SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : Why do most versions leave out the most important words?

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 Next Page )

Joined: 2003/5/8
Posts: 4419
Charlotte, NC



Sir, it is you that has chosen to include all "modern versions" in your defense of the newer translations.

I believe you have misunderstood my position. For I would by no means defend all of the newer translations. I'm just simply saying that the newer translations base their translations on a different Greek text than from what the KJV did. That doesn't always mean these translations of that Greek text are very good. Translations can only be as good as the translators are. Good translators try to be as accurate as possible to translating the Greek text set before them, translating the text in the most literal and straightforward manner, yet at the same time making it something one can actually read in the English language.


Again I state that I am dumbfounded that you would consider offerings such as The Message® The Living Bible® & the TNIV® ( just to mention a few) as being only "ever so slightly" different.

Where did I ever mention any of these? Let's not argue with ghosts. I only mentioned the NASB, NIV, NKJV, and NRSV. I never once defended these other translations you mention, because, so far as I understand they never try to convey themselves as serious translations, but rather, as simple paraphrases (although I think the TNIV tries to be such, but I've never really looked at it save a glance).

So far as I have found in my own basic translations and studies, I believe of the modern translations, the NASB is by far the best out there. It tries as much as possible to be word-for-word to what is in the Greek, and at the same time trying to maintain Greek tenses in English. It tries to be as literal as possible. So much so, that the NASB is criticized as being a little less readable than other versions that try to have a little more "dynamic equivalent" such as the NIV. At the same time the NASB doesn't exclude the verses that are in dispute as to if they are part of the original autographs. If a verse is in question, it translates it and simply puts in in brackets, or, if they really have doubts, they will put it in a footnote to let the reader know. But, either way, it still gets put in there.

On a side note: The Message is more like your pastor reading a passage of Scripture on Sunday morning and then paraphrasing what he just read so as to try and help you understand it. My only real problem with The Message is that it tries too hard, and is too artsy fartsy to be of any real help. I don't mind a good paraphrase translation from time-to-time that helps give a better "general sense" of a passage in which one is struggling to understand, much like a pastor or commentator would (for which I think the NLT is a nice solid not-to-over-the-top paraphrase). But these things should be recognized only for what they are, paraphrases. They shouldn't be taken too seriously.


You know as well as myself, and most people who venture here, that you can trot out numerous scholars that will support your view, and I can trot out just as many scholars that oppose your view, and when all is said and done, nothing will have been accomplished.

Indeed. Which is why I don't get into trying to win disputes over who's got the best set of scholars in one's deck of cards. I've only simply reported what the consensus of scholars (both conservative and liberal) are today. But even amongst those boys there are disputes as to the particulars (as with anything in this world). I'm much more in favor of people going out there and studying things for themselves. Which is why I encourage anybody who is going to actually take the time to learn some things about textual criticism to actually learn Greek for themselves. That way they can actually deal with the primary sources themselves, instead of getting all their information from second hand sources. Otherwise, they will always be one step away from being able to do some real homework themselves.

That is why, for example, I respect Ron Bailey's opinion on why he thinks the underlying Greek text of the KJV is generally better than that of the NASB. For he has actually done homework for himself, and looked at original documents in original languages, and weighed the various conclusions of scholars. I don't take his stance, but, I'd dare say he knows 20 times more about the subject than I do, and I bet he could articulate his stance much more accurately than I could mine.

But at the same time, I have little respect for all the yahoo's out on the internet who sit there and blast translations and Greek texts all day, but who don't even know what a nomnitive noun is in Greek. Oh, they can quote a lot of scholars some of them. But, they've never actually wrestled with the subject matter for themselves, nor the primary documents. They are like me trying to tell my mother how to bake a cake- something I know nothing about.


The fact is that the KJV and the "modern versions" are translated from two entirely different streams of manuscripts, both of which were known about by the translators of the KJV, and the scholars of that day rejected the Alexandrian manuscripts as being unreliable.

Sadly, it's not quite that simple. It is true that the translators of the KJV tended to favor one line of manuscripts over that of another. Just as it is today that translators of versions like the NASB tend to favor another line of manuscripts more. However, that tendency doesn't means always. The NAS27/UBS4 which serve as the basis of modern translations while favoring one line of manuscripts doesn't always side with it. There is simply a general tendency to do such. And even as it is, sometimes modern translations choose to go with a variant that didn't make it into the established text of the NAS27/UBS4. Sometimes they favor the other stream of manuscripts.


If, as you believe, the texts for the "modern versions" are so superior, why do the translators continue to pump out vast numbers of diffrent bibles,each one more and more corrupt (in my opinion), supposedly from the same text??

Ultimately, some translators feel they can do a better job than others. Some, like the folks who did the NASB, felt that a very rigid and literal translation is needed for the serious Bible student. But others like the NIV, while wanting to be literal, didn't want to be so rigid, and wanted something a little more readable. So, they sacrificed some of the literal word-for-word translation for something a little more readable for the average person. Ultimately, different strokes for different folks. Some of the reasons behind some of the translations/paraphrases have been a little less noble, such as seeking to be a little more "politically correct" or "user friendly."

But then there are folks like me, who having some knowledge of Greek, translate passages in the Bible at times for merely academic reasons (e.g. part of a seminary assignment) and/or for personal study/edification. Am I being evil for doing so? Hardly. But what if one day I get so strong at Greek that in my own personal studies I crank out a full translation of the New Testament in Greek? And what if sometime after my death, somebody decides that I actually did a pretty good job at it. So much so that they decided to publish it and call it: "The King Jimmy Version?" O, I can see it now, all the angry yahoolagians out on the internet denouncing my translation as being of the Devil!

I hope that answers the above question.

Jimmy H

 2007/1/10 23:09Profile

 Re: Amy, I wish it were.....

you quoted this Scripture, one of my favorite verses:

Mark 10:14 Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.

love that verse!! the implication being to have the unswerving trust and faith of a child.

When I wrote "have fun kids", my usage of the word "kids" was to imply immaturity for this yet another thread/cyber tussle over versions of the Bible, such as rears its ugly head every month or so, goes on for a 100 plus posts, and frankly does not edify, strengthen or unify the Body of believers.

there was some brother further down in the thread that was just FLAMING King Jimmy, and for what?

to be "right"?

which is why I linked up that bit of video of those two arabs screaming at and threatening each other over whether saddam hussein is now a "martyr" or "imam". Thank God it was a TV news set these two were on, coz if they would have had guns, they would have been blasting each other......over religion.

so.......arguing over whether this or that version of Scripture is bad, or apostate, or whatever negative value that a person puts on a KJV Bible, or an NIV Bible is just religious junk and palaber.

Hear me, the sooner the Church weans itself off of religion and starts to drink from the Living Water that Messiah brings, will be the day we start to see real revival in this land.

Everthing else is white noise, palaber and the dreck of the world.

Drink from the Living Waters and quit devouring your brother. (not you Amy.... :-) that was meant in general)...a general throwing it our there", admonition.

 2007/1/11 0:32

 Mr Bill

Beloved brother,

"how on earth" asked me.

God is not behind this war in Iraq, and who can divine the Mind of God to say its "His" plan.

God had nothing to do with this war in Iraq, the "god of this age" had everything to do with it. Thats why I linked up that video of those two arabs screaming at one that segment is contained the hellish and devilish behavior of what happens when men get involved in religion.

They will kill over religion, and that is not only muslims.

God, Yahweh, Adonai, Elochim has nothing to do with religion.

the "god of this age" runs religion, runs wars, fuels the pride of man, and the deceit of his eyes and his lusts, whether it be power or money.

God's plan is this: Love the Lord your God with all your heart, your mind, your strength and your soul, and love your neighbor as yourself.

Would to God some of these start loving God MORE than they hate their enemies....or as I heard a secular commmentator from the Persian Gulf region put it, "I wish they would love their children, more than they hate their enemies".

This war in Iraq is unwinnable, you know how I know how?

In WW2, it was Admiral Jodl that signed the surrender documents for the Germans, I forget his name, but it was a Japanese diplomat in a tophat who signed the surrender documents aboard the USS Missouri in Tokyo Bay.

Now when we "beat" "them", whoever they are, who is going to sign the surrender documents?

If you don't have surrender conditions, how can you have victory? How can we win then?

I know what I would reccomend, but I'm not a policy maker, just a struggling saint, as you are.

 2007/1/11 1:01

Joined: 2006/6/10
Posts: 668
Northern Rockies, BC, Canada

 Re: Why do most versions leave out the most important words?


Santana wrote:
I don't understand King James Version most of the time but I'm afraid I'll be missing something if I read other versions.

Dear brother,
I believe this is good, and will humbley ask you to continue getting acquainted with the KJV. Read it daily brother and you will become familiar with its syntax in no time. You will not be wasting your time in error by reading this translation. If anything you will put more time into studying this translation until you become familiar with it and this can only bless you my brother. :-D


 2007/1/11 1:40Profile


When I wrote "have fun kids", my usage of the word "kids" was to imply immaturity for this yet another thread/cyber tussle over versions of the Bible, such as rears its ugly head every month or so, goes on for a 100 plus posts, and frankly does not edify, strengthen or unify the Body of believers.

This I understand and I do agree with you that these arguments that seem increasingly common (not only on these boards but in the Body of Christ in its entirety in these last days) are useless. I've stated my opinion in other threads, as well, but often they just get tossed aside as "foolish opinions." But that's alright. I'll just shake the dust off my feet and move on. Still there is no reason to flame each other over anything (unless you're flaming satan, which to that I said go right ahead!), and every single time these little mini-wars rise up they could easily be replaced with gentleness. After all, that is one of the fruits of the Spirit.

 2007/1/11 1:41


Bartle... brother, for someone who isnt going to participate in this thread, you have posted more than anyone else who is participating! LOL

You cant help yourself, you love this topic, don't-cha!



 2007/1/11 8:38

Joined: 2005/2/24
Posts: 3323

 Re: Mr Bill


bartle wrote:
Beloved brother,

"how on earth" asked me.

God is not behind this war in Iraq, and who can divine the Mind of God to say its "His" plan.

Well just a thought I cannot prove this war is or is not in God's plan but can you prove it's not?

My Pastor always says if someone can prove something let it be and move on, but if they can't there thoughts or opinions or no better than yours, and they are nothing but opinions.

You said in your post "God is not behind this war in Iraq" were is the proof? ;-)


 2007/1/11 9:22Profile


Not to sound Calvinistic, but to say this war is not God's plan is to say God is not in control right now. I dont believe thats true at all. Just because in someone's perspective it isnt a just war doesnt mean it isnt God's plan. I think Nazi Germany was the ultimate in evil, yet I think it was God's plan in order to set up the reunification of Israel and begin the count down to the end of time. I dont think it was an accident. Over and over again in the OT God used Israel's enemies to motivate Israel.

But we're veering off topic... if we're gonna discuss Iraq and God's plan, lets start a new thread.


 2007/1/11 13:38

Joined: 2005/9/25
Posts: 131



tjservant wrote:

Remember unless you are reading the original Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic you are reading a TRANSLATION.

God bless


Hate to spoil your day but the original documents don't exist. No one on this earth can prove 100% beyond a shadow of a doubt any particular word was in the original text because no one has the first copy, and thats a fact. All of this debate about which Bible version is best is all speculation, because even if there are 5,000 various fragments of scripture or 5,000,000 fragments out there the 2nd time it was copied it could have been altered. So what we have are people arguing opinions and beliefs without the proof to back them up.

One question, if the scriptures are so important that every little jot has to be argued over and scrutinized, why didn't the Almighty God save the originals so there would be no question as to which source is correct?

 2007/1/12 3:56Profile

Joined: 2005/6/18
Posts: 1481


hi, i would suggest that you obey the words that are in whatever version you have. jimp

 2007/1/12 4:30Profile

Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy