New bibles since 1960

[Lanolin]

You all arguing over the words every and all? What????

Many words in english have the same meaning, thats why crossword puzzles are so popular.
The english dictionary expands all the time as words go in and out of use. But thats the nature of english.

I wish people wouldnt get upset over the variation in our common language.

Rather...the thing about kjv and other translations is more to do with the majority text than the language itself. Kjv just has the fuller scripture whereas some others dont they miss words or entire verses. Thats what I found anyway. Im not saying kjv has everything correct all the time but compared to a lot of other english translations its just better. Thats why its stood the test of time. If it was a poor translation, it would no longer be in print and people wouldnt be blesed by it. It wouldnt have lasted over 400 years.

I mean who reads the geneva bible or bishops bible these days. Or the cotton patch translation. Or the one edited by greg laurie. Who even seriously studies the message? I would go for one that The saints over the ages trust and that happens to be kjv.

 

[fredoheaven]

Thanks for pointing out another mistake in the KJV, Fred!

KJV
"16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." 2 Tim. 3:16-17

The word, ALL above is wrong. Here is the Greek (SLB) :

"16 πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος καὶ ὠφέλιμος πρὸς διδασκαλίαν, πρὸς ἐλεγμόν, πρὸς ἐπανόρθωσιν, πρὸς παιδείαν τὴν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ, 17 ἵνα ἄρτιος ᾖ ὁ τοῦ θεοῦ ἄνθρωπος, πρὸς πᾶν ἔργον ἀγαθὸν ἐξηρτισμένος." 2 Tim. 3:16-17 SBL Greek

This agrees with Stephanus 1550!
"16 πασα γραφη θεοπνευστος και ωφελιμος προς διδασκαλιαν προς ελεγχον προς επανορθωσιν προς παιδειαν την εν δικαιοσυνη
17 ινα αρτιος η ο του θεου ανθρωπος προς παν εργον αγαθον εξηρτισμενος" 2 Tim. 3:16-17

So, what is the mistake you ask?

The word γραφὴ or Scripture/writing is nominative, feminine, singular. So, it is described by the Nom. Fem. Sg. word πᾶσα. The word in the singular is translated as "each, every." If it was plural, which it is not, it would be All Scriptures. But, it is not plural, so "every" is a better translation, in fact the RIGHT translation.

Here is a modern translation for you! In fact the NET seems to be one of the few Bibles that uses the singular and uses it properly. Unfortunately, in translation committees, the tendency for many versions is to follow "the tradition of the KJV, rather than translating it properly." That a direct quote from my Greek professor, Bill Mounce, one of the top Greek scholars and teachers in the world today.

"Every scripture is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the person dedicated to God may be capable and equipped for every good work." 2 Tim. 3:16-17 NET

It's funny to me, that people who are so insistent on using the KJV because "every word is right" then put up with shoddy, (although probably as good as it got, 400 years ago!) translations.

Angela dear,

Well, I just took my English lesson over INTERNET. As goggled a simple English grammar would tell me that we use “all” with plural and uncountable nouns and “every” to singular “nouns”.
Application:
KJV as well as many others has “All scripture…” indicating unaccountable noun. The question- Is the word “scripture” accountable or uncountable? Per Wiki says, they are both https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/scripture so that the context determines the correct translation. As the context fits, the All scripture refers to the books of the OT. While NET has “every” that uses to scripture as singular. Well the KJV is indeed precise more than NET. Your every scripture ignores and denies Luke 4:4 for “every word…”

Moreover, Macmilan Dictionary has this:
Scripture or Scripture [UNCOUNTABLE] the Bible
https://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/scripture

Here is what you wrote: The word γραφὴ or Scripture/writing is nominative, feminine, singular. So, it is described by the Nom. Fem. Sg. word πᾶσα. The word in the singular is translated as "each, every." If it was plural, which it is not, it would be All Scriptures. But, it is not plural, so "every" is a better translation, in fact the RIGHT translation.

HELPS Word Studies says:
[The NT generally uses 1124 (graphḗ) for the Hebrew Scriptures (the OT) – but see also 2 Tim 3:16 and 2 Pet 3:16. 1124 (graphḗ) was used for the Hebrew Scriptures as early as Aristeas (about 130 bc; so MM).]
Even NAS concedes uses graphe uses for over 31 against 20 that would be equivalent to 61%
NAS Exhaustive Concordance
Word Origin
from graphó
Definition
a writing, scripture
NASB Translation
Scripture (31), Scriptures (20).

Source: Bible Hub

The fact is KJV is precise and you and NET are wrong!

 

[John146]

As far as the NT being complete in Paul's day - not so much. James, was written after the fall of Jerusalem, his letter is addressed to the diaspora. Revelation was also written much later than Paul's life. But, I know that this scripture in 2 Tim. 3:16-17, is technically written about the OT, which was complete, while the NT was not!

Are you claiming that James was written after 70ad and it was written to Jewish Christians?

 

[Lanolin]

Angela dear,

Well, I just took my English lesson over INTERNET. As goggled a simple English grammar would tell me that we use “all” with plural and uncountable nouns and “every” to singular “nouns”.
Application:
KJV as well as many others has “All scripture…” indicating unaccountable noun. The question- Is the word “scripture” accountable or uncountable? Per Wiki says, they are both https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/scripture so that the context determines the correct translation. As the context fits, the All scripture refers to the books of the OT. While NET has “every” that uses to scripture as singular. Well the KJV is indeed precise more than NET. Your every scripture ignores and denies Luke 4:4 for “every word…”

Moreover, Macmilan Dictionary has this:
Scripture or Scripture [UNCOUNTABLE] the Bible
https://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/scripture

Here is what you wrote: The word γραφὴ or Scripture/writing is nominative, feminine, singular. So, it is described by the Nom. Fem. Sg. word πᾶσα. The word in the singular is translated as "each, every." If it was plural, which it is not, it would be All Scriptures. But, it is not plural, so "every" is a better translation, in fact the RIGHT translation.

HELPS Word Studies says:
[The NT generally uses 1124 (graphḗ) for the Hebrew Scriptures (the OT) – but see also 2 Tim 3:16 and 2 Pet 3:16. 1124 (graphḗ) was used for the Hebrew Scriptures as early as Aristeas (about 130 bc; so MM).]
Even NAS concedes uses graphe uses for over 31 against 20 that would be equivalent to 61%
NAS Exhaustive Concordance
Word Origin
from graphó
Definition
a writing, scripture
NASB Translation
Scripture (31), Scriptures (20).

Source: Bible Hub

The fact is KJV is precise and you and NET are wrong!

I dont treally know anyone who quotes from the NET much at all.
I think the interesting thing is the context when Paul tells Timothy all scripture is profitable hes meaning the books of the OT of course. Note there are many books in the OT its not just one. He's not saying as in other parts of the Bible what Jesus said that we dont live by bread alone but every word that comes out of the mouth of God.

In english we would say 'all scripture' not 'every scriptures' and 'every word' not 'all words' its related to the nouns and how they are used.

One of the reasons why the KJV is so highly valued amonst believers is that the language rolls of the tongue. Detractors say 'its shoddy' but actually its a very FLUENT translation which is why its so easy to memorise. Other bibles use a lot of roundabout way to describe something or they totally lose the word pictures that the Hebrew langauge had presented. Many idioms are lost in the newer translations which are kind of pedestrian and clunky.

 

[John146]

I dont treally know anyone who quotes from the NET much at all.
I think the interesting thing is the context when Paul tells Timothy all scripture is profitable hes meaning the books of the OT of course. Note there are many books in the OT its not just one. He's not saying as in other parts of the Bible what Jesus said that we dont live by bread alone but every word that comes out of the mouth of God.

In english we would say 'all scripture' not 'every scriptures' and 'every word' not 'all words' its related to the nouns and how they are used.

One of the reasons why the KJV is so highly valued amonst believers is that the language rolls of the tongue. Detractors say 'its shoddy' but actually its a very FLUENT translation which is why its so easy to memorise. Other bibles use a lot of roundabout way to describe something or they totally lose the word pictures that the Hebrew langauge had presented. Many idioms are lost in the newer translations which are kind of pedestrian and clunky.

And it was not the language of the day in 1611. In 1611, English had already begun to change.

 

[Lanolin]

If you like the NET then good if its the one you prefer.
But I dont really see anyone going I like the NET to the extent you have groups of NETonly christians or NIVonly people, its just not that popular or loved a translation as kjv. There are a plethora of translations out there now.

I guess if you love one you going to some extent hate all other translations. Or love them less. Eg since i love the KJV I dont really feel like reading any other translations, it would only be under duress, because I know the KJV well and are comfortable with it and trust it.

Has anyone ever taken the challenge to read the bible in full in every translation available. Wouldnt that take years and years since theres so many. And where do you start?

I have tried many as a believer but the one that spoke to me was kjv! It was like God given.
I couldnt make much sense of NIV, NKJV, GNB, CEV, jerusalem bible, ERV, Message, but thats just me. I dont know how lolcat stacks up. Never seen any NET copies floating about. ESV people say is good but it seems to me waffly. And NASB have trouble with because its american. I just find Im always referring back to KJV.

I do note when I read the same verses as others they are worded different,y and in some cases other versions miss out on what the KJV has. It cant be the case that KJV has added to the bible, it must be the others have words and verses missing. Cos I see that so often.

 

[Dino246]

Other bibles use a lot of roundabout way to describe something or they totally lose the word pictures that the Hebrew langauge had presented. Many idioms are lost in the newer translations which are kind of pedestrian and clunky.

Can you give us examples of word pictures in the Hebrew that are accurately conveyed in the KJV, and are lost in other translations? Can you give us examples of idioms that are lost and/or are "pedestrian and clunky"?

Can you identify a single Hebrew idiom?

I respect your right to your opinion, but you're making assertions of objective fact here. Those require evidence in support.

 

[Dino246]

I do note when I read the same verses as others they are worded different,y and in some cases other versions miss out on what the KJV has. It cant be the case that KJV has added to the bible, it must be the others have words and verses missing. Cos I see that so often.

That's a double-barrelled logical fallacy. It's an appeal to frequency and to familiarity. Because you are familiar with the KJV wording (and assume that it is correct), you perceive the absence of words in other translations as "removal". Someone familiar with the NIV (for example) might read the KJV and think that it has a whole bunch of words added. By simply comparing one against the other, all you can account for is difference, not which is objectively better. For that, you would need to compare both to external references; in this case, the original language(s).

You're comfortable with the KJV, and that's okay. However, if you're going to wade into the discussion of the relative merits of different translations, I suggest that you do some more homework. James White's The King James Only Controversy (2nd ed.) provides a fair-minded and well-researched presentation of the issues.

 

[Dino246]

And it was not the language of the day in 1611. In 1611, English had already begun to change.

English has never been a stable, unchanging language. 1300's English was very different from 900's English, and 1500's English was different than 1300's, and 1700's different from 1500's, etc.

 

[Locoponydirtman]

And it was not the language of the day in 1611. In 1611, English had already begun to change.

New excuse for poor translation?
I thought it was the agenda drive interpretation that caused the serious discrepancies.

 

[Angela53510]

Angela dear,

Well, I just took my English lesson over INTERNET. As goggled a simple English grammar would tell me that we use “all” with plural and uncountable nouns and “every” to singular “nouns”.
Application:
KJV as well as many others has “All scripture…” indicating unaccountable noun. The question- Is the word “scripture” accountable or uncountable? Per Wiki says, they are both https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/scripture so that the context determines the correct translation. As the context fits, the All scripture refers to the books of the OT. While NET has “every” that uses to scripture as singular. Well the KJV is indeed precise more than NET. Your every scripture ignores and denies Luke 4:4 for “every word…”

Moreover, Macmilan Dictionary has this:
Scripture or Scripture [UNCOUNTABLE] the Bible
https://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/scripture

Here is what you wrote: The word γραφὴ or Scripture/writing is nominative, feminine, singular. So, it is described by the Nom. Fem. Sg. word πᾶσα. The word in the singular is translated as "each, every." If it was plural, which it is not, it would be All Scriptures. But, it is not plural, so "every" is a better translation, in fact the RIGHT translation.

HELPS Word Studies says:
[The NT generally uses 1124 (graphḗ) for the Hebrew Scriptures (the OT) – but see also 2 Tim 3:16 and 2 Pet 3:16. 1124 (graphḗ) was used for the Hebrew Scriptures as early as Aristeas (about 130 bc; so MM).]
Even NAS concedes uses graphe uses for over 31 against 20 that would be equivalent to 61%
NAS Exhaustive Concordance
Word Origin
from graphó
Definition
a writing, scripture
NASB Translation
Scripture (31), Scriptures (20).

Source: Bible Hub

The fact is KJV is precise and you and NET are wrong!

Angela dear,

Well, I just took my English lesson over INTERNET. As goggled a simple English grammar would tell me that we use “all” with plural and uncountable nouns and “every” to singular “nouns”.
Application:
KJV as well as many others has “All scripture…” indicating unaccountable noun. The question- Is the word “scripture” accountable or uncountable? Per Wiki says, they are both https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/scripture so that the context determines the correct translation. As the context fits, the All scripture refers to the books of the OT. While NET has “every” that uses to scripture as singular. Well the KJV is indeed precise more than NET. Your every scripture ignores and denies Luke 4:4 for “every word…”

Moreover, Macmilan Dictionary has this:
Scripture or Scripture [UNCOUNTABLE] the Bible
https://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/scripture

Here is what you wrote: The word γραφὴ or Scripture/writing is nominative, feminine, singular. So, it is described by the Nom. Fem. Sg. word πᾶσα. The word in the singular is translated as "each, every." If it was plural, which it is not, it would be All Scriptures. But, it is not plural, so "every" is a better translation, in fact the RIGHT translation.

HELPS Word Studies says:
[The NT generally uses 1124 (graphḗ) for the Hebrew Scriptures (the OT) – but see also 2 Tim 3:16 and 2 Pet 3:16. 1124 (graphḗ) was used for the Hebrew Scriptures as early as Aristeas (about 130 bc; so MM).]
Even NAS concedes uses graphe uses for over 31 against 20 that would be equivalent to 61%
NAS Exhaustive Concordance
Word Origin
from graphó
Definition
a writing, scripture
NASB Translation
Scripture (31), Scriptures (20).

Source: Bible Hub

The fact is KJV is precise and you and NET are wrong!

Well, I looked at the NET footnotes, because that is the reason I am currently reading this Bible.

For 2 Tim. 3:16-17, this is what it says:

"There is very little difference between every Scripture (emphasizing individual portions) and "all Scripture' (emphasizing the composite whole.) The former option is preferred, because it fits the normal use of 'all/every" in Greek, (πᾶς, pas) as well as Paul's normal sense for the word "scripture" in the singular without the article in 1 Tim. 3:16. So every scripture means "every individual portion of Scripture."

So, KJV is wrong, but not by much!

As for internet concordances, not so much. You do understand they use KJV English and back translate it into Greek? Right? That is why it always confirms the KJV, even when it is wrong. Because it IS the KJV!

 

[Dino246]

Well, I looked at the NET footnotes, because that is the reason I am currently reading this Bible.

For 2 Tim. 3:16-17, this is what it says:

"There is very little difference between every Scripture (emphasizing individual portions) and "all Scripture' (emphasizing the composite whole.) The former option is preferred, because it fits the normal use of 'all/every" in Greek, (πᾶς, pas) as well as Paul's normal sense for the word "scripture" in the singular without the article in 1 Tim. 3:16. So every scripture means "every individual portion of Scripture."

So, KJV is wrong, but not by much!

As for internet concordances, not so much. You do understand they use KJV English and back translate it into Greek? Right? That is why it always confirms the KJV, even when it is wrong. Because it IS the KJV!

I'm reminded of a sermon I prepared almost twenty years ago. Psalm 119:160 in the NASB says, "The sum of your word is truth." I did a bit of homework on the verse and discovered that although different versions have quite different wordings that particular wording captures the sense best. Though each part is truth, it's when you put parts together that you get the whole truth. I think this verse goes well with 1 Tim 3:16; they complement each other.

 

[fredoheaven]

Well, I looked at the NET footnotes, because that is the reason I am currently reading this Bible.

For 2 Tim. 3:16-17, this is what it says:

"There is very little difference between every Scripture (emphasizing individual portions) and "all Scripture' (emphasizing the composite whole.) The former option is preferred, because it fits the normal use of 'all/every" in Greek, (πᾶς, pas) as well as Paul's normal sense for the word "scripture" in the singular without the article in 1 Tim. 3:16. So every scripture means "every individual portion of Scripture."

So, KJV is wrong, but not by much!

As for internet concordances, not so much. You do understand they use KJV English and back translate it into Greek? Right? That is why it always confirms the KJV, even when it is wrong. Because it IS the KJV!

Hmm, bias footnote! While giving you unbiased sources of references including English grammars being googled over the internet. That’s pretty odd to give your own opinion with bias footnote, you should lecture me with all of your English prowess and not just “every” little thing you like. Well NASB is considered to be rock of biblical honesty and at this instance NASB is honest as it considers ALL SCRIPTURE…

Angella, I am not going to talk about Scrivener who is actually a member of the WH RV committee whose job is to back translate the KJV to his doctored NT Greek, Scrivener admitted he had not used all the KJV Greek text used by the AV Translators.

Interestingly, the greek "pasa" is used with an anarthrous (without an article such as "the"). This construction of ALL and not every is well documented even in your NET (see for yourself on Matthew 3:15, Acts 2:36, 7:22, Col.4:12) thus this needs to wonder why what authority you have derived from.

Dino,

I’ll still consider myself newbie in the Bible Version issue though I can say I made my research and study much as compared myself before. I’ve been in this subject since 2006. I compare things in both camps, actually, I have 3 study KJV bibles with critical footnotes. I have one NIV study Bible and 1 NEB Study Bible in my shelf. However, my personal study and research leads me that KJV still remains to be my Bible in everyday use. Again, KJV is given by Inspiration.
Well, generally defenders of the KJV may vary a little and perhaps ca be distinguished in the following:
Burgonian Type- I think, we have some fellow here like Nehemiah6. Under this type, there are those who believe KJV is derivatively inspired ( I am not of this camp),. Like of John Henry, Phil Stringer D.A. Waite and many of the well-known Fundamental Baptists preachers are of this type.
Ruckmanite Type- This holds the KJV is the perfect words of God, though not all IFB may hold this type. I have read books of Ruckman in this issue. I also been with KJV only Bible forum since then with fellows like Ptr. Anderson, Bro. Will Kenney and many pro KJV. I too read books in scores like John Burgon, E. Hills, Samuel Gipp etc.

Or KJV defenders may fall under these 2

• Preserved Words- KJV is the preserved words but is not inspired text
• Preserved and given by inspiration.

And I fall on No.2. and as to Burgonian or Ruckmanite, I study then both.

 

[John146]

Hmm, bias footnote! While giving you unbiased sources of references including English grammars being googled over the internet. That’s pretty odd to give your own opinion with bias footnote, you should lecture me with all of your English prowess and not just “every” little thing you like. Well NASB is considered to be rock of biblical honesty and at this instance NASB is honest as it considers ALL SCRIPTURE…

Angella, I am not going to talk about Scrivener who is actually a member of the WH RV committee whose job is to back translate the KJV to his doctored NT Greek, Scrivener admitted he had not used all the KJV Greek text used by the AV Translators.

Interestingly, the greek "pasa" is used with an anarthrous (without an article such as "the"). This construction of ALL and not every is well documented even in your NET (see for yourself on Matthew 3:15, Acts 2:36, 7:22, Col.4:12) thus this needs to wonder why what authority you have derived from.

Dino,

I’ll still consider myself newbie in the Bible Version issue though I can say I made my research and study much as compared myself before. I’ve been in this subject since 2006. I compare things in both camps, actually, I have 3 study KJV bibles with critical footnotes. I have one NIV study Bible and 1 NEB Study Bible in my shelf. However, my personal study and research leads me that KJV still remains to be my Bible in everyday use. Again, KJV is given by Inspiration.
Well, generally defenders of the KJV may vary a little and perhaps ca be distinguished in the following:
Burgonian Type- I think, we have some fellow here like Nehemiah6. Under this type, there are those who believe KJV is derivatively inspired ( I am not of this camp),. Like of John Henry, Phil Stringer D.A. Waite and many of the well-known Fundamental Baptists preachers are of this type.
Ruckmanite Type- This holds the KJV is the perfect words of God, though not all IFB may hold this type. I have read books of Ruckman in this issue. I also been with KJV only Bible forum since then with fellows like Ptr. Anderson, Bro. Will Kenney and many pro KJV. I too read books in scores like John Burgon, E. Hills, Samuel Gipp etc.

Or KJV defenders may fall under these 2

• Preserved Words- KJV is the preserved words but is not inspired text
• Preserved and given by inspiration.

And I fall on No.2. and as to Burgonian or Ruckmanite, I study then both.

I’ll take #2 also please.😀

 

[Dino246]

...
Or KJV defenders may fall under these 2

• Preserved Words- KJV is the preserved words but is not inspired text
• Preserved and given by inspiration.

And I fall on No.2. and as to Burgonian or Ruckmanite, I study then both.

I’ll take #2 also please.😀

So, to clarify, do you both believe that the KJV was "re-inspired" in English, in the form of the KJV? That is, the translators were merely the medium through which the Spirit of God spoke the perfect Scriptures in English, and that they themselves are otherwise completely irrelevant? If not, please explain precisely what you do believe.

 

[John146]

So, to clarify, do you both believe that the KJV was "re-inspired" in English, in the form of the KJV? That is, the translators were merely the medium through which the Spirit of God spoke the perfect Scriptures in English, and that they themselves are otherwise completely irrelevant? If not, please explain precisely what you do believe.

I believe that a translation can be inspired by God and the KJV is the inspired, preserved words of God in the English language. A translation does not have to be a "word for word" literal carry over into another language for it to be the inspired word of God.

 

[Dino246]

I believe that a translation can be inspired by God and the KJV is the inspired, preserved words of God in the English language. A translation does not have to be a "word for word" literal carry over into another language for it to be the inspired word of God.

Respectfully, you didn't answer my question.

According to your second sentence, the NASB, NIV, NET, CEV, HCSB, and dozens of other versions are all equally the inspired word of God.

 

[tourist]

Wonder why the new versions didn’t update the word “dung”?😀

Dung is a funny word. So is the alternative version. Regardless, they are both 4 letter words.

 

[John146]

Respectfully, you didn't answer my question.

According to your second sentence, the NASB, NIV, NET, CEV, HCSB, and dozens of other versions are all equally the inspired word of God.

Only one can be the preserved inspired words of God since they all contain different words and truths.

The complete, precise words of the words of God in English are in the KJV.

 

[Dino246]

Only one can be the preserved inspired words of God since they all contain different words and truths.

The complete, precise words of the words of God in English are in the KJV.

You still haven't answered my question. Instead, you've dodged and introduced a red herring.

Just answer my question please.