New bibles since 1960
- Thread starter preston39
- Start date
-
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.
Did the OP answer the question...sorry I dont understand the irony its passing me by...
Why 1960. Was everything prior to 1960 old then. I'm not enough of a bible scholar/publisher/library cataloguer to know when every single version of the Bible was first published. Dont new editions and versions just come out every year now anyway?? Its like the iphones. I dont know what number its up to now.
Im sort of old school cos my bible is KJV and am sticking with it. Cant really afford to keep chopping and changing bible versions every year a new one comes out. I would say its stood the test of time because if it was completly wrong it would have just faded into obscurity its still in print today.
I was chatting with one of the church librarians who was elder to me and she was saying she remembers when the JB phillips version came out it was new. Of course the kjv would have been new to anyone living in the 1600s and they had numerous english versions before that.
The newest one that ive heard about that the christian bookshops seem to promote is 'the passion translation' i dont know if thats to tie in with the movie that was called 'the passion' which is now kinda old lol.
Why 1960. Was everything prior to 1960 old then. I'm not enough of a bible scholar/publisher/library cataloguer to know when every single version of the Bible was first published. Dont new editions and versions just come out every year now anyway?? Its like the iphones. I dont know what number its up to now.
Im sort of old school cos my bible is KJV and am sticking with it. Cant really afford to keep chopping and changing bible versions every year a new one comes out. I would say its stood the test of time because if it was completly wrong it would have just faded into obscurity its still in print today.
I was chatting with one of the church librarians who was elder to me and she was saying she remembers when the JB phillips version came out it was new. Of course the kjv would have been new to anyone living in the 1600s and they had numerous english versions before that.
The newest one that ive heard about that the christian bookshops seem to promote is 'the passion translation' i dont know if thats to tie in with the movie that was called 'the passion' which is now kinda old lol.
I've done my homework and I am fully aware of the false theories of the modern critics following W&H. But both Scrivener (the leading authority on manuscripts in the 19th century) and Burgon (not too far behind him) REJECTED all that nonsense. And even W& H (along with Bishop Ellicott) were compelled to admit that since 400 AD the established Greek text of the NT was the Byzantine text. So what you should do is study Scrivener's textbook on the subject, since he personally collated the actual manuscripts (and I own a reprint of this book, and have also studied it).
Here's what Scrivener said about those bogus *groupings* you have mentioned:
The study of "groupings" has been recently and not untruly said to be the foundation of all enduring criticism. Now that theories about the formal recensions of whole classes of these documents have generally been given up as purely visionary, and the very word "families" has come into disrepute by reason of the exploded fancies it recalls, we can discern not the less clearly that certain groups of them have in common not only a general resemblance in regard to the readings they exhibit, but characteristic peculiarities attaching themselves to each group.
Systematic or wilful corruption of the sacred text, at least on a scale worth taking into account, there would seem to have been almost none; yet the tendency to licentious paraphrase and unwarranted additions distinguished one set of our witnesses from the second century downwards; a bias towards grammatical and critical purism and needless omissions appertained to another; while a third was only too apt to soften what might seem harsh, to smooth over difficulties, and to bring passages, especially of the Synoptic Gospels, into unnatural harmony with each other. All these changes appear to have been going on without notice during the whole of the third and fourth centuries, and except that the great name of Origen is associated (not always happily) with on class of them, were rather the work of transcribers than of scholars.
Here's what Scrivener said about those bogus *groupings* you have mentioned:
The study of "groupings" has been recently and not untruly said to be the foundation of all enduring criticism. Now that theories about the formal recensions of whole classes of these documents have generally been given up as purely visionary, and the very word "families" has come into disrepute by reason of the exploded fancies it recalls, we can discern not the less clearly that certain groups of them have in common not only a general resemblance in regard to the readings they exhibit, but characteristic peculiarities attaching themselves to each group.
Systematic or wilful corruption of the sacred text, at least on a scale worth taking into account, there would seem to have been almost none; yet the tendency to licentious paraphrase and unwarranted additions distinguished one set of our witnesses from the second century downwards; a bias towards grammatical and critical purism and needless omissions appertained to another; while a third was only too apt to soften what might seem harsh, to smooth over difficulties, and to bring passages, especially of the Synoptic Gospels, into unnatural harmony with each other. All these changes appear to have been going on without notice during the whole of the third and fourth centuries, and except that the great name of Origen is associated (not always happily) with on class of them, were rather the work of transcribers than of scholars.
Daniel Wallace, the top Greek grammarian in the world, has been in the monastic libraries of Istanbul and Greece for years, cataloguing all the copies, from every family, many of which were totally unknown, a few years ago, let alone 125 years ago.
Just because you OWN a book, doesn't make it useful for anything, except historical interest, of how so-called experts from the 19th century, lacking the documentation we have today, were so wrong!
I’ve got a fair number of bound and electronic versions of Scripture and I find them all useful to varying degrees. I look to the underlying Greek & Hebrew when digging and look to the “best fit” for my audience.
I have been taught by some highly educated folks and some very spiritual folk. What I have found is that not every one has the ability to fit the “pieces” together. The Bible is wonderful above all other books, but it is a tool, and some people try to use it without without doing their due diligence in all aspects of the discipline necessary to grasps its message, and it’s applications.
Paul seemed to indicate that he did his best to communicate the gospel with the most effective words appropriate for each circumstance. If memory serves me about 80% of OT quotes in the NT came from the Septuagint, and even then they were sometimes not word for word, but were changed at times, apparently, for the audience at hand.
No doubt that without much prayer, meditation and the filling of the Spirit, our words can be like mud in ones ears or they can be life. I remember studying certain issues or doctrines for days and weeks, only to distill an answer into a simple sentence.
Our learning is as much for us, as the eyes and ears that we present our words to and our faith should be not in our knowledge, but with the Holy Spirit to make our words both encouraging and edifying.
Gnosticism was a real threat in the early church and it’s still around. Sometimes knowing too much can elevates ones opinion of self right into the gnostic clic, without even being conscious of it.
Knowledge is good, wisdom is our goal!
I have been taught by some highly educated folks and some very spiritual folk. What I have found is that not every one has the ability to fit the “pieces” together. The Bible is wonderful above all other books, but it is a tool, and some people try to use it without without doing their due diligence in all aspects of the discipline necessary to grasps its message, and it’s applications.
Paul seemed to indicate that he did his best to communicate the gospel with the most effective words appropriate for each circumstance. If memory serves me about 80% of OT quotes in the NT came from the Septuagint, and even then they were sometimes not word for word, but were changed at times, apparently, for the audience at hand.
No doubt that without much prayer, meditation and the filling of the Spirit, our words can be like mud in ones ears or they can be life. I remember studying certain issues or doctrines for days and weeks, only to distill an answer into a simple sentence.
Our learning is as much for us, as the eyes and ears that we present our words to and our faith should be not in our knowledge, but with the Holy Spirit to make our words both encouraging and edifying.
Gnosticism was a real threat in the early church and it’s still around. Sometimes knowing too much can elevates ones opinion of self right into the gnostic clic, without even being conscious of it.
Knowledge is good, wisdom is our goal!
I the see the multiple translations as good increase so do those who consume them. Can't improve on the original. How many will be enough to satisfy everyone? To some one is too many and a thousand not enough.
The question is how can we hear God among all the translations ? Not how many different ones.
If we are seeking the approval of God not seen the Spirit of Christ informs us there must be heresies among us .
1 Corinthians 11:19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.
The question is how can we hear God among all the translations ? Not how many different ones.
If we are seeking the approval of God not seen the Spirit of Christ informs us there must be heresies among us .
1 Corinthians 11:19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.
Poor kjv readers...missing out on all thats new from 1960.
Wonder how anyone gets by without those new bibles huh. I think people tend to stick with the version they can learn from the best, if its the kjv then who is anyone to tell them its wrong? Likewise if someone likes another version then fine.
But i think people tease the kjv readers more, get told their bible is too old, they 'should' buy a new one etc. but the people who say that dont actually go and buy a new one for the person they are pitying. They expect the person to go fork out cash for the new one theyve got.
Sometimes the kjv readers though are kind of like all other versions are wrong why not read the kjv. Well its because people just cant get their head around the language and words theyd rather read something a bit easier. Thats why theres paraphrases etc. but a parapharased Bible is no subtitute for a proper translation because a paraphrase is also based on a certain translation. Also it helps if people do read the same version cos if you all reading it together at least you reading the same words.
I recall teaching a bible class in schools and the bible teachers all were told to use the CEV. The CEV is apparantly meant to be easier for children to understand. Usually theres a memory verse that children are asked to remember, and sometimes its actually truncated (shortened) in the CEV or even by the curriculum itself. Personally I think thats not a good idea to change bible words around but a worse idea to shorten them. So children are told to remember to 'not worry about anything but pray about everything. ' based on phillipians 4:6 as their memory verse. Thats not the actual verse in the bible its a paraphrase, and it kind of misses the 'with thanksgiving' part.
Now this may be a minor point but how many people you know then start praying about their problems and never thank God for anything? God must get tired of hearing about everyones problems! Thanksgiving is a very important part of prayer!
Wonder how anyone gets by without those new bibles huh. I think people tend to stick with the version they can learn from the best, if its the kjv then who is anyone to tell them its wrong? Likewise if someone likes another version then fine.
But i think people tease the kjv readers more, get told their bible is too old, they 'should' buy a new one etc. but the people who say that dont actually go and buy a new one for the person they are pitying. They expect the person to go fork out cash for the new one theyve got.
Sometimes the kjv readers though are kind of like all other versions are wrong why not read the kjv. Well its because people just cant get their head around the language and words theyd rather read something a bit easier. Thats why theres paraphrases etc. but a parapharased Bible is no subtitute for a proper translation because a paraphrase is also based on a certain translation. Also it helps if people do read the same version cos if you all reading it together at least you reading the same words.
I recall teaching a bible class in schools and the bible teachers all were told to use the CEV. The CEV is apparantly meant to be easier for children to understand. Usually theres a memory verse that children are asked to remember, and sometimes its actually truncated (shortened) in the CEV or even by the curriculum itself. Personally I think thats not a good idea to change bible words around but a worse idea to shorten them. So children are told to remember to 'not worry about anything but pray about everything. ' based on phillipians 4:6 as their memory verse. Thats not the actual verse in the bible its a paraphrase, and it kind of misses the 'with thanksgiving' part.
Now this may be a minor point but how many people you know then start praying about their problems and never thank God for anything? God must get tired of hearing about everyones problems! Thanksgiving is a very important part of prayer!
L
Because the word " divide." You must not handle only divide. I did that and had paper every where and didn't understand a word of it. But it was good sword practice, but what good is sword practice? Oh well I couldn't figure out how to divide the word with out handling it, so I got a sword and chopped it up and now I have a huge paper mess in my living room but can't clean it up lest I handle the word of God.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
I was thinking about going into medical school, but before I do, they better change and simplify all that difficult medical terminology before I enroll to make it easier on me. I don't want to have to study or anything. Make it easier for us lazy folks.
Neurology is 'brains r us'
Heamatology is 'red liquidy stuff that comes out of your body when you puncture it'
-
2
- Show all