New bibles since 1960

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
L

Locoponydirtman

Guest
#61
In our language today, does study mean the same thing as do your best? Did study back in 1611 mean do your best? In 1


To handle something means to hold on to something. Divide means to make divisions or separate something in to different parts.
To handle properly or handle aright according to Strong's. Which usually applies to a warning against misuse or mishandling.

rightly dividing (G3718 orthotomeō) the word of truth. The Greek word orthotomeō only appears once in the New Testament. The Strong’s Concordance defines it like this:

to cut straight, to cut straight ways to proceed on straight paths, hold a straight course, equiv. to doing right
to make straight and smooth, to handle aright, to teach the truth directly and correctly
One can only guess why the KJV translators chose the phrase “rightly dividing” instead of “rightly teach” or “cutting straight”, It would suggest that in 1611 “rightly dividing” might have had a different meaning than how we use it today. Given the context of this verse and the surrounding text.
 

Sipsey

Well-known member
Sep 27, 2018
1,502
713
113
#62
Here is another definition from the late Dr. Zodhiates;

3718. ὀρθοτομέω orthotoméō; contracted orthotomṓ, fut. orthotomḗsō, from orthós (3717), right and témnō (n.f., see below), to cut or divide. To handle correctly, skillfully; to correctly teach the word of truth (2Ti 2:15; Sept.: Pr 3:6; 11:5).



Deriv. of témnō (n.f.): peritémnō (4059), to circumcise; suntémnō (4932), to cut short; tomṓteros (5114), finer edged, sharper.



Syn.: alētheúō (226), to be true.



Ant.: streblóō (4761), to pervert, twist, wrest; planáō (4105), to lead astray; pseúdomai (5574), to deceive by falsehood; diastréphō (1294), to distort; apatáō (538), to deceive; exapatáō (1818), to greatly deceive.
 
L

Locoponydirtman

Guest
#63
Study?
Σπούδασον (Spoudason)
Verb - Aorist Imperative Active - 2nd Person Singular
Strong's Greek 4704: To hasten, be eager, be zealous. From spoude; to use speed, i.e. To make effort, be prompt or earnest.
That word "study" must have had other connotations back in 1611 as well.
 

Lanolin

Well-known member
Dec 15, 2018
23,460
7,188
113
#64
Well looking at the context verses 14-17 hymaneus and philetus said the resurrection is passed already, the must have wrongly divided the word of truth making that error. Hymaneus and Philetus sure were reading the bible, they didnt deny the resurrection but somehow concluded it had passed already!
 

Lanolin

Well-known member
Dec 15, 2018
23,460
7,188
113
#65
I dont know if in greek the past tenses and furture tenses can be divided but in hebrew they dont even have gaps between words like we do in english. So if dividing the wrong way someone could miss something out I guess.
 
L

Locoponydirtman

Guest
#66
One thing I am thankful for from all these KJV only guys; as I put fourth earnest effort toward understand translation. I learn how poorly translated the KJV is, and I am confident in steering people away from this slap dash haphazard attempt to appease the Pope and quell the hostilities between papists and Protestants and get rid of the Geneva Bible because it points out the heresies of the papists and the crown; translation.
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
17,170
3,699
113
#68
One thing I am thankful for from all these KJV only guys; as I put fourth earnest effort toward understand translation. I learn how poorly translated the KJV is, and I am confident in steering people away from this slap dash haphazard attempt to appease the Pope and quell the hostilities between papists and Protestants and get rid of the Geneva Bible because it points out the heresies of the papists and the crown; translation.
Where do you get your sources? The new versions align more to RCC theology. And further more, they contradict themselves making God to be a liar. See 2 Samuel 21:19.

A faithful witness will not lie.
 
Mar 28, 2016
15,954
1,528
113
#70
In our language today, does study mean the same thing as do your best? Did study back in 1611 mean do your best? In 1
Yes studying or rightly dividing (not adding or subtraction) the material as it is written in order to do our best is how we can seek His approval.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
25,602
13,861
113
#72
In our language today, does study mean the same thing as do your best? Did study back in 1611 mean do your best?
You're completely missing the point. You would need to verify that the 16th century meaning of "study" is the same as today's meaning. It isn't.

Just because it's the same word, doesn't ensure that it's the same thing. "Bottles" (KJV) are not glass cylinders with end closed; they are wineskins. "Suffer" (KJV) does not mean "undergo unpleasant circumstances", but "allow" or "permit".
 

Hevosmies

Well-known member
Sep 8, 2018
3,612
2,633
113
#73
I for one find it amazing how Americans cant deal with simple KJV english, yet many of them speak multiple languages and are highly educated engineers and all kinds of stuff.

STILL CANT FIGURE OUT THEES AND THOUS!

If I can figure it out and understand the KJV with no education(not even HS) and english being my 2nd language, what is your excuse?

The experts actually said KJV is on a lower reading level than the new versions, too.
I for one will stick with the King Jimmy!

Or the one translated in my native language in 1776!
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
25,602
13,861
113
#74
I for one find it amazing how Americans cant deal with simple KJV english, yet many of them speak multiple languages and are highly educated engineers and all kinds of stuff.

STILL CANT FIGURE OUT THEES AND THOUS!

If I can figure it out and understand the KJV with no education(not even HS) and english being my 2nd language, what is your excuse?

The experts actually said KJV is on a lower reading level than the new versions, too.
I for one will stick with the King Jimmy!

Or the one translated in my native language in 1776!
Why bother having to learn a new dialect when you can access several translations in your own dialect?
 
L

Locoponydirtman

Guest
#75
Where do you get your sources? The new versions align more to RCC theology. And further more, they contradict themselves making God to be a liar. See 2 Samuel 21:19.

A faithful witness will not lie.
I'm just pulling your leg.
I read the King James only too, cause George Washington wrote it and called it King James to rub it in his face that his Bible was better. Cause general Custer and Luke Skywalker, and GI Joe kicked his butt and George Was like in your face King, if you had a cool Bible like mine you maybe could have won a little bit. But you didn't and now my Bible is the only Bible.
Kind of like when Herod caught Peter and was gonna kill him but decided he would wait a couple thousand years until after Easter. His men was like he dude why are we gonna wait a couple thousand years till after this holiday which don't yet exist, to kill this guy, and Herod was like because then the Christians will dress up in fancy clothes and look for Jesus in eggs that a rabbit will lay every where, and if we kill Peter then it will ruin their fun.
 

Matthew55

Active member
Dec 29, 2018
117
30
28
#76
Well, this OP is not completely true!

The Twentieth Century NT version was the first modern English version, published in its final version in 1904!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twentieth_Century_New_Testament

Moffat's version was published in 1922, to bring, "effective, intelligible English" to the world!

In 1937 the William's Bible was published, which put the text into modern English or "the language of the people!"

In 1950, the Revised Standard Version NT was published! And the whole Bible in 1952.

JB Philips version "the New Testament in Modern English, was published in 1959!

This does not count the Bibles in Braille, Chinese, East Indian etc, all published in the language of the People, which you KJV Only people seem to forget! You know, most of the world!

As to why? People no longer understood the KJV because of the obsolete and archaic language, and as later scholarship would discover, the fact that it was translated from 7 fifteenth century corrupted manuscripts, including back translated from Catholic Latin copies, to say nothing of all the additions incorporated into the text, by Byzantine scribes through the millennia.

I prefer the original languages, but I do read modern versions, I'm currently using the NET for the 60,000 footnotes, although it is an excellent modern version and translation!

Here is an interesting link to Bibles in the 20th century! Just the facts! None of this misinformed KJV Only nonsense and outright lies.

http://clausenbooks.com/bible2000.htm
When you say: "None of this misinformed KJV Only nonsense and outright lies", that is quite a statment, when millions of Christians rely on the KJV for their guidance into salvation of Eternal Life. I hope we are not getting duped by a bible that apparently was written by devils.

Can you expand on your statement? I would be interested. What information do you have of the ancient texts used to translate the KJV, I thought that was interesting, but have no reference for this statement.

So thank you.
 

Angela53510

Senior Member
Jan 24, 2011
11,786
2,959
113
#77
When you say: "None of this misinformed KJV Only nonsense and outright lies", that is quite a statment, when millions of Christians rely on the KJV for their guidance into salvation of Eternal Life. I hope we are not getting duped by a bible that apparently was written by devils.

Can you expand on your statement? I would be interested. What information do you have of the ancient texts used to translate the KJV, I thought that was interesting, but have no reference for this statement.

So thank you.

I'm sorry! I apologize for putting down an historic translation, which God has and continues to use for his glory. I have come very hard against the KJV Onlyists, because we have been having this same fruitless argument for years and years. Literally, the SAME people and the SAME exact conversation. So, something for you to understand, since you are fairly new to CC.

My objection has never been to people reading the KJV, and learning and growing in Christ. A friend of mine uses the KJV, and also posts Spurgeon devotionals in 19th century English. She thinks my lack of understanding has something to do with my learning style, and the way I read, that I cannot get much out of the KJV or her posts by Spurgeon, unless they are translated into modern English.

I am very good at languages I have been taught. I am fluent in French, I understand a lot of German and Spanish, and I read the NT in Koine Greek, with no problem. I am also picking up my Hebrew again. But, I have learned these things, by listening to the languages, studying the grammar, especially the verbs, and being taught by people who are experts in the languages. I have never, ever been taught how to conjugate 2nd person singular in 16th century English. Even though I can do it for all the other languages, because I was taught, and I have a good memory and learned them.

Now I am old. I used the KJV in Sunday School, as a child. I memorized it, and those verses have stayed with me, and opened the door to salvation. Someone said that kids shouldn't memorize KJV, but it never hurt me. But, when I was just turning 12, I was not being sent to church anymore. So, I started reading the KJV on my own. I even memorized Psalm 8. But, I was frustrated. Because there were so many words I couldn't understand. (No internet to look things up in those days!) And the grammar was weird. I tried very hard to read it, but gave up, and instead, got into modern English occult. I always wondered if I had a modern version, (Did they even exist in those days? Well, some people had them!) that I might have stuck with God, instead of getting so horribly off track? Or maybe, God wanted me on that track, because I have a ministry to new agers, now, which I would not have if I had not wandered so far from God? (I spent till 2 am online last night witnessing to a new ager, and it is was another seed watered. God will give the increase.)

Anyway, my objection is NOT to people reading the KJV. It is those who come on here with shoddy research and claim that modern Bibles are from the devil, and the KJV is the ONLY version. When it is a version that most moderns cannot read. When there are so many translation errors, and additions by Byzantine scribes. To say nothing of archaic and obsolete words and grammar. Read the version that works for you. But claiming it is the ONLY Bible, when I have a good knowledge of especially Greek, hermeneutics and Biblical history, as well as studied manuscript evidence, and I could exegete every passage and show you why and where it is wrong, drives me crazy. It is just willful ignorance. Not about reading it! Just to say all other Bibles are bad. From the devil or whatever.

And, I do read modern versions, and I always learn something. Because the Holy Spirit illuminates the words. And if something is NOT right at all, I find it out pretty quick. I know the Bible well, after reading it over 50 times in many languages. So, when a translation is wrong, I can spot it. In second year seminary Greek, we did a lot of comparisons of versions. Because, Greek doesn't translate well into English. German does! It is amazing how close to the Greek it is. That is my project right now. Reading the NT in German. But not English. English, be it 16th century or modern, has a different word order than Greek. It doesn't have cases, and tenses are not important compared to aspect, another thing English barely has.

So, I apologize to all who read the KJV, and it is a good translation for them. I do not apologize to those who have read the simpliest and most facile kind of propaganda by people with no education, who push people into believing the KJV is the ONLY version, when it is merely a popular version from the 16th century.

Here is a link to a good article to read on this topic. Most of the hits come up in favour of KJVOnly on the internet. But, a proper search, or for that matter scholarly books tell this same tale, over and over. Textual variants, late corrupted versions used for the KJV. Because, they simply did not have access to better versions, many of which had not even been found in those days.

https://www.equip.org/article/is-your-modern-translation-corrupt/

PS. A good second year Greek text book Going Deeper with New Testament Greek, by Kostenberger et al, starts with a long section on manuscript evidence, esp. for the KJV. But it is not a secret. Everyone who has studied Greek, or been a scholar knows the KJV was translated from corrupted late manuscripts. That is why there are so many additions. Which does not detract from the fact, that it is doctrinally the same as modern versions. (With the except of versions like the JWs New World Translation.)
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
25,602
13,861
113
#79
Hevosmies, man up. You're being a coward
When you say: "None of this misinformed KJV Only nonsense and outright lies", that is quite a statment, when millions of Christians rely on the KJV for their guidance into salvation of Eternal Life. I hope we are not getting duped by a bible that apparently was written by devils.

Can you expand on your statement? I would be interested. What information do you have of the ancient texts used to translate the KJV, I thought that was interesting, but have no reference for this statement.

So thank you.
I'll add to what Angela wrote in reply...

The KJV was put together by about 50 English scholars and clergy, at the command and instructions of of King James 1. They used a variety of sources as references, but their primary source was an existing English edition called the Bishop's Bible, which itself drew heavily on the work of William Tyndale (in English) and the printed Greek editions by Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza. Erasmus had about seven incomplete Greek manuscripts as sources. They also had Bibles in several other languages at hand.

If you want a more thorough treatment of the subject, I recommend James White's The King James Bible Controversy (2nd. ed.).
 

Hevosmies

Well-known member
Sep 8, 2018
3,612
2,633
113
#80
Hevosmies, man up. You're being a coward
Irony, you of all people telling someone to man up? After talking about misogynistic patriarchy or whatever buzz words they got today. Dont ever tell me to man up again, thats toxic masculinity. You wanna talk about being a coward? God blessed you with the internet so you can call me names through a computer screen from the other side of the world, wonder if you'd say that offline, huh? Who is the coward?

On a serious note: What exactly do I need to say or do? I already said previously no point in discussing with you, yet you keep mentioning my nickname. Talking about some dialect? I didnt need to learn no dialect, english is the language KJV is written in. Its not even my first language. If you dont like the KJV thats fine, but dont use the 'its hard to understand' excuse.

I made a mistake last time I told you "i wont put you on ignore, but.." I should of just did that then. But better late than never.*ignored*. God bless you and your family. Have a good one son.