King James. Yes the engliff if archaic. But you have to read. You cant skim.
Which English Translations of the Bible are you Favorites, and Why?
by Disillusioned JW 28 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
zachias
-
Disillusioned JW
smiddy3, I noticed there are at least 3 different books with the title of "The Atheist's Bible". Which one do you mean? Do you mean "The Atheist's Bible: An Illustrious Collection of Irreverent Thoughts" by Joan Konner?
-
smiddy3
Sorry D.JW ,I haven`t actually read any versions of the Atheists Bible I only meant to say that if I could bring myself to read any "Bible" it probably would be one of those versions.
-
Sea Breeze
KJV
MEV
NKJV
All based on Textus Receptus. Bibles based on the Critical Text (Apparatus first used by the occultists Wescott & Hort) eliminate over 3000 Greek Words from the NT.
-
Disillusioned JW
I don't know if there is a difference of over 3000 Greek words between the Textus Receptus and the Critical Text (though I know there is a difference of many words), but if there is then the idea can also be said in another way. Namely, "Bibles based upon the Textus Receptus have added over 3000 Greek words (to the underlying Greek text of translations) to the NT." The Greek manuscripts became corrupted long before the year 1000 C.E. by the addition of so many extra words and by other changes in wording.
In addition, the KJV has a number of incorrect translations of Greek words of the Textus Receptus and a number of imprecise translations of Greek words.
For those who favor English translations based upon the Textus Receptus or the upon the Majority Text, I encourage them to read the book called Companion to the Revised Version of the New Testament: Explaining the Reasons for the Changes Made on the Authorized Version, by Alexander Roberts. It may be read online at https://archive.org/details/companiontorevis00roberich/mode/2up . Likewise I encourage them to see similar books from around the year 1881 about the superiority of Revised Version Bible over the KJV Bible, which also can be read online.
The book called A Companion to the Greek Testament and the English Version, by Philip Schaff, has much useful information. It can be read online at https://books.google.com/books?id=NMdFAAAAIAAJ&newbks=0&hl=en . That book and the one by Roberts however said that the Greek language of the NT was a Hebraic form of Greek, but after the later discovery of many secular ancient manuscripts in Greek written by the common people it was learned that the language (or dialect) was actually the Greek of the common people - namely, the Koine Greek.
The Revised Version (sometimes called the English Revised Version) and the American Standard Version (officially named the Standard American Edition of the Revised Version of the Bible) are much more reliable Bibles than the King James Version. That is not just because they are more accurate in their translation of their source texts, but also because they are translated from source texts which are much closer to the original Greek NT wording than those used by the translators of the KJV. For those like to read the English Bible in the early modern English (like that of the KJV), the RV and ASV retain most of that style of English, though there is some reduction in the use of archaic language.
-
Disillusioned JW
It appears to me that the The Atheist's Bible: An Illustrious Collection of Irreverent Thoughts, by Joan Konner, has a number of good witty quotes (from the perspective of atheists, though theists probably wouldn't approve of many of the quotes).
-
Disillusioned JW
Regarding the Koine Greek see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koine_Greek .
Though the main text of the NKJV's NT is translated from the Textus Receptus, I greatly appreciate that the translators' footnotes include alternate readings from two Critical Text types (the ones referred to as NU and M). "NU" means Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament (referred to as "the most prominent modern Critical Text of the Greek New Testament") and "M" means Majority Text (see the "Preface" and the section called "Special Abbreviations" of the NKJV).
The Preface of the NKJV (under the heading of "The New Testament") says the following. "Today, scholars agree that the science of New Testament textual criticism is in a state of flux. Very few scholars still favor the Textus Receptus as such, and then often for its historical prestige as the text of Luther, Calvin, Tyndale, and the King James Version. ... the editors decided to retain the traditional text in the body of the New Testament and to indicate major Critical and Majority Text variant readings in the textual footnotes."
-
Disillusioned JW
Regarding John 7:53 - 8:11 the translators' textual footnote in the NKJV says the following. "NU brackets 7:53 through 8:11 as not in the original text. They are present in over 900 mss. of John." This shows one example of the Greek NT becoming corrupted long before the year 1000 C.E., by the addition of so many extra words. As a result, the 2013 revision of the NWT is justified in entirely excluding John 7:53 - 8:11 from its text, especially considering that now almost only JWs (and ex-JWs) use the NWT anyway.
-
Disillusioned JW
My quote from the NKJV Preface is from an edition of the NKJV copyright 1988 and one copyright 1997, but an edition of the NKJV copyright 1983 doesn't have that unfavorable wording about the Textus Receptus.