'The Voice': New Bible translation focuses on dialogue
The name Jesus Christ doesn't appear in The Voice, a new translation of the Bible.
Nor do words such as angel or apostle. Instead, angel is rendered as messenger and apostle as emissary. Jesus Christ is Jesus the Anointed One or the liberating king.
That's a more accurate translation for modern American readers, says David Capes, lead scholar for The Voice, a complete edition released this month by publishing company Thomas Nelson. Capes says that many people, even those who've gone to church for years, don't realize that the word "Christ" is a title.
"They think that Jesus is his first name and Christ is his last name," says Capes, who teaches the New Testament at Houston Baptist University in Texas....
So, have I agreed with Dr. Wallace on everything? Of course not? I would only recommend the NET over the AV, for one reason only, is that it's in modern English, Restating The Obvious About Bible Translations, The NASB, ESV, and NIV (1984, and earlier) I would recommend before either the AV or NE
Title "Why you shouldn't care what Daniel Wallace thinks about the King James Bible" By Brandon Staggs.
Daniel B. Wallace has written an essay he titled "Why I Do Not Think the King James Bible Is the Best Translation Available Today." Dr. Wallace is the senior editor of the NET Bible, an also-ran modern English Bible version, so it's interesting to see how he defines his dismissal of the KJV. Interesting, because his essay brings forth quite a few false charges against the underlying text of the King James Bible, the Textus Receptus. The same old allegations are trotted out as if they haven't already been answered before." Essay. Response to D.Wallace
"Besides the sheer chutzpah Wallace exhibits in assuming how God will preserve his word, at the same time saying that we can not know how God preserves his word, Wallace is further deceiving his readers by making the unsubstantiated assumption that Erasmus did not have the verses in question in a Greek manuscript." (B.Staggs)
Daniel Wallace wrote: the first edition of the KJV is actually more of a first-and-second-edition hybrid. But there are ways to tell whether one possesses a âfirst-secondâ edition or a completely second edition. I wonât go into those details here. I have seen what is probably the finest example of the so-called âfirstâ edition of the KJV surviving today. It is part of a private collection in Texas.
Besides these two editions, the Authorized Version went through at least two more in the first year alone. In the first three years, it actually went through fourteen minor editions due to the frequent mistakes in the process of translating, revising, and printing. But these are not really revisions by todayâs standard. Two larger overhauls were completed in 1629 and 1638. Within fifty (50) years âthe need was presented and an effort was made to officially revise [it once] againââthis time more thoroughly than the previous two revisions....It would not undergo a major revision again for 100 years. In 1762 and 1769, the KJV was revised for a third and fourth time. ....Altogether, nearly 100,000 changes have been made to the 1611 KJV.
vatican roulette wrote: John UK: If only one could pull the ticket from those who preach Jesus with their lips but to whom the Lord will say I never knew you. Then 50% of preachers would be gone into some other profession.
Sadly very true; but if you include all the mainstream of christendom, and all the cults like mormons and jw's, the figure would be more like 98%.
Folks who are very religious but who do not know the Lord are plentiful in this world. The Lord does not know them, and they do not know the Lord; but they are very good at playing church and going through all the religious motions, "having a form of godliness but denying the power thereof".
I currently have personal contact with one such who, fifty years ago, had some sort of "conversion experience" through attending a pentecostal meeting, and who subsequently went on to street preach with great fervour. But after a while he gave it all up. This man, now in his 70's, says that Christianity doesn't work. But he is coming to a Lord's Day Bible Study locally, where he is hearing good preaching, and meeting Christians who delight themselves in the Lord. Perhaps there is a purpose in his attendance, and God will yet turn him around.
"You may always criticize another's English translation lineage in your comment as long as you never ever critique your own translation lineage in the same post. This is rude, crude, socially impolite and makes us fear you're some kind of pagan or Romish Jesuit."
In reality, these "violators" are probably thinking people who want the facts on the table.
When the SA refs blow the whistle and throw their flags, you know it's time to do some serious study on the topic.
vatican roulette wrote: W-H, two libs, and copyright compliments of the Vatican archives, gave us the NAS and NIV. An unbroken 1,000-year string of Romish priests produced hand-copied manuscripts from which blossomed the KjV.
This is the mark of the Roman catholic. Twisting words and history to demonstrate that they are the children of Satan the father of lies, and the disciples of the papal antichrist.
I guess this is the only way the RCC can enlist its membership.
Jim Lincoln wrote: As I asked before which AV is the right one? the one of 161l or the one of 1769?--or the various revisions between those dates?
Jim; "Editions" - NOT - "Revisions"
"The problem here is that editions are being confused with revisions. There have been several editions of the KJV, most recently the 1769 edition, which is in common use today. Such editions corrected pinter errors or updated grammar. These editions were not to introduce "new" textual evidence to alter renderings or omit entire verses. The first attempted revision of the KJV was the English Revised Version in the late 1800s, which was so thoroughly corrupted by the scholarship of Westcott and Hort, that it can not even be considered a revision, let alone edition, of the KJV." Editions NOT Revisions
Who will that volume serve John? Elizabethans? TS, The main problem I have with the NKJV is the more accurate Scripture is in the marginal notes instead of the main text, which follows the Textus Receptus more closely than the Catholic Bible, the AV. As I asked before which AV is the right one? the one of 161l or the one of 1769?--or the various revisions between those dates?
If a Bible isn't in contemporary English -- throw it out!
Doug Kutilek wrote: Let me say it again--the sole justification for producing and publishing any Bible translation is so that those who do not understand the words in the original languages can nevertheless gain access to them through words they do understand in their own language.....
NIV2011 wrote: John MacArthur married his notes with the gender-confused NIV2011 and is marketing the mess as the MacArthur Study Bible. When you download to your iPad, then the publisher can instantly change your Bible text on a lark if the mood strikes them. Nothing better than real-time Bible translation. Who needs a static (like the KJV) translation when the translators are sitting in a pub one Friday and they vote to change from this word to that, hit send and your iPad Bible is immediately updated?
Thanks for the info. Wow these modern wallers are sooooo clever. Get a MacArthur Study Bible and have your memory verses really messed up when the drunken editors get bored and decide to update your online edition. Ha! The tomfoolery of these folks claiming to be Christian beats even the reprobate in deception and filthy lucreism.
On the other hand, one could purchase a proper Bible, a leather bound Authorized Version, and it will last a lifetime. And if any Christian will do that, and study it regularly, they will know it inside out and be of use in the battle for souls, and they will be strong in faith, especially in the word of God, quick and powerful, inerrant and inspired.
Jim Lincoln wrote: I said the 1984 or earlier versions of the NIV.
Birds of a feather flock together Jim. It was some of the same flock who insulted the Lord by publishing the TNIV!!
BTW On Your NIV....
Quote "Martin provides dozens (perhaps scores) of REALLY BAD TRANSLATIONS in the NIV. He groups these inaccuracies under seven categories:
1. Elimination of complex grammatical structures (pp. 18-21). Long complex sentences are broken into several shorter sentences. To do this, the translators had to make interpretive decisions about the *theology* of the passage in question. Thus Ephesians 1:3-14, which the AV breaks into three sentences, the NIV breaks into eight. 2 Thessalonians 1:3-10, which the AV keeps as one sentence, is broken into eight by the NIV. Compare also Acts 1:1-5 & Hebrews 1:1-4." Really Bad Translations
And many many more NASB/NIV errors appear on this article.
Jim Lincoln wrote: The NIV is the most popular version because
Good ole Jim; I see you are a big fan of anything which sticks the word "Bible" on the cover today!! However Jim not everybody is that naive!
"In 1995, the NIV team (International Bible Society (IBS) and Committee on Bible Translations (CBT)) created a feminist "gender-inclusive" NIV, titled the New International Version Inclusive language edition [NIVI]. They found out very quickly and very loudly that America was not "prime-time ready" for a NIV feminist "gender inclusive" edition. So the NIVI was published solely in Great Britain by Hodder & Stoughton (Zondervan is the exclusive NIV publisher in the U.S.). The NIVI is so drenched in feminist changes and so corrupt, it cannot legally be sold in America. The NIVI is a "bound and gagged book" in America. See 2 Timothy 2:9, ( â. . .but the word of God is not bound"). According to Christianity Today, NIV copyright holder, International Bible Society (IBS) even requested that Hodder & Stoughton quit selling the embarrassing NIVI in liberal England." Translation Treason
Matthew 15 14 "Let them alone; they are blind guides of the blind. And if a blind man guides a blind man, both will fall into a pit."---NASB
The people who support an accurate Bible such as the NASB, ESV (and yes, even the NIV of 1984 and before) or even the NKJV has placed the AV on the bookselves by Shakespeare. It's classic literature and it certainly shouldn't have been used as a Bible from 1611 'til now.
The NIV is the most popular version because it is in modern readable English, one would hope the 1984 version would be the one most used, but the translators of the later NIV may have very well stumbled with later versions as did the the overseer of the AV translation, from it's beginnings, The Influence of An Anglican Archbishop on the KJV. The AV lacks integrity and of course is a corrupted version of the Word of God, thankfully from late 19th century and through the 20th we finally regained Bibles that are close to the original autographs, as close as translation to original languages can be.
John UK wrote: 3. Johnny Mac sure is liberal with his words. And deceptive. Negatives to do with the word of God are of no use to anyone. What we want and need is to know WHERE is the Bible which IS the word of God. Of course, he doesn't believe we have it today, neither does the links-man.
John MacArthur married his notes with the gender-confused NIV2011 and is marketing the mess as the MacArthur Study Bible. When you download to your iPad, then the publisher can instantly change your Bible text on a lark if the mood strikes them. Nothing better than real-time Bible translation. Who needs a static (like the KJV) translation when the translators are sitting in a pub one Friday and they vote to change from this word to that, hit send and your iPad Bible is immediately updated?
Mike wrote: Dear bro John, why do you allow yourself to get caught up in these futile version arguments? It only encourages people like links-man to continue his diatribe against the KJV. And it leads to saying things like John MacArthur is liberal, which he most assuredly is not. Have you read his book "The Truth War"?
1. That's another tricky question. 2. The more diatribe he comes out with, the better. Eventually he will see that he is wrong about the KJV, even if he's right about the KJV-cult. 3. Johnny Mac sure is liberal with his words. And deceptive. Negatives to do with the word of God are of no use to anyone. What we want and need is to know WHERE is the Bible which IS the word of God. Of course, he doesn't believe we have it today, neither does the links-man. 4. No, but I read the King James Bible every day. _________
Calder That is absolutely spot on. As you rightly said, it has begun already with the RC "Bible", and now the other side are at it too. It amazes me that so few realise how devastating an impact it is having on churches today. Good, evangelical churches are even having Graham Kendrick hymns and other charismatic songs now, since abandoning the KJV. The rot sets in.
John MacArthur wrote: It is true that God wrote only one Bible, but it is also true that it was not the King James translation.
John UK If the modern versionists keep repeating the above mantra - they will convince themselves that we don't have the Word of God.
Which is exactly what Satan wants.
The new versions will gradually climb down to verse deletion and politically correct anti-descrimination rewrite to ensure the sodomites are cleared of being sinners. Maybe they will remove the 2nd commandment too just to keep the papists "biblical" Then theres legalising the ladies for the pulpit...and....and...
Dear bro John, why do you allow yourself to get caught up in these futile version arguments? It only encourages people like links-man to continue his diatribe against the KJV. And it leads to saying things like John MacArthur is liberal, which he most assuredly is not. Have you read his book "The Truth War"?
John MacArthur wrote: Just a final word, keep in mind that the supporters of "God wrote only one Bible" theology have mistakenly equated the 1611 King James Bible with the original manuscripts written in the first century. It is true that God wrote only one Bible, but it is also true that it was not the King James translation.
Here's another one who doesn't believe we have God's word in English today. Darwin is never needed to corrupt the minds of Bible Believers when you have wretched pretend preachers who imagine we only have a mishmash of Bible texts and the word of God is "in there somewhere". Talk about liberal! Just like the liberal anglican heretics Westcott and Hort, whose greek text was compiled mainly from what? Two Catholic suspect mss, one discovered in a monastery, the other in the vatican library.
Keep a look out for a new version yet to make the shelves and make the publisher loads of dosh, the version which will include The Shepherd of Hermas, and maybe even The Gospel of Thomas and The Gospel of The Holy Twelve. Sure, in fifty years time, the modern version will have changed beyond all recognition, and GOOD CHRISTIAN FOLKS will be seeking out The King James Bible. It will be there at the very end.