imardmd1: Yep. Those derived from the W&H/Nestle/UBS-derived translational school. My opinion, that is, which counts a lot with me. Others are FRee to have theirs, for which I'm glad. (Post #159)
Elsie: And just which ones ARE these? (Post #173)
All of them. Revised Standard Version, New American Standard Bible, New International Version, Today's English Version (paraphrase), New English Bible, Living Bible (and its other guises), English Standard Version, Jerusalem Bible, etc., etc., etc.
If you are going to claim that the dog ate your homework; at LEAST point out which dog it was!
I don't think you're quite that ignorant. I just presume you're trying to establish a haughty platform from which to cast your aspersions. It's not gaining greater respect from me to you, my FRiend. (Though actually, it is not essential that you respect me, for I have enough of my own.)
But, apologizing for my tardiness in replying, here are my authorities, somewhat "dog-eared" from long, deep, continuous, and respectful use by great Bible commentators for the last five hundred years and more:
(1) the Masoretic Text of the "Old Testament" (the First Covenant or Will, the revelation of how God dealt with humankind until the moment Jesus said on the Cross, 'It stands fulfilled'), as summarized in Wikipedia:
"Jacob ben Hayyim ibn Adonijah, having collated a vast number of manuscripts, systematized his material and arranged the Masorah in the second Bomberg edition of the Bible (Venice, 1524–25). Besides introducing the Masorah into the margin, he compiled at the close of his Bible a concordance of the Masoretic glosses for which he could not find room in a marginal form, and added an elaborate introduction – the first treatise on the Masorah ever produced. In spite of its numerous errors, this work has been considered by some as the "Textus Receptus" of the Masorah[9] (Würthwein 1995:39), and was used for the English translation of the Old Testament for the King James Version."
and
(2) the Byzantine/Majority Textform of the canonical "New Testament" as represented by the carefully chosen manuscripts chosen by Desiderius Erasmus (rejecting the obscure Vatican text), compiled and published by him, and to which the title "Received Text" (Latinized as 'Textus Receptus') was popularly applied by the assenting scholars of the sixteenth century. This textform has also been researched and presented to the public by Zane Hodges and Arthur Farstad (who are no fans of the Westcott/Hort adherents) and simply published as "The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text" (effectively critiqued by Daniel B.Wallace. Another form of it is the volume presented by Maurice Robinson and William Pierpont, titled "The Greek New Testament For Beginning Readers: Byzantine Textform" which was, with the TR, used for translating "The Gospels: A Precise Translation" by Fred Wittman, freely available by applying for it online. I have copies of both, as well as the TR issue by Trinitarian Bible Society.
The next most important authority is:
(3) Holy Bible (Containing The Old and New Testaments) in the King James Version, revised/translated by a superior panel of Crown-commissioned scholars appointed by James I Stuart, King of England, to produce a volume authorized across the British Commonwealth as the single approved version for use by the Church of England for its implementation to all English-speaking peoples.
These are my authorities by which my critiques of other versions are compared. I think they can hold their own against any of the supposedly "better" late-coming Alexandrinian-based contenders for the crown of truth that pit themselves against the majority of Jewish scribes and Byzantine/Reformation churches through whom the inspired Holy Scriptures have been preserved and accurately translated in the literal equivalent sense.
dang!
I probably won't get many 'likes' on FB; either!
But, apologizing for my tardiness in replying, here are my authorities, somewhat "dog-eared" from long, deep, continuous, and respectful use by great Bible commentators for the last five hundred years and more:
Ah...
the old 'because it's ALWAYS been done this way' argument.
Are you REALLY trying to tell me (and any others still in this thread) that NONE of the HORRIBLE translations you've mentioned canNOT get a fella saved and on his/her way to Heaven?