Catholicism versus Protestantism down the centuries

Honestly, I can't find a consolidated source for this, so calling it a "fact" may be over stating it but I am quite confident in the statement. I base it primarily on personal experience. I have experience with a pretty wide variety of fairly conservative evangelical churches that all except the modern translations as authoritative. That doesn't mean ALL modern translations are authoritative, some are paraphrases, such as The Message or New Living Translation, that are accepted for personal reading but not used for in-depth study.I did find this Article that suggests that NIV and KJV are the most popular versions among pastors, but does not identify the whether the pastors are conservative and/or evangelical.

quote:

---

Thirty-one percent of all pastors use the New International Version, while 23 percent use the King James Version. Other versions used are the New Revised Standard Version (14 percent), New King James Version (13 percent) and the New American Standard Bible (10).

---

Personally, I don't know anyone that suggests the KJV is NOT authoritative, it really boils down to a matter of personal preference. It is clear that modern versions such as NIV, NASB and NRSV are widely accepted as the Word of God, just as the KJV is.Interestingly, This survey indicates that KJV is still the most widely read version in the US.

quote:

---

The 55 percent who read the KJV easily outnumber the 19 percent who read the New International Version (NIV). And the percentages drop into the single digits for competitors such as the New Revised Standard Version, New America Bible, and the Living Bible.

---

With those kind of statistics it is kinda difficult to blame the current problems in the church on modern translations. I think you are right. If I understand correctly, they rely very heavily on the BoM and put it on the same level as the Bible. Definitely not considered "conservative" or "evangelical" although I don't know if they would classify themselves in those categories. Have you ever read how he came about "receiving" the text of the BoM? Pretty bizarre story.HBD

Or perhaps it means we are all fallible humans just doing the best we can.HBD

The point is ... unless you stack the deck, the results will be pretty much the same. But our unity should not be based on a Bible translation, but on on Christ. That quote from Roger E. Olson again:

quote:

---

But my main concern ... is that it changes the ethos of Christianityfrom Christ-centered to Bible-centered. And it changes the ethos of evangelicalism from experience-centered to reason-centered.

---

What about unity with those that have a Spanish translation or Swahili or etc, etc?HBD

Wow, sewn right in the middle? Where between the Old and New Testaments? Or at the end? Kinda strange. I was pretty sure they held the BoM as equal to the Bible but didn't realize they included in the same volume.HBD

Silly atheist. Don't you know that the only true Bible is the KJV? English is God's chosen language. Why else would the KJV be in English? All else is babble.

quote:

---

Oh we should definitely follow Burgon, he's the only one who understands.

---

Proverbs 18:17

I don't know how typical that is. This was a young Mormon missionary girl who was trying to convert me on a bus years ago. She handed me her Bible opened to the BOM, and my impression was that it was exactly in the middle, which would mean somewhere in the Old Testament, probably in the Psalms or between Psalms and Proverbs.

Same as what? This is a silly distinction. [abe] You can't sever Christ from the Bible, He's the Logos Himself, and it's the only testimony of Him we have. There are plenty of false Christs around these days so it's important to be sure we are following the one described in the Bible. [/abe]Again, I'm not addressing unity as you seem to be, I'm only addressing the problem of having so many Bibles, especially within a church, that it interferes with unison reading, memorization and discussion. I don't have any illusions that there's going to be any attempt to establish an authorized version in the near future, I'm only talking about the problems we have in the current situation and what a solution might look like. Along with this view of a solution, Douglas Wilson argues effectively that it is the Church and not business interests that should have the responsibility for the Bible. However, right now most of the churches think the current situation is just fine, so first it would have to be pointed out that it really isn't just fine, and then the idea would have to become important enough to consider doing something about it. You are still missing the point. I'm talking about problems of communication with other English-speaking Bible believers caused by the cacophony of English Bible texts. The problems of communicating with people of completely different languages are a different set of problems.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

In this case the arguments for the modern Bibles, the Critical Text and all that , were "first in their own cause" in my personal experience, promoted in every church and by every pastor, and it was after a long time that neighbor Burgon came along and searched them out and proved himself to be the one to trust.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

In this case the arguments for the modern Bibles, the Critical Text and all that , were "first in their own cause" in my personal experience, promoted in every church and by every pastor, and it was after a long time that neighbor Burgon came along and searched them out and proved himself to be the one to trust.

---

Except even your familiarity with Burgon's arguments is obviously limited. And you show no sign at all of knowing the answers to Burgon - answers which, I remind you - have convinced the scholars.

And how is this is inconsistent with being deceived?

Burgon IS a scholar and a much better one than all the rest of them combined. There are no good answers to Burgon. Don't worry, I've read them.

quote:

---

Burgon IS a scholar and a much better one than all the rest of them combined. There are no good answers to Burgon. Don't worry, I've read them.

---

Like you've read Metzger's arguments for the dating of Daniel ?Can you give any valid reasons supporting your judgement of Burgon's greatness ? Or for thinking that your judgement is better than that of the vast majority of scholars who actually ARE familiar with the issues ?

Burgon did what he aimed to do: He showed that the Revision was a total disaster in every possible way, from the Greek texts to the English used to the ridiculous theory of W & H to justify their miserable production. It's just too bad he didn't succeed in convincing enough people to make a difference.Beyond that the situation stands exactly where it was when the Revision was proposed: The KJV still stands in need of a minimal updating and correction, by scholars of the same caliber as the original KJV translators, very minimal revision with due respect to the excellence of the KJV and its enormous influence on history and culture. If Burgon had lived long enough perhaps that's the next direction he would have taken, who knows. Well, most probably he would have had to continue to fight against the stupid Revision, probably a good thing he died when he did for his own sake. He thought there was enough good sense in the English to recognize the validity of his work. Too bad he was wrong;.