Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Squire Robertsson, Aug 22, 2016.
6 Surprising Ideas the KJV Translators Had about Other Bible Translations
A Similar DBTS article
3 main points to me were:
They did not see themselves as being inspired by God to create a perfect translation
They saw otehr versions as being the word of God
They expected to have additional versions yet to come to build upon and improve theirs!
Yes, when we study scripture, and are trying to decide the best way to understand it, we should look at more than one translation, especially is they differ.
It seems to me that the digital revolution should pare down the 1800 languages that do not have the bible far more rapidly than in the past.
Having an accurate translation written in a way you can understand provides spiritual nourishment.
Yes, all translations have blemishes, but using the ones with the least blemishes is best.
Yes, all of our modern English translations have a great deal of room to improve.
Conclusion, the KJV translators were not arrogant nor provincial.
[gratuitous insult removed]
All translations differ. What's your point?
Where did you get the 1,800 figure?
According to Wycliffe Bible Translators 180 million have no access to Scripture in their language. Further, 1.5 billion don't have the full Bible.
But it's not a matter of "paring down" the number of languages without the Bible because of the digital revolution. People have to do the translation work. Computers can't translate. It requires people power.
All are not agreed regarding your blemishes theme.
Not "a great deal of room" but some. Give credit where credit is due.
Ah, you got the 1,800 figure from George Guthrie. I see. But I haven't noted it anywhere else.
There is no support for Guthrie's contention that "modern translations who work to correct imperfections in the KJV."
Most translations have nothing to do with the KJV. They are not trying to improve it. Their textual basis is different as well as their language.
In the article by Bill Combs of DBTS he made the following claim:
"Recently, they [Roman Catholic Church] have produced their own translation of the Bible in English..."
But they have several that are on their approved list. They use the NRSV, and CEV (both altered of course). American RCs use the NAB. The NJB is used outside of America primarily. The Ronald Knox version made in 1955 might still be used by some. There are others they make use of. So I don't know what he is referring to.
The English Standard Version (ESV) stands in the classic mainstream of English Bible translations over the past half-millennium. The fountainhead of that stream was William Tyndale’s New Testament of 1526; marking its course were the King James Version of 1611 (KJV), the English Revised Version of 1885 (RV), the American Standard Version of 1901 (ASV), and the Revised Standard Version of 1952 and 1971 (RSV). In that stream, faithfulness to the text and vigorous pursuit of accuracy were combined with simplicity, beauty, and dignity of expression. Our goal has been to carry forward this legacy for a new century.
The Holy Bible: English Standard Version Preface (Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2001).
There are 6500 languages on this planet. Of those, as of November 2014 the full Bible has been translated into 531 languages, and 2,883 languages have at least some portion of the Bible. Usually limited to John and Romans.
What's the source for your info?
Per WBT there are 6,877 known languages. Of those 554 have the full Bible. Portions of the Bible exist in 2,900 languages.
Rob, my statement still stands, most Bible translations have nothing to do with the KJV.
If there is a doctrinally differing message. For example "work of God" or "work God requires of us."
Yet another attempt to find fault when none exists.
Good Golly Miss Molly, we have translation applications on our smart phones. And the idea is not translation without people, but people aided with ever improving software will do the job more quickly at less cost.
A very great deal of room exists, the translations today are very flawed, lacking transparency and correspondence, not to mention mistranslations such as begotten for monogenes.
Your charges are absurd. You have demonstrated how inept your "translations" are. You have scores of threads illustrating how nonsensical your renderings have been.
I would hazard if the Bible can be translated into a given language with the help of software, it probably already has a usable translation. It's the languages which are not computer accessible which are a concern.
Translation is a process. Computer software can do repetitive steps, sort data, identify source language words having the same or similar meaning, i.e. aqua and water.
Blatent violation of the rule not to address the poster, devoid of thread topic content.
Advocating using the more blemished translation rather than the least blemished translation demonstrates absurdity.
First, a language has to be digitized. For the most part, the languages in need of translations are spoken a hundred miles from the back side of beyond or are per-literate (IOW, they have no written form).
I am not sure what your point is, but if it is that software will not improve both accuracy and speed of translation, I disagree.
IIRC, the line of discussion began with remarks on the number of languages without any Scripture. Some, like Uzbek and Tajik in Central Asia, have been digitized. Thus, are amenable to your suggestion. Others like ones in Africa haven't been and thus are not.
I did not say all languages have been been digitally processed to produce a machine translation. I indicated that they will be, and sooner rather than latter.