Bob Sanford wanted to create a Bible that would bring order and clarity to the text. Instead, he's waded right into one of the great debates of biblical scholarship.
The Chronological Study Bible will be released this fall in the midst of a Bible-publishing boom in the United States. In an industry that now as much to do with profits as with prophets, Sanford expects his new edition to have wide appeal.
"(Our challenge) is to take the scholarship and make it enjoyable to a readership that enjoys history," said Sanford, who oversees the Bible division for the giant Christian publisher, Thomas Nelson....
Jim Lincoln wrote: No, hidemi williges, why do you want to use a bible that use Catholic sources has a homosexual/s name on it, and has portions that are too filthy to have out on the coffee table? But as I said I don't need, any expert opinion to say that a bible has to be in a contemporary language. What do you think, Wycliffe and Tyndale fought for?
Resorting to unfounded accusations that border on slander is not a very Christian attitude to have. There is no proof that King James was a homosexual, and if per chance he was, at least he didn't castrate himself like Origen did.
No expert opinion?! Why do constantly rely on John MacArthur? Where is your proof? I don't want a hundred links to various sites, only a fakir would do that. Be like MurrayA, show some real scholarship.
No, hidemi williges, why do you want to use a bible that use Catholic sources has a homosexual/s name on it, and has portions that are too filthy to have out on the coffee table? But as I said I don't need, Webster's Revision of the KJV (1833), or any other expert opinion to say that a bible has to be in a contemporary language. What do you think, Wycliffe and Tyndale fought for? If you have a really old King James Bible, see what this fellow at, English Bible History, will give you for it. Unless you collect antiquated bibles, then lock it away, somewhere safe, and use information such as, Comparing Bible Translations to get what you needd. Yes, the debate is settled, pick the NASB if you really want the best representation of God's Word that is presently available.
I don't need any expert to tell me that a Bible has to be understood a reasonably literate person, the KJV itself was written for the common man and the literate man of the 17th century had no trouble understanding it. So, it is great that the original NIV displaced the KJV many years ago, as the most popular bible. Too bad it wasn't the NASB, be the NIV is much more accurate than the KJV, and it never had the apocrypha in it either.
It is not a question is the contain the inspired Word of God, which is does, but putting most of the questions of accuracy aside, shouldn't some revision like the AKJV, Webster's, or probably much better, the NKJV be used in it's place? -- the answer to that is "yes" something should be used in its place, even when it still contains many of the errors the AV. A person reading the Bible shouldn't have to be distracted by constantly going to various resources to see what is correct.
"[John] Owen argued that if the infallible Word is not preserved wholly and intact, then the Book is useless and our faith has no sure foundation. He raised this concern: âIt will assuredly be granted that the persuasion of the coming forth of the word immediately from God, in the way pleaded for, is the foundation of all faith, hope, and obedience. But what, I pray, will it advantage us that God did so once deliver his word, if we are not assured also that that word so delivered hath been, by his special care and providence, preserved entire and uncorrupt unto us, or that it doth not evidence and manifest itself to be his word, being so preserved? (Isa 59:21, Matt 5:18, 1 Pet 1:25, 1 Cor 11:23, Matt 28:20)â (450).
In other words, if Godâs Word is not perfect today, fully preserved, how then can we appeal to it as our sure and steadfast, final and supreme rule of faith and practice? We simply cannot! If the Scriptures be not perfect, Christians are a most miserable lot for sure (1 Cor 15:19)."
Alan, to carry on this debate, and debate would mean there is a rational discussion about a topic, but of course, I haven't seen much rationality when it comes to supporting the KJV only position. I only see emotional "Catholic" type arguments. Even a famous pastor who had a commentary tied to the NKJV, does not support the Textus Receptus that is used in it or the KJV, q.v.,The Biblical Position on The KJV Controversy. I haven't put up that reference before and would suggest you might read it.
One of the ideas of the King James translators was that the Bible should be understood by the average person. This does not mean they turned out a 17th century edition of The Bible in Basic English. but they did turn out a version that looked like the ASV -- at least in readability. So yes, I am interested in biblical accuracy and of course that is one reason Why I Do Not Think the King James Bible Is the Best Translation Available Today, Dr. Wallace and I that is.
Jim Lincoln, after reading your post below I wouldn't think you even cared "how we got our Bible."
Ah, gentlemen, again you pointed out one of the numerous errors of The King James Bible. However, DJC49, I think there are other arguments about what should be changed in the AV as given in the The Ameerican Standard Version Preface, than the use of the word "thing" in Luke 1:35. The ASV I think is a word for word copy of the AV in this instance. However, the neither the ESV or NET bible uses "thing" either. I would suppose that you have already read, Why I Do Not Think the King James Bible Is the Best Translation Available Today. Which doesn't directly address the issue at hand, but still reflects on the overall problem of the inadequacy of the KJV. "The King James bible" 8/14/08 2:29 PM
from the article, "It's like you would attach a pack of cigarettes with a warning label from the surgeon general," Graham said. "Well, this Bible should have a warning from the theologian general or something: 'This bible may be harmful to your spiritual health.'"