"Modern Version"?

RiJoRi

Well-known member
The phrase "modern versions" is often tossed out here. What is your definition therof? A version released after a certain date? (and what's that date?) A version translated from a certain group of manuscripts? Some other criterion?
Oh, and for extra credit 😉, are there any "post-modern" versions?

--Rich
 

Steven Avery

Active member
Generally it refers to any edition in the Westcott-Hort recension (Vaticanus primacy) line of editions and versions.

If there was an edition based on the absurd CBGM, that could be considered post-modern.
 

logos1560

Well-known member
Generally it refers to any edition in the Westcott-Hort recension (Vaticanus primacy) line of editions and versions.
Most if not all KJV-only authors include the post-1611 English translations such as the NKJV translated from the same basic original-language texts as the KJV in their use of the term "modern versions."
 

Steven Avery

Active member
He's referring to the ECM (Editio Critica Maior).
Even he doesn't know what he's talking about...
Nope, wrong again. Edit per mod Rule 12

CBGM is a computer methodology involving Greek mss.
Coherence-Based Genealogical Method

ECM theoretically is using it as one of its inputs.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Steven Avery

Active member
Most if not all KJV-only authors include the post-1611 English translations such as the NKJV translated from the same basic original-language texts as the KJV in their use of the term "modern versions."

Some do. Some don't. It is an awkward usage.

The weak editions that largely use the Greek Received Text, and include the Mark ending, the Periocope Adultarae, Acts 8:37 and the heavenly witnesses as part of the scripture text are better not mixed in with the editions that are based on the Westcott-Hort recension.
 

RiJoRi

Well-known member
Most if not all KJV-only authors include the post-1611 English translations such as the NKJV translated from the same basic original-language texts as the KJV in their use of the term "modern versions."
That seems kinda weeerd, because Wesley's NT was 1740-ish, Webster's revision was 1830-ish, and Blaney's (sp?) revision was 1769-ish. (-ish means somewhere around then - I'm away from the computer.) So those would be considered "modern" by some? 🙄
 

RiJoRi

Well-known member
A slight detour:
What about the work by Jay P. Green, Sr. or by Pickering? Or even the AKJV or UKJV versions?

--Rich
 

Steven Avery

Active member
A slight detour:
What about the work by Jay P. Green, Sr. or by Pickering? Or even the AKJV or UKJV versions?
--Rich
Pickerings work is a Greek Byzantine text of sorts.

And I would not call any of these modern versions, which is best kept for the Westcott-Hort recension.
I am assuming that AKJV and UKJV are AV update editions.
 

Steven Avery

Active member
A typical bogus diversion when you are unable to face or deal with the facts. You have not proven that other English Bible translations are weak in their translation decisions compared to the KJV. Your opinion is not objective.

You never say what you believe is the pure and perfect word of God.
So nothing could be proven to you.

Edit per mod, in the post above, relates to a specific type of meaningless phrasing you use.
It was not in this post, so I did not use it here. Maybe I will highlight the Edit per mod in the future.

If you want to quote a poster, use the quote feature.

https://carm.org/uncategorized/carm-discussion-rules/
 
Last edited by a moderator:

praise_yeshua

Well-known member
You never say what you believe is the pure and perfect word of God.
So nothing could be proven to you.

Blah-blah, in the post above, relates to a specific type of meaningless phrasing you use.
It was not in this post, so I did not use it here. Maybe I will highlight the blah-blah in the future.

False charges. Logos has always advocated for what he sees as being the "pure and perfect word of God".

Your problem with him revolves around the fact that he makes it clear that the KJV isn't perfect. While you close your eyes and pretend you're in your own little world where the NT is advanced revelation to the point of correcting/emending the OT. Which by definition, proves the lack of perfection inherent to the KJV. Just not "in your world"....
 

Buzzard

Well-known member
Malachi 4:1
For, behold, the day cometh,
that shall burn as an oven;
and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble:
and the day that cometh shall burn them up,
saith the Lord of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch.
......
Remember ye the law of Moses my servant,
which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel,
with the statutes and judgments.

thats the Statutes and the judgements to fall on those that
shall we say, transgress those Statues

If you men knew any thing of Moses;
we would not be have this quarrel over things that will not profit
but only leads to more division and strife
 

praise_yeshua

Well-known member
Malachi 4:1
For, behold, the day cometh,
that shall burn as an oven;
and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble:
and the day that cometh shall burn them up,
saith the Lord of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch.
......
Remember ye the law of Moses my servant,
which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel,
with the statutes and judgments.

thats the Statutes and the judgements to fall on those that
shall we say, transgress those Statues

If you men knew any thing of Moses;
we would not be have this quarrel over things that will not profit
but only leads to more division and strife

Absolutely. KJVOism has created "tons" of divisions and strife among God's little children.
 
Top