| Subject: Re: best bible translation |
Author:
Steve
| [ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 10:21:45 12/14/05 Wed
In reply to:
Randy Kemp
's message, "best bible translation" on 09:07:17 05/02/04 Sun
Randy --
Jeff has provided some excellent background on the PMC concerning the Majority Text (TR/Textus Receptus, or traditionally-received text) vs. Critical Text (Hort-Wescott/Nestle-Aland) recension controversy, and I've come to the conclusion that whichever version is closest to the TR/MT is probably closest to the truth.
Some of these include the Tyndale, Great Bible, KJV, Valery-Reina, Douay-Rheims, AV, ASV, and RSV.
Most modern versions, on the other hand, such as the NIV, NKJV, NASB, NRSV, etc., are based on the Critical Text, which was developed in the late 1800's, and based on incomplete information. After at least -what?- -23 editions?- new research in the last 10 years has shown that a great number of the discrepancies between the MT and the CT, especially the missing verses, are a result of [i]errors in the Critical Text manuscripts[/i]. The corrections are reflected in the newest (26th?) edition of the CT/HW/NA, but are not reflected in any modern translation.
So which version would be best?
1) A translation closest to the the TR/MT;
2) A translation that includes all the books, including the deuterocanonical;
3) A translation you can understand; and
4) Any Bible the Lord puts in your hands to read.
Though I don't quite subscribe to the theory of "plenary verbal inspiration of Scripture", I do believe that the Lord was fully aware of every possible future translation that might come about from Scripture, and guided its writing.
So, I try to use as many versions as possible, and select the one that the Lord illumines most for any particular situation. This includes the KJV, ASV, RSV, NKJV, D-R, V-R, LVB, NJB (Catholic), NAB (Catholic), New World Translation (JW's Bible), Peshitta (Lamsa translation from Aramaic), as well as occasionally delving into the Hebrew and Greek (with or without Strong's #'s).
Which probably makes me just as bad as all the modern God-denying "theologians". (You know them, they're the "Philosophy Mechanics" that take your car apart, announce what the half the parts are, throw away the other half, refuse to put your vehicle back together, and then announce your car is no good because it doesn't work in its disassembled state.)
I will not, however, touch the NIV or TNIV, the ones closest to the older editions of the CT. I've tried to use those in grief counseling, and when you go looking for a quote in those versions, [i]it just ain't there![/i] These versions are just unusable embarrassments.
(BTW, it's been a long time since we "talked". I feel that I may have been misunderstood along the way -- that thing I sent you a long time back about the passage in John 8 was a JOKE. I WAS NOT SERIOUS. I was making fun of speculative theology and its practitioners, the modern theologians.)
yiC,
Steve
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
] |
|
Feedback: 