What is the Worst Bible Translation?

This is a fallacy, whether intentional or not. No one on here would equate the Book of Mormon with the NAS, NIV, etc.

 

To those who have never read a tract called "Use The Bible God Uses", here's a few words from it:

"There are only TWO STREAMS of texts and Bibles coming down through the centuries. (1)THERE IS A PURE STREAM that the KJV is based on, which is the text of the Bible believers for the past 1900 years. It is the text of the Waldensians, Anabaptists, and the other ancestors of TRUE BAPTISTS. It was the text of Luther and the Reformation. (2)THERE IS A POLLUTED STREAM that ALL the modern versions are based upon. It is the text of Origen, Constantine, Eusebius, the Roman Catholic Church, of Westcott & Hort, and ALL of the apostates today. I have never met a modernist that said that the KJV was the best or the most accurate. They ALL prefer something else.

None of the popular new versions are translated from the Textus Receptus, and this includes the New King James Version. A careful reading of the Preface will reveal that it is NOT based entirely on the same texts that underly the King James Version. We do not recommend the New King James Version.

THE PURE STREAM has produced and preserved Christianity down through the ages. Why? Because the Bible says, "for thou has magnified thy word above all thy name."(Psa.138:2). THE POLLUTED STREAM has produced Roman Catholicism and apostate Christendom today. THE POLLUTED STREAM of Bibles NEVER has produced anything that God would ever claim, and they never will. While some who prefer them, still profess to believe the fundamentals of the faith, be sure that in the end they will produce apostasy."

 

Granny's daughter- I am not calling God a liar. I am calling man a sinner. We make mistakes. God's original words are totally inerrant...but that is in the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. Our human translations will always have error. Thus no translation will be perfect. If God's word pointed that one translation was perfect, then yes, I would read it. But give me a verse that says that, then I will believe it!

 

So the poll would have us believe that the TNIV and the KJV are the worst Bibles, while the NCV is one of the best? I have no problem believing the former and have much problem with the latter

 

Hi Granny's Daughter,

Note so. It is actually KJV-onlyism that does, because it uses a faulty definition of "preservation". Let me illustrate: Do you believe God promised to "preserve" a true and perfect (ie. word for word) word of God? Yes, you do. But do you believe there was one in 1605? If so, the KJV is a corruption of this true and perfect word of God, thus to say the KJV is the true and perfect word of God instead is to call God a liar. If however, you *don't* believe there was a true and perfect word of God in 1605, you again say God was a liar. Since either possibility results in God being a liar (which cannot be true), we then see that it is your *presupposition* that is in error, and you have the wrong understanding of preservation in the first place.

God preserved his word, not floated down from heaven on a golden pillow, but through the efforts of imperfect men throughout the centuries. If men make a mistake in copying or translating, it is still God's word, and how God chose for it to be transmitted to us.

So where were they preserved in 1605, and why did the KJV deviate from that preservation?

Amen. Let's throw out all our English Bibles, and all learn Hebrew and Greek.

Brian

 

Why does the KJV differ from this "pure stream" in places? And how does KJV-"only" deal with other Bibles from this "stream"? Things that are different are not the same. If "only" the KJV is the word of God, nothing else from this "stream", including the "stream" itself, is the word of God. So what exactly is the KJV preserving then?

Why does Luther's Bible not have 1 John 5:7 in it?

(rest of slander from that tract ignored)

Brian

 

< If one thing is *supposedly* incorrect in the KJV, or any other so-called version, then it is not the true and perfect Word of God. >

You can do all the supposing that little mind of your will allow, but no text commands to make transaltions of itself, or says anything about such, and definitely guarantees nothing.

< Also, "New Age Bible Versions" by G.A. Riplinger is an excellent resource. >

Riplinger is a {snip}

< Shouldn't we as Christians have more backbone about God's Word than a government teacher with Shakespeare? >

Shakespeare is art, that's what it is read for. If you think the Bible is art, that explains your comparison of it to Shakespeare. Those of us who think the Bible is absolutely vital information want it in archaic language even less than we want a business report in such. Is the Bible art or is it information?

Anyone who wishes can take in "pisseth against the wall" (I Samuel 25:22, et al) and other wonderful KJV terms, but to make a particular translation-- which the original texts say nothing about-- a test of faith or a filter of anything significant is imbecilic lunacy.

[ July 12, 2002, 04:07 PM: Message edited by: TomVols ]

 

This is a fallacy, whether intentional or not. No one on here would equate the Book of Mormon with the NAS, NIV, etc.</font>[/QUOTE]Please read the previous posts on this topic and you will see that the Joseph Smith's translation was mentioned as one of the worst translations... so, evidently, someone equates it or, at least, considers it a translation.

[ July 12, 2002, 03:09 PM: Message edited by: Granny'sDaughter ]

 

God's Word is neither...it's TRUTH!

To answer the other questions some of you have had concerning those books I mentioned earlier, I simply recommended them as a good place to start studying. Also, I would recommend a side by side comparison with the King James Bible and the so-called other versions of the Bible those interested in studying this out for yourself.

 

I whole-heartedly encourage the same thing. But I also encourage doing some digging to find out the reason behind any differences you encounter, instead of just assuming any differences from the KJV are corruptions. Sometimes it's the other way around.

Granny's Daughter, have you ever done a side-by-side comparison of the KJV with a pre-KJV Bible, like the Geneva or Tyndale's?

Brian

 

Those so-called other translations are just that, translations. a side by side comparison is good, but to what standard: the KJV? That is begging the question. Why is the KJV the standard? To what should the KJV be compard to?

Where was God's word prior to 1611? If it existed, why is the KJV not also a "so-called" translation?

 

Psalm 12:6-7 say nothing of the sort. Psalm 12:6-7 use God's promises as proof that the godly man will not perish from the earth.

So you have no problem with the NKJV then?

As for the "Things that are different are not ths ame," I didn't hint at the book. I was wondering if you were consistent with that statement or not. Which edition of the KJV are you arguing for? Since there are several different versions, would you not say that they cannot all be the Word of God?

Riplinger's book is full of lies, misquotes, misrepresentations, and logical fallacies. She is not a credible source.

Because it is not important to understand Shakespeare; it is important to understand God's word.

But you still haven't answered the question: What scriptural basis do you use to determine which the "straight stick" is? In other words, which verse of Scripture identifies the KJV as the "only word of God" for the English language? Or are you adding somethign to Scripture that is not there?

[ July 12, 2002, 05:12 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

But you still haven't answered the question: What scriptural basis do you use to determine which the "straight stick" is? In other words, which verse of Scripture identifies the KJV as the "only word of God" for the English language? Or are you adding somethign to Scripture that is not there?[PLarry]

"Which verse of Scripture identifies YOURS as the "only word of God" for today? There IS a book in the English language in which ALL of the GOD INSPIRED WORDS can be found; the KJBible is that blessed Old Book. If this were not so, the devil would not be so adamant about trying to disprove this fact. If it weren't for the KJBible, there wouldn't be any of these other 'versions' as seen today. God is the ONLY one who can make a true standard. Such a standard (or STRAIGHT STICK) will ENDURE the test of time. The KJBible is such a Standard. You have a choice; make it wisely. It is God's Word, or variations FROM it which casts shadows of doubt UPON it, that you are choosing.

 

See The Lockman Foundation's Reply To Gail Riplinger

 

There we have it. GrannyGumbo is telling us there was no STRAIGHT STICK before the KJV, that God's promise of preservation was a lie until 1611. And then says *we're* the ones casting doubts.
Sorry Granny, I like you but I can never accept that God's word popped into existence in 1611.

 

On Riplinger, see also New Age Bible Versions: Review Article -- S. E. Schnaiter

 

There we have it. GrannyGumbo is telling us there was no STRAIGHT STICK before the KJV[BrianT]

"This is NOT what I said; I also never said God's Word popped into existance in 1611. Why don't you let well enough alone?

 

I assumed from your lack of answers as to where the word of God was before 1611, and why the KJV deviated from it, combined with your statement that versions other than the KJV are NOT the word of God, requires you to hold the view that God's word did not exist prior to 1611. It seems to be the only logical explanation. If you disagree, please explain to us where the word of God was prior to 1611, in such a way that does not conflict with the KJV being the only word of God.

Because I'm defending the word of God - across all centuries, not just since 1611 - and I'm tired of those who limit God's word to only a 17th century translation implying we are doing Satan's bidding because we disagree with them.

Brian