Your Preferred Bible Version

[Bootstrap]

The first time I had Jehovah's Witnesses come by after I moved back to the States in 1995, they made a claim about the original Greek for a verse, I looked it up in the New Testament on my desk, and I said it didn't seem to say that. They asked me what translation I was using and I wasn't sure how to answer the question. Then I said ... well, it's not really a translation. I showed them the Greek text I was looking at. They then went on to make a whole bunch of spurious claims about what the Greek text said, confident that I would find it. I didn't. The next time they came by, they gave me a Kingdom Interlinear. And of course, you can generally find anything you want to in an interlinear ...

[Fidelio]

There is a new translation out, basically translated by conservative Lutherans: The Evangelical Heritage Version. Haven't read it but ran across a couple verses that are clearly slanted towards Lutheranism.

Revelation 19:8
EHV: "...and she was given bright, clean, fine linen to wear.
(In fact, the fine linen is the “not guilty” verdicts pronounced on the saints.)"

KJV: "And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints."


1 Peter 3:21
EHV: "And corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the body but the guarantee[a] of a good conscience before God through the resurrection of Jesus Christ."
-----a. 1 Peter 3:21 Or legal claim, or assurance

KJV: "The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:"

[appleman2006]

I like the attention to the plural "you" given in the KJV. "Ye and you" are plural while "thee and thou" are singular. So, when Jesus is speaking to Nicodemus alone at night and says "ye must be born again," this is a message for everyone, not just one individual. In day-to-day speech I use "you" for both singular and plural. This is much less precise. While the plural "you" can be designated by saying "you's" or "you'ns" or "y'all," I think the KJV accomplishes this distinction with precision AND beauty.

So I am a bit confused. You think an archaic version does a better job of communicating due to the fact that many people miss use modern day English. In this case the word "you".

I do not claim to be an expert in old English but can not "ye" also be used both in the singular and the plural?

So I’m going to paste a long quote of the Three Little Pigs in Shakespearean English then end with 2 comments it illustrates:

Triune Tale of Diminutive Swine
(The Three Little Pigs) by John Branyan, Comic
In time past, though not long ago, there lived pigs.
In stature...little.
In number...three.
Who being of an age both entitled and inspired to seek their fortune. Did set about to do thusly.
When they had traveled a distance, pig numbered first spake.
Saying, "Harken brethren, heed this tempestuous realm."
"Tarry we long from hearth and home we shall fare, I fear, [snort] not well."
And so being collectively agreed but individually impelled,
The diminutive swine set about each to erect for himself an abode.
Pig numbered One did construct his house from straw.
Pig numbered Two did likewise.
Though, rather, not from straw, instead from sticks.
Meanwhile, unique in his imaginings, pig numbered Three did erectus his domicile, Stalwart and garish, a structure made from brick entirely.
Soon there happened along,as is frequently the scenario in classic tale of protagonist pig, or red- hooded child...
A wolf.
Carnivorous nature in full season he called out to the straw ensconced swine.
Saying, "Pray thee, little pig, grant me entrance."
But pig One recalled with sage foreboding that,
"He is mad who trusts in the tameness of a belly-pinched wolf." And responded immediately, "Nay! It shall not be!"
"Indeed, not by whit or whiskered jowl!"
Prepared for this most expected response, the wolf replied immediately.
"Then steel thyself little pig."
"Forthwith shall I endeavor by employing means both huffing and puffing to dismantle yon flaxen fortress."
Whereupon there issued forth from the wolf an exhale of gale proportions,
That quickly rendered straw hovel to dregs and dross and carried aloft piglet and
shattered quarters both.
Exposed now to claw and fang, piglet One made haste, wolf in pursuit, To the stick festooned sanctum of peccary secondary.
Causing pig Two to cry out in dismay,
"Well! This knots my knickers!"
"The marshaling of feral wolf to my doorstep is nowhere among those endeavors amenable or congenial."
"A thousand pardons," squealed One.
"T'would seem the beast's maim-full breath has purged me of home and sound judgment alike!"
The mighty maelstrom of the wolf's exhale splattered second swine's shack and shortened his sanctimonious scolding simultaneously.
"Lo! And Behold!" squealed Two.
"Stand we now amid wooden wreckage tremulous and vulnerable."
"With nary a strategy for eschewing the canine devourer looming in deadly proximity."
"Strategy!" squealed One.
"While 'tis noble to contemplate tactical particularities,"
"Pressed as we are with the time restraint forbidding detailed strategical conversations," "I would urge we RUN!"
"Wee wee wee wee wee wee wee!"
Whether by their own fleet-footed competence or the wolf's winless attitude,
The diminutive swine arrived at their ultimate kindred neighbor's inexpungeable brick ingress unscathed.
Upon the third pig's door with urgent hooves they pounded.
Calling out, "Unbar this entrance and with haste we beseech thee!"
The third pig hailed from the American Colonies.
And possessing a vocabulary substantially less robust than his impromptu visitors, replied,
"Say what?"
"Seek we sanctuary!" they implored on the verge of hysteria.
"Lest we fall forthwith to the ravenous appetency of yonder approaching carnivore!"
Still confounded by their importunate words, pig Three did render ajar his portal. Whereupon One and Two spilled through and collapsed beyond the threshold, enervated.
"So, y'all just wanted to come in?" "You could'a said that."
The sinister hiss of the wolf could once again be heard outside. "Pray thee, pigs, grant me entrance."
"The wolf!" said One and Two.
"Wolf?" said Three.
"What'd ya suppose he wants?"
“He seeks to gain purchase within."
"Indeed he would occupy this very alcove were he but afforded the most meager of opportunities."
"Right."
"I'm just gonna go ask him what he wants."
"Under no circumstances!" squealed Two, flinging self bodily against the portal. "There is naught to be gained accosting external opponent."
"Save our own immediate demise!"
"What did you say about my Momma?"
House and occupants were again engulfed in a malevolent blast of wolfish wind. The foundation shook, the frame rattled.
And lo, to the astonished eyes of piglet and encroaching scoundrel alike,
Stood the third pigs lodging, undaunted.
[Aside] Good news for you pig fans.
Aghast and dismayed, pig Two queried of Three.
"How does against such relentless and torrential onslaught this domicile endure?"
Pig Three, puffed out chest, tapped a hoof to the hearth and responded. "It's American Made.

Did the Old English communicate more color and information? As the American Pig #3 was portrayed as being more casual and perhaps slightly vulgar by the language he used, I wonder if an obsession with modern translations could have a similar effect on our Christian walk?

Sure it is entertaining because that is what it is intended to do. However if I did not know the story it would mean nothing or very little to me and thankfully my Mom did not read this version to me as a child. It would of been meaningless.

The long and short of it is that I believe God meant for us to have the scripture in the language we speak. No language in and of itself is more holy than another. And certainly no archaic language is that. To teach and imply that it is is very dangerous IMO.

[appleman2006]

Actually language used in the translation was more formal and somewhat archaic compared with the everyday language in use at the time.

That could well be but not to the difference that KJV is to language today. I think versions like ESV find a good balance between respect and current language. But sometimes I read "the Message" and feel like I get a better understanding of God really speaking to my needs right now at my level.

Appleman, I would be willing to make this question a separate thread (perhaps there is already one and I missed it) if necessary, but in addition to the rather problematic (for me, at least) fact that the Message is a loose paraphrase rather than a textual translation, am curious if you have ever looked into the New Age tenor and references within it at all?

No I have not. I want to be clear. I would not use the Message as a serious study Bible. Nor have I ever read it from cover to cover. But I have used it much as I would use a devotional book and have felt God speaking to me through it. And I would challenge anyone to find significant disagreement even in the Message of any of the major doctrines of the Bible. Using of course the comparing scripture with scripture method rather than proof texting.

[DrWojo]

Sure it is entertaining because that is what it is intended to do. However if I did not know the story it would mean nothing or very little to me and thankfully my Mom did not read this version to me as a child. It would of been meaningless.

The long and short of it is that I believe God meant for us to have the scripture in the language we speak. No language in and of itself is more holy than another. And certainly no archaic language is that. To teach and imply that it is is very dangerous IMO.

I suppose it shouldn’t surprise me you would stoop to try to twist my words. I never said or tried to imply that archaic language is more holy than another. But we also have to consider source credibility — I mean, after all, you do admit to reading the Message.

[appleman2006]

Sure it is entertaining because that is what it is intended to do. However if I did not know the story it would mean nothing or very little to me and thankfully my Mom did not read this version to me as a child. It would of been meaningless.

The long and short of it is that I believe God meant for us to have the scripture in the language we speak. No language in and of itself is more holy than another. And certainly no archaic language is that. To teach and imply that it is is very dangerous IMO.

I suppose it shouldn’t surprise me you would stoop to try to twist my words. I never said or tried to imply that archaic language is more holy than another. But we also have to consider source credibility — I mean, after all, you do admit to reading the Message.

Sorry I should not assume that you think that. However many people do seem to think that and use arguments similar to yours above to do so.
Also i am nor sure what my admitting to reading the message has anything to do with it. The Message is not a version in the truest sense. I understand that. As I stated I treat it more as I would any commentary. I assume you may read a CLP or Rod and staff quarterly at times. I would suggest they could be just as dangerous.

[DrWojo]

Sure it is entertaining because that is what it is intended to do. However if I did not know the story it would mean nothing or very little to me and thankfully my Mom did not read this version to me as a child. It would of been meaningless.

The long and short of it is that I believe God meant for us to have the scripture in the language we speak. No language in and of itself is more holy than another. And certainly no archaic language is that. To teach and imply that it is is very dangerous IMO.

I suppose it shouldn’t surprise me you would stoop to try to twist my words. I never said or tried to imply that archaic language is more holy than another. But we also have to consider source credibility — I mean, after all, you do admit to reading the Message.

Sorry I should not assume that you think that. However many people do seem to think that and use arguments similar to yours above to do so.
Also i am nor sure what my admitting to reading the message has anything to do with it. The Message is not a version in the truest sense. I understand that. As I stated I treat it more as I would any commentary. I assume you may read a CLP or Rod and staff quarterly at times. I would suggest they could be just as dangerous.

Touché — No disagreement on the quarterlies I’ll think over my concerns regarding the Message to see if I can articulate them more clearly. When I think of the Bible as God’s Word and Absolute Truth that I believe He will preserve until He returns (I don’t know if you’re Amillennial and what that means to you) but I believe that preservation of His Word depends on our discernment as well. If or when you mix even the smallest error with Truth, what do you have? Is there even such a thing as 99% Truth?
Furthermore, I find it interesting how US courtrooms view the admissibility of other Bible versions in court, especially considering how they allowed some politicians to be sworn into office on a Koran.

[Neto]

I suppose it shouldn’t surprise me you would stoop to try to twist my words. I never said or tried to imply that archaic language is more holy than another. But we also have to consider source credibility — I mean, after all, you do admit to reading the Message.

Sorry I should not assume that you think that. However many people do seem to think that and use arguments similar to yours above to do so.
Also i am nor sure what my admitting to reading the message has anything to do with it. The Message is not a version in the truest sense. I understand that. As I stated I treat it more as I would any commentary. I assume you may read a CLP or Rod and staff quarterly at times. I would suggest they could be just as dangerous.

Touché — No disagreement on the quarterlies I’ll think over my concerns regarding the Message to see if I can articulate them more clearly. When I think of the Bible as God’s Word and Absolute Truth that I believe He will preserve until He returns (I don’t know if you’re Amillennial and what that means to you) but I believe that preservation of His Word depends on our discernment as well. If or when you mix even the smallest error with Truth, what do you have? Is there even such a thing as 99% Truth?
Furthermore, I find it interesting how US courtrooms view the admissibility of other Bible versions in court, especially considering how they allowed some politicians to be sworn into office on a Koran.

I don't want to stick my spoon into someone else's pot, but as a linguist & Bible translator, I would have to say that the KJV (like probably every other translation) contains some erroneous translation choices. Not that I could point them all out, for that translation or for the others, because there are textual questions for which no scholar can (honestly) provide definitive answers. (That said, I don't personally care for the Message at all. But "worse yet" is the Cotton Patch Version. I ordered a copy back in the mid 70's or so, but sent it back after I started reading it. My wife uses the New Living Translation, but I seldom care to read in it, either. So my opinion of the Message probably has more to do with the way I think through Scripture than it does with the quality of the paraphrase or translation, as the case may be.)

[AnthonyMartin]

(That said, I don't personally care for the Message at all. But "worse yet" is the Cotton Patch Version. I ordered a copy back in the mid 70's or so, but sent it back after I started reading it. My wife uses the New Living Translation, but I seldom care to read in it, either. So my opinion of the Message probably has more to do with the way I think through Scripture than it does with the quality of the paraphrase or translation, as the case may be.)

I really liked the Cotton Patch Gospel musical, and have a great deal of respect for Clarence Jordan. I’ve never read the Cotton Patch version.

[appleman2006]

I too believe that God's Word will be preserved for us till the Word returns for us. I get the feeling of how you, Dr. Wojo, and I may interpret that may differ slightly and that is alright with me at least.
It is my understanding of this that is the primary reason I do not count myself as a fundamentalist and I think I am in pretty good company as I think my thinking aligns pretty closely with traditional Anabaptist thought.
I will admit this is a bit of a pet subject with me and I may as well put all my cards on the table and tell you at least in part, why.
I well remember my Dad preaching on this subject years ago and stating that while he thought it was just a little bit too early for him to push the issue he felt very strongly that the next generation of conservative Anabaptists, for the good of the church should be taking a strong stand on moving to a more modern version. I am somewhat appalled that I am probably older than my Dad was when he said that across the pulpit and so little has transpired on the issue. It is this issue more than perhaps any other than maybe eschatology, that shows how influenced the conservative Anabaptist church has been by the fundamentalist world. I feel it has already hurt us greatly and if allowed to continue will contribute to our undoing. That is how strongly I feel on this subject.
I encourage any of you that are less than sure about some of the things I am saying to do a real study of this subject. Open your mind and read some of the many scholarly works that are out there on the subject. This is not a liberal vs conservative issue although some try to make it into that. In fact often my OO brothers both in the Mennonite and Amish world get this better than some I commune with. Perhaps their understanding of German and being bilingual has something to do with that.

Anyway blessings to each of you as you continue to be lead by the Word.