18 thoughts on “Bible Version Charts”

  1. Yes, of course, the KJV is on the green, luscious tree. It hurts because I actually still like KJV, but sometimes people make it harder than it has to be. Just my opinion.

  2. I had to laugh when someone pointed out to me that the NKJV looks like it’s coming off the green tree….but IT’S REALLY NOT!

  3. I notice there are no translations/versions on the green tree after the 1611. Despite the fact that there have been several modern translations using the same root as the KJV.

    Funny how the NKJV is linked to the “gourd” tree, despite the fact that the text used to translate it was the “Textus Receptus.” This chart makes it look like all modern translations used the Alexandrian text.

    Charts like this, and the corresponding disinformation about Bible translations is doing far more harm than any of the bad translations have ever done. If you want people to take your point of view serious, you need to be logical and truthful about what you say. The textual debate is a VERY important issue that has been hijacked and discredited by people who are more interested in tradition than they are in scripture.

  4. Seriously? “Spanish/Italian/etc. Bibles” are all corrupt? SO THE ONLY ACCEPTABLE VERSION OF THE BIBLE IN THE WHOLE WORLD IS A FOUR-HUNDRED-YEAR-OLD **ENGLISH** BIBLE???

    I have a few friends from around the world that would strongly disagree.

  6. Fundy missionaries have the difficult task of teaching their flock King James English in order to understand the PURE WORD OF GOD.

    KJV-Onlyism is the most self-centered, relativistic, subjective theology I have ever encountered. It’s putting God in a man-made box.

    1. I’ve always wondered the same thing. Especially those missionaries to Germany, like the BBC Springfield missionary I knew who worshipped Ruckman, yet preached to his German congregation with a Texas accent! wow

  9. I know that Al Cuppett is one of the foremost theologians of our time. If he says it, I believe it, that settles it.

  10. My fundy seminary (not always the stripe depicted on this site) wrote a book in response to the KJV only debate and it is very much worth reading. Its title is “One Bible Only?” and is edited by Kevin Bauder and Roy Beacham both of whom serve on the faculty at Central Baptist Theological Seminary in MN. President Bauder also wrote gave an address worth reading called “A Fundamenatlism Worth Saving”. From their website (http://www.centralseminary.edu/) you can hear various audio lectures and follow them on twitter and facebook. I believe that Central Seminary and Dr Bauder especially gives an accurate view of what Fundamentalism really should be about. Maybe through it you can see (and probably already realize) that not of fundamentalism is exactly as depicted on this site. Thanks for your site! I love it and have laughed so hard at myself, our church and a good chunk of our movement! Keep it up and try to pass along some posts from behind the lines.

  11. I love how “all other English translations” is arbitrarily placed in one of the little bubbles on the “bad tree.” That’s cute. Glad our bases are covered.

  12. That’s the oft-used fundy technique of future-proofing. Because I doubt whoever came up with this chart 50 years ago knew that the NIV 2011 would be coming out.

    Future-proofing: great when you’re programming an application; not so much when arbitrarily crafting your theology to fit your grandparents’ preferences.

  15. I own a facsimile of the Geneva Bible. Great fun to read. The version Shakespeare used most often. First version in which I read Bel and the Dragon.

  16. Actually the bad side should have the reference to Codex Sinaiticus with Codex Vaticanus not Codex Alexandrinus. Alexandrinus took a different route and reads differently that the first two that Wescott & Hort used.

Comments are closed.