Bible version

[Blue Heron]

As is often the case, it is not a blatant denial of important doctrines that is presented (that would be too obvious), but a more subtle undermining of them. Verses are often worded to remove, weaken, or make ambiguous, clear references to vital doctrines.

I don't have a REB and it's not so easy to find an online version; however, here are a few examples of what I mean.

Rom. 9:5 (REB) The patriarchs are theirs, and from them by natural descent came the Messiah. May God, supreme above all, be blessed forever! Amen.

The above is worded to remove the interpretation that the Messiah is God. Compare this with Evangelical translations.

Note that the REB translators' footnote lists alternative possible readings: "Messiah, who is God, supreme above all and blessed for ever" and "Messiah, who is supreme above all. Blessed be God for ever!" So your preferred reading is mentioned in the footnote.

Rom. 9:33 (REB) mentioned in scripture: Here I lay in Zion a stone to trip over, a rock to stumble against; but he who has faith in it will not be put to shame.

Faith in "it"??? Clearly "it" is not supposed to refer to the Lord here. What "it" is supposed to refer to, is anyone's guess!

Presumably, "it" refers to the "stone" and the "rock" that have just been mentioned.

There are many, many such examples, throughout the REB. It has a clear bias against the deity of Christ (and other vital doctrines).

There are probably many points at which we can disagree with the translators' decisions. When I was looking up references for my previous post, though, I found it interesting that the REB translated Colossians 1:15 in a way that asserts the Incarnation more strongly than is found in many other translations. REB has "He is the image of the invisible God; his is the primacy over all creation." More commonly, I see the translation "firstborn of all creation" here (RSV, NRSV, KJV, ESV, NIV).

All that to say, I don't see the anti-doctrinal plot that you see, but stick with the KJV and ESV if you prefer them. We should all have half a dozen translations open in front of us whenever we're studying the nuances of individual sentences anyway.

 

[David1701]

Note that the REB translators' footnote lists alternative possible readings: "Messiah, who is God, supreme above all and blessed for ever" and "Messiah, who is supreme above all. Blessed be God for ever!" So your preferred reading is mentioned in the footnote.



Presumably, "it" refers to the "stone" and the "rock" that have just been mentioned.



There are probably many points at which we can disagree with the translators' decisions. When I was looking up references for my previous post, though, I found it interesting that the REB translated Colossians 1:15 in a way that asserts the Incarnation more strongly than is found in many other translations. REB has "He is the image of the invisible God; his is the primacy over all creation." More commonly, I see the translation "firstborn of all creation" here (RSV, NRSV, KJV, ESV, NIV).

All that to say, I don't see the anti-doctrinal plot that you see, but stick with the KJV and ESV if you prefer them. We should all have half a dozen translations open in front of us whenever we're studying the nuances of individual sentences anyway.

Footnotes are not the text. Something only mentioned in a footnote is not regarded as best by the translators.

Yes, of course "it" refers to the stone. The point is that this gives no indication as to what, or who, the stone is.

The REB's translation of Co. 1:15 is a paraphrase; "firstborn of all creation" is correct (firstborn indicates preeminence as part of its meaning anyway).

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

I checked the box "Other" because—and apparently I'm the only one—I rely on the New English Translation (NET) the most.

My go-to English Bibles are in the following order of usage: NET / ESV / NLT / NIV (1984) / NIV (2011).

 

[Munro]

I prefer the Bible - as Dr. Martin Luther translated it

 

[civic]

I prefer the Bible - as Dr. Martin Luther translated it

you read German ?

 

[civic]

I use the NASB overwhelmingly more than the others, ESV and NIV less frequently, but I also use the KJV if I am trading with a KJVist (as opposed to a KJVOist ). I am reading through the Bible from beginning to end in the NLT. I don't like the translation, but I am committed to finishing the project. However, when I'm studying scripture, I check the Hebrew/Greek and then I might review 7, 8, or 9 translations.

I use them similarly to you with the exception of the KJV. I use the NKJV instead.

 

[David1701]

I prefer the Bible - as Dr. Martin Luther translated it

I've heard that the Schlachter is supposed to be a good translation, in German.

 

[Eleanor]

Not to discourage you, but there are some common teachings concerning the Greek, that are designed for the infrequent user, but not for the proficient professor. Thus what has happened is that some become proficient in generalities that don't necessarily apply where they seem to, to such a person.

In other words, as you progress, keep your tongue-in-cheek. Don't take your knowledge and understanding too seriously.

What does that mean?

Quick example?

 

[makesends]

What does that mean?

Quick example?

Example: We often hear people explaining their use of Greek prepositions, (ha!, and usually only when it suits them!), according to charts like this one. Their understanding of the prepositions as described below is transliterated to English as if it was accurate to do such a thing.

Kind of reminds me of when I was a kid and someone gave me a pocket knife; I just HAD to go around looking for things I could cut, instead of using it for practical purposes.
View attachment 261

Just one example out of many: The Greek word, "lambano" (λαμβάνω), which is often translated, "I receive", could by the layman easily be considered correctly translated, when combined with "kata" (κατα) (drawn in the diagram as meaning "down"), in "katalambano" (καταλαμβάνω), to "I received down"; but seeing how awkward that sounds, inventions are made with it, instead of realizing that "kata" in this combination is an intensifier, and the result is something along the lines of (figuratively) to "grasp", "take hold of", even, "grab", but also, "understand". Strong's says, in usage it is: (a) I seize tight hold of, arrest, catch, capture, appropriate, (b) I overtake, (c) mid. aor: I perceived, comprehended.

Ha! I can see if this was explained to someone who had built doctrine on some concept of the transliteration "received down", that they might say, "Yes, or as we say in the States, 'I've got it down'!"

Probably everyone in this forum have seen people use the Greek "like a thornbush in the hand of a drunkard" (Proverbs 26:9) to defend their home-made non-orthodox —and heretical— theology.

These people take themselves too seriously, instead of keeping the healthy self-skepticism that common sense and experience should have taught them.

 

[Eleanor]

Example: We often hear people explaining their use of Greek prepositions, (ha!, and usually only when it suits them!), according to charts like this one. Their understanding of the prepositions as described below is transliterated to English as if it was accurate to do such a thing.

Kind of reminds me of when I was a kid and someone gave me a pocket knife; I just HAD to go around looking for things I could cut, instead of using it for practical purposes.
View attachment 261

Just one example out of many: The Greek word, "lambano" (λαμβάνω), which is often translated, "I receive", could by the layman easily be considered correctly translated, when combined with "kata" (κατα) (drawn in the diagram as meaning "down"), in "katalambano" (καταλαμβάνω), to "I received down"; but seeing how awkward that sounds, inventions are made with it, instead of realizing that "kata" in this combination is an intensifier, and the result is something along the lines of (figuratively) to "grasp", "take hold of", even, "grab", but also, "understand". Strong's says, in usage it is: (a) I seize tight hold of, arrest, catch, capture, appropriate, (b) I overtake, (c) mid. aor: I perceived, comprehended.

Ha! I can see if this was explained to someone who had built doctrine on some concept of the transliteration "received down", that they might say, "Yes, or as we say in the States, 'I've got it down'!"

Probably everyone in this forum have seen people use the Greek "like a thornbush in the hand of a drunkard" (Proverbs 26:9) to defend their home-made non-orthodox —and heretical— theology.

These people take themselves too seriously, instead of keeping the healthy self-skepticism that common sense and experience should have taught them.

Wow! That was great.

 

[makesends]

What does that mean?

Quick example?

Here's another one, from a post I saw for the first time today —a conclusion that I think is not so much from a misuse of the Greek, but of language use in general— "Note the wording shows that “all” truly means all, believing Jew, believing Gentile, and all unbelievers. So we see Jesus' Sacrifice was given to all people, not a select group. '1Ti 4:10 For to this end we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe.'"

Notice how the @FutureAndAHope here doesn't bother to even prove that "all truly means all" here, at all! He just says so, and assumes it is true because he eisegetically finds it supporting his theology. He thinks it means what he thinks it means, because that is how he reads it, and then expects the reader to assume what he does, by fiat. He doesn't even consider that "all" can mean "all" in this verse in a different sense, with the emphasis elsewhere —on the fact that GOD is the Savior of anybody (anyone from the group, "all").

He takes himself too seriously, and so he jumped to his usual conclusion.

 

[CrazyCalvinistUncle]

The NASB makes Jesus out to be a liar. It also has many other problems.

Which version?

 

[David1701]

Which version?

John 7:8 (NASB 95) Go up to the feast yourselves; I do not go up to this feast because My time has not yet fully come.”

John 7:8 (NASB 2020) Go up to the feast yourselves; I am not going up to this feast, because My time has not yet fully arrived.”

I have a printed copy of the NASB 77 NT and it has the same problem.

The Legacy Standard Bible (based on the NASB) has sorted the problem in this verse, by using the reading found in the vast majority of Greek manuscripts.

John 7:8 (LSB) Go up to the feast yourselves; I am not yet going up to this feast because My time has not yet been fulfilled.”

 

[Instant]

I only use the Authorized KJV Bible or the 1611 KJV Bible.

 

[David1701]

I only use the Authorized KJV Bible or the 1611 KJV Bible.

You use the 1611 KJV - really? That one has some typos and has spellings/grammar that were updated in 1769. It also has a small number of different translations from the 1769 edition.

Here's the beginning of John, in the 1611 KJV.

John 1:1-13 (1611 KJV)
1 In the beginning was the Word, & the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2 The same was in the beginning with God.

3 All things were made by him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.

4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men.

5 And the light shineth in darknesse, and the darknesse comprehended it not.

6 ¶ There was a man sent from God, whose name was Iohn.

7 The same came for a witnesse, to beare witnesse of the light, that all men through him might beleeue.

8 Hee was not that light, but was sent to beare witnesse of that light.

9 That was the true light, which lighteth euery man that commeth into the world.

10 Hee was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

11 Hee came vnto his owne, and his owne receiued him not.

12 But as many as receiued him, to them gaue hee power to become the sonnes of God, euen to them that beleeue on his Name:

13 Which were borne, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

Notice the obsolete spellings. Is this the version that you use?

 

[Dave_Regenerated]

Psalm 15 KJV:-

1(A Psalm of David.) LORD, who shall abide in thy tabernacle? who shall dwell in thy holy hill?

2He that walketh uprightly, and worketh righteousness, and speaketh the truth in his heart.

3He that backbiteth not with his tongue, nor doeth evil to his neighbour, nor taketh up a reproach against his neighbour.

4In whose eyes a vile person is contemned; but he honoureth them that fear the LORD. He that sweareth to his own hurt, and changeth not.

5He that putteth not out his money to usury, nor taketh reward against the innocent. He that doeth these things shall never be moved.

Psalm 15 NASB: -

15 Lord, who may reside in Your tent?
Who may settle on Your holy hill?
2 One who walks with integrity, practices righteousness,
And speaks truth in his heart.
3 He does not slander [a]with his tongue,
Nor do evil to his neighbor,
Nor bring shame on his friend;
4 A despicable person is despised in his eyes,
But he honors those who fear the Lord;
He takes an oath to his own detriment, and does not change;
5 He does not [b]lend his money [c]at interest,
Nor does he take a bribe against the innocent.
One who does these things will never be shaken.


Now, I don't know about anybody else here, but I happened to read Psalm 15 yesterday in the KJV, and I really had a hard time trying to understand much of it. It just seems to scramble my brain. I turned to the NASB and read it, and it made more sense.

 

[David1701]

Psalm 15 KJV:-

1(A Psalm of David.) LORD, who shall abide in thy tabernacle? who shall dwell in thy holy hill?

2He that walketh uprightly, and worketh righteousness, and speaketh the truth in his heart.

3He that backbiteth not with his tongue, nor doeth evil to his neighbour, nor taketh up a reproach against his neighbour.

4In whose eyes a vile person is contemned; but he honoureth them that fear the LORD. He that sweareth to his own hurt, and changeth not.

5He that putteth not out his money to usury, nor taketh reward against the innocent. He that doeth these things shall never be moved.

Psalm 15 NASB: -

15 Lord, who may reside in Your tent?
Who may settle on Your holy hill?
2 One who walks with integrity, practices righteousness,
And speaks truth in his heart.
3 He does not slander [a]with his tongue,
Nor do evil to his neighbor,
Nor bring shame on his friend;
4 A despicable person is despised in his eyes,
But he honors those who fear the Lord;
He takes an oath to his own detriment, and does not change;
5 He does not [b]lend his money [c]at interest,
Nor does he take a bribe against the innocent.
One who does these things will never be shaken.


Now, I don't know about anybody else here, but I happened to read Psalm 15 yesterday in the KJV, and I really had a hard time trying to understand much of it. It just seems to scramble my brain. I turned to the NASB and read it, and it made more sense.

I have no problem understanding the antiquated English of the KJV (although I do have to look up the occasional obsolete word), but people who never read it (or only rarely) will not be used to it. It stands to reason that you'd understand more modern English more easily. The NKJV is easier to read (than the KJV), for most people.

Psalm 15 (NKJV)

A Psalm of David.​

1 Lord, who may (a) abide in Your tabernacle?
Who may dwell in Your holy hill?

2 He who walks uprightly,
And works righteousness,
And speaks the truth in his heart;
3 He who does not backbite with his tongue,
Nor does evil to his neighbor,
Nor does he (b) take up a reproach against his friend;
4 In whose eyes a vile person is despised,
But he honors those who fear the Lord;
He who swears to his own hurt and does not change;
5 He who does not put out his money at usury,
Nor does he take a bribe against the innocent.

He who does these things shall never be moved.

a) Psalm 15:1 sojourn

b) Psalm 15:3 receive

There is also the little known VW (Voice in the Wilderness) translation, which is based on the NKJV.

Psalm 15 (VW)
1 [A Psalm of David] -- O Jehovah, who may abide in Your tent? Who may dwell on Your holy hill?
2 He who walks uprightly, and works righteousness, and speaks the truth in his heart;
3 he who does not backbite with his tongue, nor does evil to his neighbor, nor takes up a reproach against his friend;
4 in whose eyes the reprobate is despised, but he honors those who fear Jehovah; he has sworn to his hurt, and does not change it;
5 he has not put out his money at interest, nor has he taken a bribe against the innocent. He who does these things shall never be moved.

 

[Dave_Regenerated]

I have no problem understanding the antiquated English of the KJV (although I do have to look up the occasional obsolete word), but people who never read it (or only rarely) will not be used to it. It stands to reason that you'd understand more modern English more easily. The NKJV is easier to read (than the KJV), for most people.

Psalm 15 (NKJV)

A Psalm of David.​

1 Lord, who may (a) abide in Your tabernacle?
Who may dwell in Your holy hill?

2 He who walks uprightly,
And works righteousness,
And speaks the truth in his heart;
3 He who does not backbite with his tongue,
Nor does evil to his neighbor,
Nor does he (b) take up a reproach against his friend;
4 In whose eyes a vile person is despised,
But he honors those who fear the Lord;
He who swears to his own hurt and does not change;
5 He who does not put out his money at usury,
Nor does he take a bribe against the innocent.

He who does these things shall never be moved.

a) Psalm 15:1 sojourn

b) Psalm 15:3 receive

There is also the little known VW (Voice in the Wilderness) translation, which is based on the NKJV.

Psalm 15 (VW)
1 [A Psalm of David] -- O Jehovah, who may abide in Your tent? Who may dwell on Your holy hill?
2 He who walks uprightly, and works righteousness, and speaks the truth in his heart;
3 he who does not backbite with his tongue, nor does evil to his neighbor, nor takes up a reproach against his friend;
4 in whose eyes the reprobate is despised, but he honors those who fear Jehovah; he has sworn to his hurt, and does not change it;
5 he has not put out his money at interest, nor has he taken a bribe against the innocent. He who does these things shall never be moved.

Well, I know this, that I used to read the KJV and I didn't have much trouble understanding it as it seemed to grow on me and I got more used to it, it became easier to understand after some time. But I haven't read it in a very long time now, so perhaps I've gotten out of "touch" with it.

One other thing. As we can see from these many different translations, how do you answer the skeptic who says they are all different? How can we maintain that God's Word is supposed to be preserved when there are so many different versions that almost seem to be saying different things?

Will we all communicate telepathically in heaven? I mean, presumably if Moses is there and I don't speak ancient Hebrew, we aren't going to be able to communicate!

PS the NKJV seems to be the clearest here.

 

[Instant]

You use the 1611 KJV - really? That one has some typos and has spellings/grammar that were updated in 1769. It also has a small number of different translations from the 1769 edition.

Here's the beginning of John, in the 1611 KJV.

John 1:1-13 (1611 KJV)
1 In the beginning was the Word, & the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2 The same was in the beginning with God.

3 All things were made by him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.

4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men.

5 And the light shineth in darknesse, and the darknesse comprehended it not.

6 ¶ There was a man sent from God, whose name was Iohn.

7 The same came for a witnesse, to beare witnesse of the light, that all men through him might beleeue.

8 Hee was not that light, but was sent to beare witnesse of that light.

9 That was the true light, which lighteth euery man that commeth into the world.

10 Hee was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

11 Hee came vnto his owne, and his owne receiued him not.

12 But as many as receiued him, to them gaue hee power to become the sonnes of God, euen to them that beleeue on his Name:

13 Which were borne, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

Notice the obsolete spellings. Is this the version that you use?

Yes, it is, and it has the Apocrypha in the middle. I read it cover to cover 3 times, including the Apocrypha. You are correct about the Authorized version making a few corrections to typos, although I have seen minor typographical errors in the Authorized Version because a publisher messed up. That happens.

When I was Pastor of a Pentecostal Holiness Church, a member gave me a copy of the 1611 version. I wanted to compare it to the Authorized version, so I read it cover to cover. It was hard at first, but I picked it up pretty fast. I could read it pretty well by the time I finished Genesis, but the Roman numerals in Psalms can be tricky. I have preached from the 1611 Bible.

 

[Instant]

Well, I know this, that I used to read the KJV and I didn't have much trouble understanding it as it seemed to grow on me and I got more used to it, it became easier to understand after some time. But I haven't read it in a very long time now, so perhaps I've gotten out of "touch" with it.

One other thing. As we can see from these many different translations, how do you answer the skeptic who says they are all different? How can we maintain that God's Word is supposed to be preserved when there are so many different versions that almost seem to be saying different things?

Will we all communicate telepathically in heaven? I mean, presumably if Moses is there and I don't speak ancient Hebrew, we aren't going to be able to communicate!

PS the NKJV seems to be the clearest here.

To me, the NKJV is the best of the modern English Bibles, but since I find the Authorized King James Bible easy enough to understand, having used it for more than 40 years, I just stick to what I know and trust.