Favourite Bible Translations

[Dino246]

The first mention of the word "grace" is found in Genesis 6, "But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord." Most new versions use the word favor instead of grace. One would not understand, just through reading the bible, that God showed Noah grace and therefore saved him aboard the ark. The connection with saving grace is lost.

That is not evidence; that is assertion and opinion.

 

[Dino246]

Well, how would one know by reading the words of the text? This is exactly my point. The new versions use different words. To properly study Scripture, one should compare Scripture with Scripture.

Which one may do with any major translation, or with several translations together.

You have no argument.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

That is not evidence; that is assertion and opinion.

It’s called making a mountain out of a mole hill, although in this case, I would call it an ant hill

 

[John146]

How?

so I see grace in these translation, yet have no understanding of what grace is so really can not understand it with out further study

then see favor in another translation, and understand it because I know the word and need no further study to understand what was said

What you are doing is going outside of Scripture for your understanding. My point is you don’t have to do that with the KJV.

 

[John146]

Which one may do with any major translation, or with several translations together.

You have no argument.

Thanks for your opinions...

 

[eternally-gratefull]

What you are doing is going outside of Scripture for your understanding. My point is you don’t have to do that with the KJV.

Yeah, actually as a person who never heard the word grace, did have to go outside of the bible

your not listening to reality, your trying to make up senecio us which fit you and your situation, not real life senerio s

 

[John146]

Yeah, actually as a person who never heard the word grace, did have to go outside of the bible

your not listening to reality, your trying to make up senecio us which fit you and your situation, not real life senerio s

Not really, you need to read the context.

7 And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord.

You see the word but? That means that God will not destroy Noah because he found grace in the eyes of the Lord. Noah is being given life not death. Noah was given grace and instructed to build an ark to be saved.

 

[Dino246]

What you are doing is going outside of Scripture for your understanding. My point is you don’t have to do that with the KJV.

Nothing that E-G said hinted at "going outside of Scripture for your understanding". He said he went to another translation, which is not "outside of Scripture" (regardless of your opinion on the matter).

I am certain that you did not come to Scripture as a blank slate, and learn the meaning of every word in the KJV by searching out its first usage. Nor do I believe that you have only looked in the KJV for meanings of words you initially encountered in the KJV (it's possible, but unlikely). Those are valid methods of study, but not exclusive. Dictionaries exist, among other things, for the purpose of explaining the meaning and usage of unfamiliar words. There is no shame to using them. What is unfortunate, however, is the absence of a 16th-century-English dictionary to explain the meanings of words as they were used then. Strong's is a poor substitute for that, and few people have the time to hunt down each instance of a word on their own.

You are free to believe that "the KJV is its own dictionary", but using that as a justification for your KJV-only position it is akin to tying a bandanna over your eyes, sticking your fingers in your ears, and yelling at others that they are blind and deaf.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Not really, you need to read the context.

7 And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord.

You see the word but? That means that God will not destroy Noah because he found grace in the eyes of the Lord. Noah is being given life not death. Noah was given grace and instructed to build an ark to be saved.

But noah found grace..

if I do NT know what the word grace is, have no ability to properly interpret, I can make some guesses and may get it right, but I have no way to know for sure. without looking the word grace up.

sorry bud, but your wrong here.

 

[fredoheaven]

I read and study it daily so do millions of others. It's not dead sir.

I would just think that the one dead language are those who change the text over time. Those expired words that needs updating. As long as the text is there and is being studied, pondered, explain and taught without alteration then I can see it as alive. The living word of God changes lives.

 

[true_believer]

Be careful about it's notes on Creation. Remember that the Bible plainly teaches that the Universe was created less than 10,000 years ago.

Depending on the theologian you talk to, the Earth is either 5000 years old or over 4 billion. I subscribe to the the latter age...

 

[Dino246]

I would just think that the one dead language are those who change the text over time. Those expired words that needs updating.

Um, that doesn't make sense. Perhaps it's your attempt to write in English thoughts that originated in another language, but "those who change the text" would be humans. The last time I checked, humans are not languages, living or dead, and languages don't change the text.

As long as the text is there and is being studied, pondered, explain and taught without alteration then I can see it as alive.

So Latin is not a "dead" language? Sorry, but your understanding is incorrect. The term "dead language" has an objective definition which Magenta provided in post #1596: "one that is no longer the native language of any community."

The living word of God changes lives.

Which is true with any translation of the word of God. Scripture doesn't say, "For the KJV is living and active, and sharper than any two-edged sword". Only those who exclusively (and erroneously) conflate the two would read it that way.

 

[John146]

I would just think that the one dead language are those who change the text over time. Those expired words that needs updating. As long as the text is there and is being studied, pondered, explain and taught without alteration then I can see it as alive. The living word of God changes lives.

Are the new versions easier? Time to update the NASB.

Matthew 9:17 - NASB / wineskins - KJV / bottles
Matthew 1:11 - NASB / deportation - KJV / carried away
Luke 6:22 - NASB / ostracize - KJV / separate you from their company
1 Thes. 2:18 - NASB / thwarted - KJV / hindered
1 Tim. 3:3 - NASB / pugnacious - KJV / striker
1 Tim. 3:8 - NASB / sordid - KJV / filthy
1 Tim. 6:16 - NASB / a pang - KJV / sorrows
Hebrews 7:2 - NASB / apportioned - KJV / gave
Hebrews 12:1 - NASB / encumbrance - KJV / weight
Revelation 6:8 - NASB / ashen - KJV / pale
Revelation 18:1 - NASB / illumined - KJV / lightened

 

[Dino246]

Are the new versions easier? Time to update the NASB.

Matthew 9:17 - NASB / wineskins - KJV / bottles
Matthew 1:11 - NASB / deportation - KJV / carried away
Luke 6:22 - NASB / ostracize - KJV / separate you from their company
1 Thes. 2:18 - NASB / thwarted - KJV / hindered
1 Tim. 3:3 - NASB / pugnacious - KJV / striker
1 Tim. 3:8 - NASB / sordid - KJV / filthy
1 Tim. 6:16 - NASB / a pang - KJV / sorrows
Hebrews 7:2 - NASB / apportioned - KJV / gave
Hebrews 12:1 - NASB / encumbrance - KJV / weight
Revelation 6:8 - NASB / ashen - KJV / pale
Revelation 18:1 - NASB / illumined - KJV / lightened

You posted this list earlier in this thread, and I addressed it thoroughly. Why do you repeat yourself?

 

[John146]

You posted this list earlier in this thread, and I addressed it thoroughly. Why do you repeat yourself?

Yes, you gave your opinions...

Are the NASB words that I posted used in everyday English by most people? I don't think so. Time to update the outdated NASB.

 

[Nehemiah6]

Time to update the outdated NASB.

How about "back date"? Since back dating became rather popular recently with fraudulent ballots if could apply to other situations.

 

[Dino246]

Yes, you gave your opinions...

Are the NASB words that I posted used in everyday English by most people? I don't think so. Time to update the outdated NASB.

Again you claim knowledge about "most people". Do you understand what an irrelevant appeal is?

 

[KT88]

Are the new versions easier? Time to update the NASB.

Matthew 9:17 - NASB / wineskins - KJV / bottles
Matthew 1:11 - NASB / deportation - KJV / carried away
Luke 6:22 - NASB / ostracize - KJV / separate you from their company
1 Thes. 2:18 - NASB / thwarted - KJV / hindered
1 Tim. 3:3 - NASB / pugnacious - KJV / striker
1 Tim. 3:8 - NASB / sordid - KJV / filthy
1 Tim. 6:16 - NASB / a pang - KJV / sorrows
Hebrews 7:2 - NASB / apportioned - KJV / gave
Hebrews 12:1 - NASB / encumbrance - KJV / weight
Revelation 6:8 - NASB / ashen - KJV / pale
Revelation 18:1 - NASB / illumined - KJV / lightened

Yes, you gave your opinions...

Are the NASB words that I posted used in everyday English by most people? I don't think so. Time to update the outdated NASB.

Yes, by anyone that's older than 8 (give or take for a few whizz kids) that are English speakers. That's a really weak argument you got there.

 

[John146]

Yes, by anyone that's older than 8 (give or take for a few whizz kids) that are English speakers. That's a really weak argument you got there.

Are you being pugnacious by ostracizing my comments, or are you truly trying to illuminate me?

 

[KT88]

Are you being pugnacious by ostracizing my comments, or are you truly trying to illuminate me?

Have you checked to see if you are using them there words correctly?