wed, 11 Nov 2009 01:39:29 GMT I, for one, am sick to death of the KJVO controversy. You guys have beaten this dead horse and keep beating it. Well, ok, that's alright for you guys. ;)

But isn't anyone interested in anything else? There isn't a SINGLE thread (except for this one of course) on Page 1 that isn't about KJVO. What about some discussion of Bible translations without reference to the KJVO issue? Is anyone up for it?

What translation(s) do you like and why? It's ok to say the KJV if that's what you like. But no saying it's the only good translation, or attacking other translations: that's not allowed in this thread. If you feel that way, fine, but post about it in some other thread.

Note: Anyone who tries to hijack this thread into KJVO territory WILL get red and be put on my ignore list.
 ]]> Bible Versions Izdaari http://www.fundamentalforums.com/bible-versions/75383-the-dead-horse-in-the-living-room.html