Wycliffe Undergoes Independent Review of 'Father, Son,' in Bible Translations
Wycliffe Bible Translators, one of the world's biggest Bible translation companies, has agreed to an independent review by the World Evangelical Alliance (WEA) of its policies on translating terms such as "God the Father" and "Son of God" after complaints about how the terms are presented in some non-English copies of the Bible.
"Recognizing the role of the Church in fulfilling the Great Commission, and respecting the leadership of the WEA and those they will engage in this review process, we commit ourselves to following the wisdom and guidance that this review will produce," announced Bob Creson, president of Wycliffe, in a statement on the company's website....
I would like to add one other thing, I'm not the one who brought up King James Onlyism--first. I didn't shy away from the responses following mine. I will say again, the AV can be adequate for those who are well-versed in Elizabethan English, though they still should have something like The Ryrie KJV Study Bible Hardback-Red Letter which will get over some of the rough spots especially those who are versed in Elizabethan English. The Strong Concordance is also something handy to have at hand for those who use the KJV. However, I didn't see any mention at all of the AV in the article, nor did I address any issues of the KJV in my first post, whatsoever.
James, are you a Baptist? Do you realize the AV anti-Baptist? The Influence of An Anglican Archbishop on the KJV "There are today many false translations and paraphrases of the Scripture which those who love the Bible must oppose, but to say that this one translation has about it inspiration which is not found anywhere else ‚Ä¶ it is a heresy because it implies that God did not completely inspire the original manuscripts and therefore‚Ä¶ He had to add inspiration."‚ÄďBob Jones, Jr. on KJVonlyism
Dr. Robert A. Joyner wrote: ‚Ä¶it is misguided for‚Ä¶Baptists to defend a version of the Bible based on a Greek text, prepared by a liberal Roman Catholic, translated by Episcopalians and authorized by a king who hated Baptists. While they reject translations based on a Greek text approved by all the great scholars and early fundamental leaders and translated by good Bible believing scholars from all groups, including Baptists.... This irony is strange indeed when fundamental Baptists take sides with Episcopalians and Catholics and reject their own.
Jim attacking the KJV again...shocking, give it a rest man your arguments are weak if you like ur corrupt version cool but quit pushing that garbage on the rest of us. Thanks. The subject was the Wycliffe translators redefining words to not offend Muslims. Textual criticism and modern translation sits and lords over the scriptures instead of letting the scriptures lord over them. This is not surprising and just the beginning of what they will attempt and do because they do not respect the word of God as pure and holy...
Jim Lincoln wrote: But, TS, the Anglican Bible a.k.a. KJV, depends on the translation of a Catholic heretic
Jim The KING JAMES VERSION of the Word of God has been used by God for four centuries, thereby demonstrating that it is the AV as authorised by the Lord Himself.
Now your NASB and the modern versions have come out to compete against the Version which God has used and authorised.
Westcott and Hort the Anglican Liberal heretics who had many leanings towards the Roman Catholic heretical pagan philosophies, maryolatry etc, has helped write your NASB and other modern versions. The so called "higher criticism" used by these two Anglican Liberals was recognised as far back as the 1880's in America, as well as the UK, as objectionable and incompetent.
Why Jim do you use such a book full of errors and inaccuracies?
Clearly God did not use the interpretations which Westcott and Hort applied since He could have made them available in 1611 BUT DIDN'T!!
But, TS, the Anglican Bible a.k.a. KJV, depends on the translation of a Catholic heretic, and certainly a liberal Catholic for his time--remember--Erasmus, His Greek Text and His Theology There really is no question about it--It is.
Doug Kutilek wrote: ‚Ä¶One of those readings produced by Erasmus that lacks any Greek manuscript support is the reference to the "book of life" in Rev. 22:19. All Greek manuscripts read "tree of life"; not a single one reads "book of life." The corruption of "tree" into "book" occurred in Latin when a careless or sleepy scribe miscopied the correct ligno (tree) as though it were the similar-appearing libro (book). When Erasmus back-translated from Latin, he introduced for the first time ever in Greek the reading "book of life" in Rev. 22:19, and by the slavish reprinting of Erasmus' text by later editors, the reading "book of life" found its way into the textus receptus and the King James Version, even though it is completely without support of any kind in any Greek manuscript.
The above article would be a good thing for you to read TS. As I have pointed out, you can get an NKJV to translate the AV into proper English and correct some of the gross errors.
Stoyan Zaimov wrote: Wycliffe came under heavy criticism when Biblical Missiology created an online petition alleging that the translation company had eliminated familial terms describing God and Jesus in certain Arabic and Bengali translations of the Bible so as not to offend Muslim readers.