Bible "versions"

Status
Not open for further replies.
I

idreamofsilence

Bible "versions"

Not sure if this is relevant in this forum section but was not sure where else to post it. So I had a discussion with some relatives who are Jehovah's Witnesses. I am not one for arguing I just accepted what they said with a grain of salt and that was that. They have been trying to get me to convert for a long time - but I don't believe in much of their doctrine because I don't believe it is really biblically based. Anyway - aside from my opinion with that - They had said that the answers I was looking for in the NKJV and KJV are flawed and that I should look at the Wescott & Hort version since they are highly ranked scholars because of their translation of the Bible. So I am wondering what people say on the subject of their bible versions?
 
I'd say it's the heart that reads the bible that matters . Paul said that even with all the knowledge without Love the sound of your voice is a resounding gong . so translation matters . but not as much as how refined your lense is by the Holy Spirit to read interpret and apply .
 
I would stick to a reliable translation. I prefer the New Living myself, but also use a KJV with a pre-1990 Strong's Concordance for study.

IMO the Wescott and Hort version is the flawed one.
idreamofsilence said:
Not sure if this is relevant in this forum section but was not sure where else to post it. So I had a discussion with some relatives who are Jehovah's Witnesses. I am not one for arguing I just accepted what they said with a grain of salt and that was that. They have been trying to get me to convert for a long time - but I don't believe in much of their doctrine because I don't believe it is really biblically based. Anyway - aside from my opinion with that - They had said that the answers I was looking for in the NKJV and KJV are flawed and that I should look at the Wescott & Hort version since they are highly ranked scholars because of their translation of the Bible. So I am wondering what people say on the subject of their bible versions?
Click to expand...
 
I have been using my NKJV for many years and it is marked up like woah! But I also have learned a lot frm the different footnotes and reference sections and commentaries at the beginning and ends of the chapters... and we also have an ESV study Bible.
 
The thing I don't like about Westcott and Hort (not sure who has actually read through one) I did search much online about it... was that they omitted things from the Textus Receptus (reformation era manuscripts) within the Bible they believed weren't closely related or even in the Greek (pre-reformation era) manuscripts.
 
This is an example of a translation prepared to meet a particular belief system.
idreamofsilence said:
The thing I don't like about Westcott and Hort (not sure who has actually read through one) I did search much online about it... was that they omitted things from the Textus Receptus (reformation era manuscripts) within the Bible they believed weren't closely related or even in the Greek (pre-reformation era) manuscripts.
Click to expand...
 
Any translation is not going to be as accurate as the original manuscript.

However, the KJ is a reliable translation. It's not perfect, but it's reliable.

Here's what you need to consider - take all of the major translations (KJ, New American, Revised, International, etc) and compare them with the fundamental teachings of the Jehovah's Witness, and you will find serious contradictions. Either all of those translations are inaccurate, or perhaps the JW are.

We are told in Scripture to be Spiritually Discerning, and we should be like the Thessalonians, "searching and examining the scriptures daily to see whether these things are so".
 
I know that the NWT is a definite misinterpretation of the Bible... translated by people who were not familiar with the original Greek. As for the Westcott & Hort - I am not sure if it is only the Jehovah's Witnesses that use it?

I know I like my KJV or NKJV..!!!
 
The translation shouldn't matter if your beliefs rest on the core principles of who God is . people who edit manuscripts to remove certain jots and tittles never understand the core truth . so what is important in the bible should be communicable from any translation . even if chiselled off in a very obvious fashion with a broadstroked brush .. it will still be there somewhere .
 
Like the Westcott & Hort version took out a very important piece of information from their translation

1 John 5:7 "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.


Here is an interesting website for those who would like to learn more about their translation..
Westcott and Hort's Magic Marker Binge (2/2)

Anything that is omitted from the Bible that much.. by people were through to not even be Christians... is kind of disconcerting. Especially to those who claim to be Christian and agree with its crossed out sections.
 
The reason why i ask is .. during the protestant reformation several books were removed from the bible . so what's the difference between then and now?

The point is: there are Christians in some countries who may just have one page of scripture . we should be thankful to Jesus Christ for the revelation that we do have .
 
And I think it is important because omitting something that is one of the principals of our belief (ie the triune nature of God) can show that the teaching is lacking.. like parts that speak of Jesus being God are omitted. I just felt like bringing it up. Nothing wrong with general discussion. I have things that float around in my brain and I like to let them out.
 
idreamofsilence said:
And I think it is important because omitting something that is one of the principals of our belief (ie the triune nature of God) can show that the teaching is lacking.. like parts that speak of Jesus being God are omitted. I just felt like bringing it up. Nothing wrong with general discussion. I have things that float around in my brain and I like to let them out.
Click to expand...

I think if you could prove that this was the only thing they were removing . and they happened to successfully remove every trinitarian thing from the bible (which is hard enough to find let alone do seamlessly) then you would have a major problem . one of the issues that came up lately is: earlier manuscripts did not have some of our favorite stuff . so it is possible some of our favorite verses were commentary added by church fathers . a verse from colossians comes to mind where the NA manuscript removes "through his blood" in one passage . interesting anyway . anything these omissions take away from a passage cannot be taken away from the whole bible or the nature of God who indwells us .
 
I don't like the H and W bases for my Bible. They took out some really important things...
Yet, I certainly use them to read along with my KJV or with my NKJV. I agree that none of them
are perfect, and that the Holy Spirit can get us the information we need when we need it.

Plus, if you look at Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John... you can see that some things are in all of them,
and some things are missing from others. So... my take on this is to make sure we stay in the Word and
open to the leading of the Holy Spirit.

ps... the JW book is not for me, not when they deny my Lord Jesus and the price He paid
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top