Daryl:
What makes you say that about KJV? I have heard of a new translation that has just come out this year. Don't even know the name of it. Anybody heard of a new translation coming out? Also, has anybody read the Tanach? It is supposed to be the Jewish authorized English translation of the OT. I want to get a copy because I feel that I miss so much by reading the translations and I have not decided to learn Hebrew just yet. I would appreciate your feedback.

Hello Greg

I have a copy of the Tanach. But I did not find a lot of differences between that and YLT or similar.

As far as how to study the Bible; we must have an attitude that embraces the acronym

SPACEPETS.

(S-P-A-C-E-P-E-T-S)

Sin to confess?

Promise to claim?

Attitude to change?

Command to obey?

Example to follow?

Prayer to pray?

Error to avoid?

Truth to believe?

Something to praise God For?

Greg,

Somehow, I missed your post here about the KJV.

The reason I say it is probably the better one is because of the history behind how the creation of this KJV Bible came about. In other words, it is probably the less doctrine biased of all the other translations.

No after saying that, if the NKJV Bible was created only for the purpose of updating from the old English to today's English, then the NKJV may now be the better translation.

[ February 02, 2002: Message edited by: Daryl Fawcett ]

There are a lot of considerations to weigh when picking translations to use for study. I found a very good starting work upon those considerations & have posted it in the Forum Study Library.

http://www.maritime-sda-online.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=73&t=000039&p=

Daryl
Your comment that KJV is less docrine based than other translations does not stand up in face of history. James I had many doctrinal and political issues that he was dealing with when he authorized and proposed that translation. There were religious issues involving the Catholic church and its involvement in the monarchy. There were issues in the Church of England involving congregationalism. There were "rules" established for the intrepretors. The Geneva Bible was under discussion and its impact on the translation, as well as Luthers translation. There were probably more political and doctrinal issues under consideration then as opposed to the scholarly attempts at translation recently taken. There are more sources also available now to assist in translation than when the KJV was produced. But those political and doctrinal issues involved in the KJV are ar away and long ago, so it is easy to dismiss the important role they played in that activity.

The truth shall set us free. Thus which ever version of the Bible we use we must apply at lest this one test - Does the truth advocated by this version set me free? or does it justify a life of sin?

Isaiah
8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, [it is] because [there is] no light in them.

1 John
4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

If the version we choose to use supports the truth as it is in Jesus then we can rest assured. But if it obscures or contradicts the truth then we must reject that particular passage in favor of one that agrees with what we know to be true. It may not be necessary to reject the entire translation, but at least those texts which deviate from the truth.

In this sense we are using inductive reasoning to judge whether or not a particular version is valid or not. But with the truth are already clearly revealed and known it is the only safe way to discern between accurate and inaccurate versions. The SOP in this regard is indespenseable.

Mike

That is a very interesting comment - one we can certainly apply to my S-P-A-C-E-P-E-T PROGRAM!

Can you think of an example with a particular version of something that would "justify a life of sin?"

I think maybe the dif. between 1 John 3:9 in the NIV and KJV is an example of how two version mean opposites.